We really should be able to glamour other jobs' sets

[Tsiron]

I can't say I much care for the devs' stance on the issue. Like, I get it, from a technical standpoint it would probably be a lot of work... but is the chance that someone will deck their WHM up in plate armour from head to toe really enough of a problem that it justifies denying everyone else more freedom of expression? I don't even think that many would gravitate towards the super heavy looking stuff, either, people just want prettier and/or more appropriate attire for their Job (DNC, RPR etc.) or their character. Where's the crime in that...?

Hypothetically, even if they did end up removing role restrictions on Glamour, no one's forcing anyone to take advantage of the feature... but I suspect it would be hard to resist even for the naysayers lol

[GrizzlyTank]

But don't you see? It would break my immersion!

*rides away on a flying cactus while bing a paladin with an invisible shield and wearing a swimsuit*

[andrealfus]

it kills me that 99% of maiming gear even in endwalker was clearly made with dragoons in mind. what's a reaper main to do when most glam options i have are either ugly spike armor, casual glams, or the one set of level 90 artifact gear? like c'mon, just let me wear the cool long casting coat that makes me look like a priest already

[Siddiax]

I can't say I much care for the devs' stance on the issue. Like, I get it, from a technical standpoint it would probably be a lot of work... but is the chance that someone will deck their WHM up in plate armour from head to toe really enough of a problem that it justifies denying everyone else more freedom of expression? I don't even think that many would gravitate towards the super heavy looking stuff, either, people just want prettier and/or more appropriate attire for their Job (DNC, RPR etc.) or their character. Where's the crime in that...?

Hypothetically, even if they did end up removing role restrictions on Glamour, no one's forcing anyone to take advantage of the feature... but I suspect it would be hard to resist even for the naysayers lol

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with wanting more freedom since having it doesn't mean everyone has to make use of it. Just don't shit on other people's wishes for variety... I've yet to see a single compelling argument against having no restrictions.

[Lihtleita]

dancer doesnt share machinists visual identity
red mage doesnt share blacks mage visual identity
reaper doesnt share dragoons visual identity
warrior, the berserker inspired job doesnt really share paladins visual identity

why are these jobs restricted to wearing the same gear when using literal magic to change their appearance?

[Tigerlilley]

It matters cause YoshiP said so, and has stuck by it.

He said this in Heavensward. Now that we have multiple jobs all sharing the same sets, the restrictions are not preserving each jobs aesthetic, they are actively ruining it. Sage shouldn't have to wear long flowy robes, they are a dps based battle healer. Light armor would 100% work. As well as multiple other jobs who suffer under being locked to one type of set despite suiting another that have been bought up in this thread. Dancer, Reaper, Red Mage. All have to abide by the original ARR job role aesthetic. It doesn't work anymore.

Look at this. Do you think a new player could tell you which one is tank, which is ninja? How about the scylla sets? Or the Tower of Zot sets?



Probably not. So, what does it matter.

It would be awesome if they did have some sort of collection system. Say if you collect every piece (or 80%) of sets from ARR, you then can unlock glamour across the board for ARR, etc. Man, I would replay and run so much old content if they gave us an actual collection book. Collect 50 sets and unlock a brand new glamour, just like the orchestion roll collection.

They are sleeping so much on what players do for glamour, it actually is rage inducing.

[Iscah]

I've yet to see a single compelling argument against having no restrictions.

The likely actual argument is a technical one. They probably cannot selectively make some designs free for all while keeping others (eg. job artifact gear) locked down. Or maybe they can't even allow glamouring without the gear being made equippable. I think their behaviour just make more sense if you start from this assumption, whether you agree with the outcome or not.

And I think it's clear that they're happy to share some designs around while keeping others locked down. There are some outfits that they regularly share from one class to another, either through new role-specific sets or replica gear like the sky pirate sets, but even then there are individual outfits that just don't pass the barrier between light and heavy outfits. Other outfits never get shared around, but the whole set of gear gets reused without any reconfiguration, and these are usually the ones that followed the role designs most strictly: armour for tanks, light gear for DPS, robes for mages.

So the closest thing to an argument is that they likely will not unlock everything because there are things they want to keep locked down, even if they do sometimes make exceptions to their own design rules, and they possibly cannot release things selectively.

And they always have, always will recycle sets, so hypothetically convincing them to free up glamour restrictions wouldn't stop them from continuing to do that. So the argument that "they're only keeping things locked down so they can recycle it for other classes later" doesn't really work – especially when we've just had a whole expansion of gear they don't want to shuffle.

[Lunalepsy]

I need to look pretty!

[drtasteyummy]

You're misunderstanding my point. I mean it's irrelevant that casual gear and healer gear are both lightly armoured. That does not make them the same thing.

Right now, both roles have the same choice of [their gear] or [casual gear], even though what counts as "their gear" is different.

Saying that because tanks can replace [their gear] with [casual gear] means that healers should be able to replace [their gear] with [tank gear] is not logically an equal trade, regardless of whether you think they should be able to or not.

That is because [casual gear] 'armor' design is not the reason a healer should be able to transmog [their gear] with [tank gear]. It refers to the fact that the whole 'casual' thing is so comical that there is no point in sticking to the system anyway.
That doesn't mean a tank shouldn't still get [their gear] and respectively so does the healer, it solely means that there is no need for restriction of glamour to stay 'true' to the 'fantasy' when somebody can come to the raid in a clown outfit.

[Iscah]

Look at [the Type-53 sets]. Do you think a new player could tell you which one is tank, which is ninja? How about the scylla sets? Or the Tower of Zot sets?

I don't know about a new player, but within the overall design I think it looks like they have started with the base idea of "black stylish gear" and shaped each type towards the common style of each role. The "heavy" roles have tended towards practical trenchcoats; monk gets sleeveless gear again; aiming/scouting does look "ranger-y" and mages get frilly collars and ornate sleeves and embroidery.

And by "the Scylla sets" you mean the Syrcus Tower gear? They're starting from assigning pre-established outfits/characters but I think the distribution makes sense, especially for the classes that existed at the time. Tanks get the sword-wielding Phlegethon; melee gets the floor-tanking physical fighter Glasya Labolas; Amon and Scylla are both mages and there's no physical ranged boss, so out of those two Amon seems better for the flamboyant bard and Scylla certainly better for the heavy mage robe.

The Zot (Bonewicca) sets are definitely one of the oddities but they were based around the caster design being a contest entry. The heavy ranged design is the only one that strikes me as really odd though – I would think switching it with healer would make more sense.