Comments from the Devs

[Rocl]

The point was though with 2 DoM classes would have an easy time becoming 4, 6 or 8 jobs because the majority of magic based jobs could simply have their staff and things are good.

What? Any class has an easy time becoming 4 6 or 8 jobs. The hardest class I'm having branch into multiple jobs is Lancer.

You can't give every DoW a dagger and have it work, or every DoW H2H ... but the mage side presets a lot more flexibility. If they want to.

Why can't a Gladiator use a Dagger (again)? Or a Scout use a Dagger? Or a Fencer use a Dagger? etc There's no reason to say mage is more flexible than melee if we're going with "if they want to" Not to mention every single weapon I can think of isn't even a "sword" or a "staff" but a "Gladiator's arm" or a "Conjurer's arm"?

They could have a Runeblade and have it be a "Thaumaturge's arm"!

[Waraji]

Sure, or they can go the way of several MMOs and give you a staff, but call it something else, like Dildo Scepter or w/e.

[Jamison]

OK Mr Lore Guy,



From a story/world/lore standpoint, what's the difference now between THM weapons and CNJ weapons? Just that certain ones get named a certain way, right? I get that each DoW class still has many good options to spring into different jobs, but I still maintain it doesn't have the *universality* that a mage wand or staff has.

[Rocl]

I'm really confused what your argument is. Mages have the ability to branch into more jobs because their weapons are more 'basic'? Any magic-user can use a staff but not any physical-class can chuck a spear or swing a sword?

[Lucavi]

Any magic-user can use a staff but not any physical-class can chuck a spear or swing a sword?

Which would be bullshit, considering how many varied weapons melee fighters and soldiers have used throughout the years. Vikings used swords, daggers, axes and shields; Samurai used tachi, yomi (bows), matchlocks (rifles); Knights used swords, maces, spears, lances, axes, shields - the list goes on and on.

I've always found it strange that 14 wanted to go in a "one weapon for one fighter" direction. It always seemed strange not just in a lore setting (a warrior is seriously only going to bring a single type of weapon to a fight? No smaller blades for concealment? No throwing weapon to close the gap?), but for a design setting. It feels too much like TERA, but TERA isn't trying to weave some grandiose story around around their product either.

[Jamison]

I'm really confused what your argument is. Mages have the ability to branch into more jobs because their weapons are more 'basic'? Any magic-user can use a staff but not any physical-class can chuck a spear or swing a sword?

This place drives me nuts sometimes. I wasn't even making the original claim.

Spira posted basically that, yes, that mage weapons are more basic and lend themselves to more options in becoming jobs. Solracht replied "Nope! The game is coded that 1 weapon equals 1 class!".

I jumped in saying that wasn't the argument that Spira was trying to make, and you jumped in saying my argument was flawed.

[Rocl]

I can't speak for solracht, but the offensive part to me is:

theres a lot of more room for cross-class jobs as far as DoM are concerned compared to DoW by virtue of the fact that they don't actually rely on their weapons as a form of class identity.

being accepted as fact. Which is the part of your post I quoted!

The point was though with 2 DoM classes would have an easy time becoming 4, 6 or 8 jobs because the majority of magic based jobs could simply have their staff and things are good.

I suppose the use of the word "your" is offensive to you '~'

Regardless, my problem with the line of thinking is you're people assuming a sword isn't as generic as a staff. Let me try to think of all the "Legacy" FF jobs that use 1-handed swords now...

[Jamison]

It's all good. I'm not saying you are wrong, I was simply trying to (and perhaps badly) elaborate on what someone else was trying to say. I'm done with this topic -- it's not exactly something I care about one way or the other.

[Gokulo]

Where did you find that? The 1.0 dats used to say ACN, wondering if it has been changed.

You know, maybe I remembered it wrong now and it was ACN. Anyway, you could see it in the beta.

[Waraji]

If scholar would be added near launch, I'll find it a terrible disservice by them not adding Fencer/Red Mage. :fliptable:

[ArchDizzle]

Or they could do something as simple as getting a new job for x class simply relies on having the original class at 30 and sub class at 15 like the current jobs which allows you to access a quest that expands the main classes ability to learn a new job/specialty/w/e that grants the ability to use the new weapon for that job and starts you at level 1 that new job. Still early for me hope that makes sense.

[Evane]

This is like the "OMG WHY IS SHIVA RED??!!111" all over again.

[Eagleheart]

Which would be bullshit, considering how many varied weapons melee fighters and soldiers have used throughout the years. Vikings used swords, daggers, axes and shields; Samurai used tachi, yomi (bows), matchlocks (rifles); Knights used swords, maces, spears, lances, axes, shields - the list goes on and on.

