FF3 ranking talk.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Okay, gut thoughts on the generics for rankability.

Warrior: Iconic and notable as the most damaging class, and Advance has a neat drawback too. Rank for sure.

Monk: Dull and average, but memorable enough. I'd say rank, but don't feel as strong.

Thief: Excellent speed and good damage, and another memorable class you have from the start. Rank.

Red Mage: Shield mage! is neat. May get a little votesplit over spell selection a la FF1, but has nothing on the level of Ruse or Hold to create a votesplit there. (His best status is L4 Silence/Confuse/Break, which I imagine most would find legal.

White, Black Mage: Pass. You get better versions.

Knight: Has defence but not offence. Straightforward. Go for it.

Ranger: Maybe? Less used class definitely, the offence... makes sense, though I imagine some won't see it coming anyway.

Scholar: No. Notable for tricks that are possibly neither DL legal nor relevant.

Geomancer: Doesn't really seem to add anything. Unimpressive random non-elemental magic damage? Plus gets some minor votesplit over DL terrain. Eh.

Viking: Lightning-elemental knight. Could rank both, could rank just one, whatever.

Dragoon: The original Dragoon. Yes, rank for sure.

Dark Knight: Doesn't seem to add too much to me, but wouldn't be terribly opposed either. DARKNESS is a rare DL element at least?

Evoker: Nah, random and Summoner feels like a class up.

Bard: Sure, rank for hilarity.

Black Belt: No. If you want this you're using Monk.

Magus: Definitely. Straightforward status whore with draining and damage that doesn't totally suck.

Devout: Straightforward white mage type, easy rank.

Sage: Bit of a Magus/Devout hybrid, memorable as the super mage and for being slow. Yes.

Ninja: Throws Shuriken. Is a ninja. Memorable from NES days. Rank.

Summoner: Hey, someone with magic damage. And some ID. Straightforward and rankable.

[hinode]

Um... so does that FF3 artbook have images of generic classes not tied to any PC or something?  Otherwise I'm not seeing how it's any better than FF5 on art.

I really, really dislike the idea of ranking FF3/5 style classes.  These aren't just generics, they are classes that are fundamentally never seen unless tied to an pre-existing character.  You will never see a generic FF5 Time Mage around, it's always Bartz or someone else in the job.  This is hugely restrictive in a plot sense, which doesn't matter for voting but *is* important for writeups.  Even the most generic Suikoden/Shining Force/Fire Emblem PC at least has an identity as a distinct individual, and with the FF1/Pokemon generics their identities never changed so you could pretend they were distinct individuals who just happened to have no name or personality.  This isn't possible with a class system like FF3/5.

Some of the most memorable moments in the DL's history have come from lengthy, story-style victory writeups, like the Magical Girl Ghaleon episode, which depended on the characterizations of the duellers involved.  How can you get this with duellers who have no name, no identity, no individuality, and no personality?

Now, admittedly the DL has been shifting increasingly away from plot-heavy victory writeups - people are getting steadily burnt out over time, and poor Sage has been completely overwhelmed in recent history.  NR has rarely ever had anything besides brief "this was how the match was won" summary writeups, and the DL proper is increasingly shifting towards that direction as of late.  But so long as we still attempt to do writeups for every match, flavor and personality do matter, and I'm against a ranking that would dilute the cause so utterly.  If we ever give up completely on writeups and just have pure matches to numbercrunch out on the forums, I'd be fine with ranking any generic under the sun that had sufficient voterbase/duelling interest, but that time hasn't come yet.

[Sierra]

I can live with the bosses, sure. The PCs? No, that feels like ranking aspects of fuller characters. I'm not comfortable with it and it sets a bad precedent. I'd vote no if it came up in the next ranking topic.

Seconded (with typo fixed). Also wholly agree with hinode's post.

[Yakumo]

(1), however, doesn't bother me at all. Fire Emblem, Shining Force, heck, even FF7 also encourage you to choose characters and stick to them. FF3 actually does a bit more to encourage some experimentation with the fact that most classes get a time in the sun. For the rest, there's stat topics.

Ugh.  No.  I absolutely hate this logic.  I don't want to be ranking things that force people that have played the game to dig through stat topics to interpret.  I don't even look at stat topics unless I need a refresher on moves, I definately don't want to have to dig through one and use someone else's interpretation, however standardized it may be, to make my decision for me.  Rank the game or not, fine, I don't like generics but they seem to be working well enough.  But don't rank crap nobody uses because "there's stat topics."

