I'd have expected, given past naming schemes, Fire II would actually be Firega, and IDK, Fire III could have just been called anything else with a fiery context. Same with cures, there should be a Curega.I hope people aren't making the mistake of casting Fire 3 just because it has a higher number than Fire 1. Its an honest mistake though but when you look at the numbers of mp, time casting, and damage, Fire 3 is only worth it during Firestarter procs and to get a full stack of Astral fire while in full stack of Umbral.
I like how they made all the spells have a purpose from 1 - 50 and still be used. Only issue is that the naming is a bit confusing... Fire 1 is single target, Fire 2 is less damage than Fire 1 and AOE, and Fire 3 is single target but doesn't replace the use of Fire 1 due to cast time and mp even though it does more damage. Think they could have worked out some better names.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
Cookie Policy
This website uses cookies. If you do not wish us to set cookies on your device, please do not use the website. Please read the Square Enix cookies policy for more information. Your use of the website is also subject to the terms in the Square Enix website terms of use and privacy policy and by using the website you are accepting those terms. The Square Enix terms of use, privacy policy and cookies policy can also be found through links at the bottom of the page.


Reply With Quote