I've always found it strange that 14 wanted to go in a "one weapon for one fighter" direction. It always seemed strange not just in a lore setting (a warrior is seriously only going to bring a single type of weapon to a fight? No smaller blades for concealment? No throwing weapon to close the gap?), but for a design setting. It feels too much like TERA, but TERA isn't trying to weave some grandiose story around around their product either.

I cannot possibly concur with this post enough. -.-

[xopher]

http://www.ie10.ffxiv.com/download/

Dragoon and Bard arts up. Bard looks to have a non-bow based harp, interestingly. And DRG is in classic Kain pose.

[Spira]

I can't speak for solracht, but the offensive part to me is:

being accepted as fact. Which is the part of your post I quoted!

I suppose the use of the word "your" is offensive to you '~'

Regardless, my problem with the line of thinking is you're people assuming a sword isn't as generic as a staff. Let me try to think of all the "Legacy" FF jobs that use 1-handed swords now...

Maybe i should clarify my point.

theres a lot of more room for cross-class jobs as far as DoM are concerned compared to DoW by virtue of the fact that they don't actually rely on their weapons as a form of class identity.

i think Jamison gets my point about this.
yes, only conjurers wield wands and thaumaturges scepter. it's a form of class identity, but nobody is going to say "Conjurers and White Mages are masters in the use of the wand". It's their specialized magic that sets them apart. In this sense, mage class weapons are more generic because the classes/specialities aren't defined by or drawn from the weapons itself. Thats what I'm trying to say.

For instance, lore or otherwise, a conjurer isn't a conjurer because he wields a wand. They simply happen to prefer using it, and the game is structured that way.
On the other hand, you can't be an archer without a bow and arrow.

Of course, you may also say that nothing says a Marauder has to wield an axe, and I'd readily agree that its a bit of an oddity that each class only can have 1 weapon, and especially in the case of mages because as I mentioned earlier they don't rely on their weapons as a showcase of their ability.

its just the way the game is designed. DoW+DoM job combinations would be much easier to create than DoW+DoW by virtue that DoM classes aren't designed to be reliant on weapon proficiency. If you had DoW+DoW, then you could possibly have jobs that can wield 2 different weapons or something, but thats an evolution of the job system I don't think they're considering at this point.

[Grey Jorildyn]

i think Jamison gets my point about this.
yes, only conjurers wield wands and thaumaturges scepter. it's a form of class identity, but nobody is going to say "Conjurers and White Mages are masters in the use of the wand". It's their specialized magic that sets them apart. In this sense, mage class weapons are more generic because the classes/specialities aren't defined by or drawn from the weapons itself. Thats what I'm trying to say.

For instance, lore or otherwise, a conjurer isn't a conjurer because he wields a wand. They simply happen to prefer using it, and the game is structured that way.
On the other hand, you can't be an archer without a bow and arrow.

And maybe this is the problem with the mage classes in general. Since they re-did stats around the time of Dzemael Darkhold patch, they turned mage weapons into little more than stat-sticks. Their DMG rating did not affect spells whatsoever. I find this to be a problem. If you look at what the bastardization of mage weapons did to the mage playing field since that time, you'll see how juvenile the system really is. A Lv. 50 BLM can use a stat-less Lv. 1 weapon and be as powerful as another Lv. 50 BLM using a stat-less Lv.50 weapon. I know we've discussed this before, but it still irks the shit out of me that mages essentially get a free pass on not upgrading their weapon or basically getting to "spec" easily for Thunder spells by using a Lightning Brand (while we're at it can we fucking fix the Thunder<->Lightning bullshit already. Pick a fucking term already). I find it really stupid that mage spells don't channel power through their weapon so the DMG rating is basically useless. It should count and this is an inherent flaw in the system already. 2.0 doesn't seem to be changing that as far as I can tell since spells scale with level and not with weapon. Correct me if I'm wrong on this point and forget I even wrote this post then.

[Carraway]

In 2.0, a huge part of the damage equation for spells comes from your weapon damage.

[Azull]

I would hope they get away from the whole wand/staff thing with other mage classes. There are a lot of cool options out there. Arc/Smn seemingly using books being one of them. Clubs havent been used yet. Hell a floaty orb (or skull) ala d3 would rock for a mage class weapon.

[Kelenae]

In 2.0, a huge part of the damage equation for spells comes from your weapon damage.

Ya i noticed more damage when i got the higher level weapons for mages.

[Grey Jorildyn]

In 2.0, a huge part of the damage equation for spells comes from your weapon damage.

Excellent. I only bothered with CNJ to level 6 or so and that was the first weekend of beta. This is good to know and is promising.