[superaielman]

Um... so does that FF3 artbook have images of generic classes not tied to any PC or something?  Otherwise I'm not seeing how it's any better than FF5 on art.

FF5 doesn't even have usuable art, I've only found the really  messed up character art stuff that I've used in NR (Which I consider to be unusuable quality wise for the DL). Regardless of that it has other issues.

*Writeup stuff*

I pretty strongly sympathize with the first line there, but for me what matters most is what (I think) makes the site better. If a game draws interest and fans it's a good addition as long as it at least somewhat fits the format. There's more than enough to object about ranking specific classes like that, but FF3 really feels like a game that's too good a package to pass up in spite of those objections. There's also something to be said about how only some of the generics we ranked were successful (FF1 Ninja and say GSC starters aren't lighting things on fire). On the other hand someone like Knight or Kyogre or White Wizard has done a good job drawing votes and interest and arguments.


Writeups are entirely a matter of creativity. To use your example, TL is a bit plot player (Neat plot though) and barely speaks in SaGa Frontier, yet he's one of the most memorable Godlikes around for combat related reasons and that writeup. I don't think the number of generics we could ever concevibly rank would ever get above 5-8% of the DL's total roster. I don't think the impact of generics is at all notable on our bottom line as far as writing, it's just a matter of interest and getting people to write. (PS Draco: Stop lurking.)

[dude789]

I'm usually pretty open about rankings, but I don't think we should rank FF generics because I think it would cause confusion for casual voters. If we did rank them we could occasionally have situations where the same generics from two different games are fighting in different divisions (FFT time mage is a middle of some variety while FF5's is a heavy.) It would be even worse if we had two generics who were in the same division and they ended up fighting eachother.   

[RadLink5]

In response to the five issues in the first post.

1. This one's obviously been fixed.
2. Do not rank Luneth/Refia/etc. They're worse ideas than Bartz and friends. Plus their personalities are not a whole lot deeper than the generic classes' personalities. Angus and Refia probably have the most personality of the bunch, and even they're pretty dull and short on lines.
3. There are a few other bosses I think people would remember if ranked. Like Medusa, and that bandit you fight twice. At the very least, just rank Dark Cloud anyway. Dissidia makes her relevant and she's a near-naked (who can become a naked, discolored) bringer of nothingness. That makes for great write-up potential.
4. I'm sure this isn't going to be so bad that we can't rank them. At worst, Dark Cloud tanks in Godlike.
5. I disagree with not ranking Warrior and Knight since those are classes I'm sure everyone who's played the game has used and their formsplit is not terrible.

So in short, I support ranking a few of the generics, Dark Cloud, and possibly a few of the more memorable bosses if anyone else would support that (no one will).

[SnowFire]

Dark Holy Elf: Well, Xande has plot, so yeah.   I'd definitely be in favor of ranking somebody with the potential for flavorful write-ups.

As for fighting character classes...  don't want to sidetrack the topic too much (I'd be against ranking them as noted above anyway), but Warrior / Dragoon damage hype?  They crash and burn into the damage cap (aka FF9 syndrome).  My Dragoon at endgame was unleashing 7.5K-9K damage with the Gungir / Blood Lance combo, and Jumping would just have given me 9999 damage every other round - a bad trade.  Warrior is almost doing 9999 naturally too, he almost never wants to Advance and hose his defense just to get to 9999 unless he's fighting some kind of insane physical tank like Lezard or Gau.  Advance is a cool ability, I'll grant, it's just that Warrior will practically never use it.

[OblivionKnight]

Apparently, though I haven't played FF3DS myself, they break the damage cap but don't actually SHOW it (so that 9999 could be 24000 or so).

...stupid oversight there <_<

[SnowFire]

Really?  If that is true that is quite possibly the dumbest thing in the world.  Okay, maybe not the world, but that is at least as dumb as most of FF3DS's plot that wasn't "Xande's motive" or the leaving-the-Floating Continent twist.  Fitting.

[Talaysen]

Yeah, max damage is 99,999 but the display only goes up to 9,999.  I remember OHKOing one of the bosses in the final dungeon even though they had over 9,999 HP.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

Sounds just like in SH1!

[Dark Holy Elf]

(1), however, doesn't bother me at all. Fire Emblem, Shining Force, heck, even FF7 also encourage you to choose characters and stick to them. FF3 actually does a bit more to encourage some experimentation with the fact that most classes get a time in the sun. For the rest, there's stat topics.

Ugh.  No.  I absolutely hate this logic.  I don't want to be ranking things that force people that have played the game to dig through stat topics to interpret.  I don't even look at stat topics unless I need a refresher on moves, I definately don't want to have to dig through one and use someone else's interpretation, however standardized it may be, to make my decision for me.  Rank the game or not, fine, I don't like generics but they seem to be working well enough.  But don't rank crap nobody uses because "there's stat topics."

Where did I support something nobody uses? If you're going to quote my post, at least read the part I post. If you read my followup post you'll note I opposed classes I saw as less likely to be used.

"Fire Emblem, Shining Force, heck, even FF7 also encourage you to choose characters and stick to them. FF3 actually does a bit more to encourage some experimentation with the fact that most classes get a time in the sun."

I support things not everyone uses, yes. For the same reason you would rank, say, Pent from Fire Emblem or Vincent from FF7. Not everybody uses them, but a lot of people do, and I don't have too much sympathy for the minority who don't because yes, you CAN use a stat topic.

[Grefter]

There is of course an extent to this though depending on a degree of obscurity you are dealing with (Can't speak for FF3, my impression was that they are all plot forced though, so whatevers). 

Just making points for the sake of argument.

Comes up more with the Pokemans though, while I don't like Legendaries much as a rank because of their obscurity and general realistic absolute pain in the fucking arse to get (if Pokemon wasn't about catching them all then they would be in the things casuals don't actually do in game basket, but you know it is, so they are tolerable), while something like Skarmory can just go fuck itself to death in a pit full of studded dildos.  Just saying, if we do ever rank generics we want to keep them to realistically accessible ones.  FF5 Mime and FFT:PSP Dark Knight are things I would probably shit can in a heart beat.

[superaielman]

*Nods* Seems like a common sense thing to me there. Legendaries may be a pain in the ass but they work, so hey.

[Grefter]

Yeah, Legendaries work because of the very nature of Pokemon.  This is something I will concede and just dislike a lot.

[Yakumo]

Where did I support something nobody uses? If you're going to quote my post, at least read the part I post. If you read my followup post you'll note I opposed classes I saw as less likely to be used.

"Fire Emblem, Shining Force, heck, even FF7 also encourage you to choose characters and stick to them. FF3 actually does a bit more to encourage some experimentation with the fact that most classes get a time in the sun."

I support things not everyone uses, yes. For the same reason you would rank, say, Pent from Fire Emblem or Vincent from FF7. Not everybody uses them, but a lot of people do, and I don't have too much sympathy for the minority who don't because yes, you CAN use a stat topic.

Okay, gut thoughts on the generics for rankability.

Ranger: Maybe? Less used class definitely, the offence... makes sense, though I imagine some won't see it coming anyway.

Bard: Sure, rank for hilarity.

Gee, where did you do that?  I wonder. <_<

In all seriousness, though, your post was the last one on the page and I didn't realize there was a second, so I apologize for that.  I do, however, still strongly disagree with ranking something that your average player isn't going to bother with.

[Meeplelard]

Requested by Super, here are projected rankings from where I'm sitting.  Note that I'm giving two, one for the NES version and one for the DS version.  I'm listing all classes just for objectivity.

For class names with dual translations and such, I'm listing the DS name first cause its the official translation; listing the NES name just so people who played only that version know what I'm talking about, etc.

Freelancer:
NES: N/A.  It doesn't exist in any form here.
DS: Light.  Bad damage and no real tricks worth noting.  Decent defense isn't saving it.

Warrior/Fighter:
NES: Light.  Pretty much the DS Freelancer.
DS: Heavy.  Hits really damned hard at the cost of durability, and not bad on speed.  The durability is debatably not an issue if he's slower than the opponent too for that matter (could be argued a quirk of the battle system.)

Monk:
NES: Light. More damage than the above classes, but less durability and still no real tricks.
DS: Light/Middle.  Spoils Pure Physical PCs pretty badly, but otherwise, see the above.

Thief:
NES: Light. Pure Niche PC in game useful for out of battle purposes primarily, you tell me how its going to translate?
DS: Low Heavy. High speed, good damage, explodes to magic though.

Red Mage/Wizard:
NES: Middle/Heavy. Incredibly Tanky due to dual shields, with lots of status.  God forbid it should face someone who forces it to rely on damage though.
DS: Middle/Heavy. More or less same as above, though status is worse, but healing is better.

White Mage/Wizard:
NES: Heavy. Healing and Status Galore, and some tricks like Reflect.  Believe it or not, its damage isn't as bad as you'd expect (though its hardly good.)  Naturally, some durability issues.
DS: Light/Middle.  A worse FF4a Porom. MUCH worse.

Black Mage/Wizard:
NES: Heavy. See White Wizard, though, more damaging, Healing is worse but parasitic, and different status.  Also isn't as elementally screwed on the damage end.
DS: Low Middle. A worse FF4a Palom...though not hit as bad as the White Mage.

Onion Knight:
NES: High Heavy. Have GOOD ITD or lose. Lacks damage or variety that is needed for Godlike, though.
DS: Godlike. The NES version adding in the entire DS Sage skill set *AND* status on its physical.  Yes, this is as insane as it sounds.

Knight:
NES: Low Heavy. Cecil with more offense but no healing.
DS: High Light. Tank!!! That's about all he has going for him.

Ranger/Hunter:
NES: Low Heavy if you allow him the limited quantity Medusa Arrows (which Ninja wants to use too, mind), Light if you don't.  Damage sucks, and White Magic it gains isn't all that good either.
DS: Middle/Heavy. Thief-lite.

Scholar:
NES: Light. Its a class that quite literally exists for one freaking fight in the game, what did you expect, competence?
DS: High Light. Has some minor healing, and some minor status...and averagish damage...and can hit magic defense...pretty poorly...basically, its a class that doesn't really translate into the DL, given its quirk (double damage from items) is something most won't factor in.

Geomancer:
NES: Light. Shouldn't shock anyone.
DS: Light. Doesn't translate at all; its quirk of basically being a Mage who doesn't need MP kind of fails.  It'd be a Fun RPGmon class with that random chance of Shadow Flare though!

Viking:
NES: Light. Tank with little to no damage.
DS: High Light.  Knight Variation.

Dragoon:
NES: Heavy. Jump hits really hard.  Like, near-OHKO hard.  Also 50%~ healing him since Blood Lance is awesome (and no, not useful on Ninja; Blood Lance heals FAR LESS without jump for reasons I won't get into, to a point where it won't make up for the damage loss in ANY scenario.)  Basically, this guy is a massively improved Kain, that can't be stressed enough.
DS: Heavy. NES version but faster with some magic durability issues...oh, hits a little bit harder too, especially when not jumping.

Bard:
NES: Puny.  ...its the Bard. Or more accurately, low damage, low defenses and no tricks.
DS: Puny. Uh, yeah, its the same thing just scaled to FF3 DS.  Well, no, more accurately, its got a bunch of tricks! ...which do jack shit in the DL given what they do to his damage and all that.  And when I say "what they do to his damage" I don't mean "Takes a damage nose dive" (cause 1/3rd average isn't bad enough), I mean "he struggles to do damage above 0."
...ok, he's a MAGIC TANK in this form, but pretty sure the 1/3rd average damage makes up for that...

...simply put, the Bard envies FF4o Edward.

Dark/Magic Knight:
NES: Heavy. 2HKO damage, if Dark Elemental, good durability, 25% Healing (!!!), and a few turn 2 potential  "Auto Win" status.
DS: Middle/Heavy.  The NES form w/ better speed, but far worse magic durability, lower damage (though still 2HKO) and no status.

Evoker/Conjurer:
NES: High Middle.  Just shy of 2HKOing on average, and randomness factor hurts him, though, on average, he'll screw you over on turn 2.  Durability can use work though.
DS: Light. Its the NES form, except now the damage is garbage and the status is really shaky instead of awesome.  Uh, yeah, wonderful combo there...

Black Belt/Karateka:
NES: Light. Class that doesn't really translate in the long run, given his method of gaining damage falls behind what other classes get for weapons and such.  Can kill frail healers with Build Up...most of which are in Light anyway...
DS:  Light.  See the NES form, only worse.  Alternatively, take Monk, give it WORSE damage, and trade in the Anti Physical strategy for a 3 turn build up to a 2HKO!!!!!!  Do I really need to explain what's wrong with this class?

Magus/Warlock:
NES: High Heavy.  Black Wizard with better everything, including now gaining 2HKO damage.
DS: High Middle. A moderately worse FF4a Palom.

Devout/Shaman:
NES: High Heavy.  Rosa trading in damage for being less reliant on one element, better speed (before Minerva), MORE healing, the potential to build up an actual Physical with haste (one casting makes it average damage! Yes, a Mage with average damage physical, BET YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING!), and Wall that doesn't stop healing, but can't hit status either...think its a winning trade, frankly.
DS: Low Middle.  When it comes down to it, while technically better, it still has every god damn issue the White Mage has.  Eh, I'll throw it a bone, I guess.

If you're wondering, Magus has actual status rates and damage; Devout has shitty status rates (best one is 45%), and the damage isn't even half as good.

Summoner:
NES: High Heavy. OHKO damage with reliable instant death.  IOWs, its Tir McDohl without the speed and takes hits somewhat worse!
DS: Middle. Average Damage and turn 2 instant death.  One could say its a slightly nerfed version of the NES version...only slightly...

Ninja:
NES: High Heavy.High  2HKO damage and good durability.  Also lots of status weapon options given it can use everything in the freaking book.
DS: Heavy. FF6 Shadow trading in the physical immunity tricks for the ability to take a god damned hit.  Even trade overall, I suppose.

Sage:
NES: Godlike.  The variety is absolutely obscene and nonsensical, it'll make your head spin.  It also has OHKO damage, and no glaring flaws on durability.
DS: Middle/Heavy.  Slower Devout who gets actual damage, and status rates...and far more status to play around with as well.  This is such a winning trade its not even funny.

...one could say this game has a massive vote split <_<

Oh, a second opinion couldn't hurt, MOSTLY in terms of the mages.  The fighters are all pretty straight foward, the Mages...its hard to judge given their variety and all.  Its mostly the DS Mages I'm speaking about, mind; the NES Mages I'm pretty confident on (and most in particular, referring to Black Mage, White Mage, Devout and Magus.)

[Dark Holy Elf]

Second opinion on the mages?

Well, one sticks out. Sage is not borderline Heavy. Don't forget the Kongol speed. Oddly enough I think you've got the "such a winning trade it's not even funny" horribly wrong, because slow healer DOES NOT WORK. Nor does slow 3HKOer. Thus Sage wins on status and uh Magus is better at that (turn 1 ID > turn 1 blind/silence, and the speed...). At the very least I'd certainly give Magus a higher ranking out of the two. I kinda gutcheck Devout as better too; runs a better healing game and status is still turn 2 (though it's limited to petrify and silence), but maybe not. Both are Middles anyway.

RM is really weird, but Middle/Heavy might actually work? Needs to ditch the shields to have any chance in hell against the status immune (magic damage is both limited and lol), but lobbing Break and Toad from behind shields lets him beat the status vulnerable while remaining tanky.

EDIT: Wait a sec, Sage is apparently not horribly slow? Okay, I see where you're coming from now.

And I think that was also the nail in the coffin as far as JL99 weapon legality goes for me, since something Sage is never getting ever in-game (your own stats list him as JL22!) making him non-total-slug is... <_<. Not to mention below average speed Warrior is nonsense too! Meeple, feel like getting stats for the classes without those? Pretty please~

[Sir Donald 3.2]

Ironically enough... this is the one non-Mario/Pokemon related RPG that I have played in the last 3 years.  FF4 The Movie is on my Christmas list, BTW.  Right next to Voltron Red Set.

The plot side of it... The 3 Wizards of old should be considered first of all (I think that CoD is as good as in, even though I haven't faced her yet.  I seem to have this problem with games that take hours past a "Point of No Return" to complete, see FF8)  After that, well different bosses are memorable for different reasons.  On the one hand, Gaurda was a ***** in both versions, so he's quite memorable to me.  On the other hand, who remembers the rat at the Viking Temple anyway?  (He has his own problems, though)

The PCs are another matter.  But, there's the video.  Then again, a whole lot of people in Sasune hype up the Red Mage class (for good reason in DS, White and Black Spells and direct to Knight...) so Ingus has a looooooooooooose claim to Red Mage.  (Yeah.  And ReRaise is Legal for Locke.  That might be an interesting hypothetical duel, though...)

And finally, the totally logical side of my brain says that if any of the above should be ranked, then they should spend their due time in NR, to gauge respect and drawability vs non-FE/Pokemon games.  Or just respect-split in general.

[alanna82]

Are Black Belts really that bad on damage? they did the same damage as the monk for me. (DS version here)

and Sages ARE the slowest class in the game.  (again, DS version)

[Dark Holy Elf]

Monk should outdamage Black Belt significantly due to job level. If BB was keeping up for you, that means you hadn't put many job levels into Monk. (That or powerlevelled the BB.)

[RadLink5]

Well out of curiosity, for anyone who takes all the classes at the same level (I don't think I do right now, but like I said, curiosity), would the Black Belt be at about equal damage to the Monk or would the Black Belt actually be stronger?

[Dark Holy Elf]

His physical stats are slightly higher (one tier in Str and one tier in Agi), so he'd be slightly stronger. The gap probably wouldn't be too wide, but it'd be there.

[Talaysen]

Honestly, I don't really see why all classes aren't given equal actions in the DL.  Is it possible we could get some stats for this?