That's if game balance favors tanking. In other words, it needs to be possible for a character to be a target of most of the attacks, for that character to be significantly harder to damage than the rest of the party, and for healing balance to favor single-target healing.

On the other hand, if the defense difference between builds isn't as big, and the healing balance favors multi-target healig, then you have a different situation. Assuming a high attrition game, the strategy then becomes one where you don't build a single tank, but rather one where it makes sense to rotate your party, so that when a character gets low on health, you move the character to safety and put a healthier character in their place. Then, once you run out of healthy characters, that's when you heal, as it is less taxing on your healing resources to wait until this point. (I'd actually like to see games that are balanced like this a bit more often; it's an interesting idea, and definitely different from the more common (in modern times) approach where one character just tanks all the damage.)


Again, that depends on the game, and if the game has build variations, may depend on the build.

My Fuzzy Ranger in Ultima 3 could likely deal with a tanking enemy just by casting Mentar; if that doesn't kill the enemy, physical attacks will. Then again, maybe Ultima 3's mechanics are a bit too primitive for this to be a thing.


I disagree. In developing a game, one should strive to have as many roles as possible be viable, and that includes fully-balanced characters. The strength of a balanced character, in games where such a thing is viable, is that they can fill whichever role is needed in a particular situation.

Also, white magic in the Final Fantasy series is generally not used for tanking, with FF1's RUSE/Blink spell being the only real exception. Even then, I note that, even though the spell is level 1, red mages can't actually learn that spell until after class change.

Except that the topic is about classes called "Ranger", not about classes that fill the role that a ranger fills. There's a difference here.

Last I checked, Final Fantasy Tactics (the original that was first released for the PlayStation) has no Ranger class.

The option to play a character as one of a different class in the right situation is the sort of thing that a balanced character should be able to excel at. Sure, the character might not be as good as a mage as a focused caster, but the character can still act like a mage in situations where other classes would be at a disadvantage, and that should count for something.

(There's also the notion of synergy between different builds, as you might see in a game like Baldur's Gate 2 (evert multi-class in that game, including Cleric/Thief, has some synergy), or in some SaGa games, where an ability might depend on one stat, but raise another.)

I've yet to see one that both works like this and allows this. Most are turn-based RPGs, and you can't swap party order mid-battle. Around that time, there seemed to be no notion of balance. The problem is in doing so you make any specialized build OP outside of their weaknesses. Usually it's designed so it's not viable for the white mage to do ll the tanking themselves, but to throw all the tankability onto the the warrior class (in the form of defensive buffs), but it's still the magic tank. You make up for armor with heals. Final Fantasy is one of the great violators since the tank class usually does the most (or near the most in cases of assassins and black belts) damage damage. I vaguely remember us discussing this about a year to a year and a half ago. Final fantasy does not balance the classes well.

Your statement is correct, but it doesn't address anything you quoted. The fact remains you can make any class off normal that you want, but it seems pointless to do when we cn't even balance the standard mage and ranger classes in these games these days, which is the main complaint of the thread, just not as focused. It did. They called it "archer" in particular. Available after leveling squire job once, along with the knight. And yes, he does specify he's not talking about Might and Magic's archer or Diablo's rogue. In other words, he think Might nd Magic and Diablo are the exceptions, and he's talking about dex classes in general. FFT does actually have this class, but it's an off-shoot of the tank class because of the way the stats work in tactics. Despite it's odd placeent in the tree, it does work as epected in the triangle. Perhaps i should've clarified this a bit better: i do think that's valid, but, as i said, it needs a good support. He should be an augment to the existing character filling the role he's going for, not the leader. Definitely should not be viable outside of the party. Yes, this is where "team" comes in. Games that allow people to be two classes at once often have at least a team of 2 people, and the classes are fairly strict.

An interesting case happens in some of the Dragon Quest games, particularly 5 and 6. Basically, if you don't want to spend any MP on healing, your best option, late game, is to use the Sage's Stone (DQ5) or the Hustle Dance skill (DQ6). These heal the entire party, including those in the wagon, and you can re-order your party and move characters into and out of the wagon freely without spending a turn (assuming you're in a place where the wagon is allowed, like the final dungeon of either game).

I can also mention Unlimited SaGa, where you get a certain number of actions to allocate between your party members each round. Any character who doesn't act in a given combat round will recover some HP. (Worth noting that Unlimited SaGa is a very unusual game, and there's all sorts of weird mechanics. For example, a character at 0 HP can still fight, but is at extreme risk of losing LP, which is much harder to restore, and 0 LP is death.)

SaGa Frontier doesn't allow mid-combat switches, but you can change your party between combat, and any characters who don't fight in a battle will regain some WP, JP, and (unless a Robot/Mech) LP. (Robots can't regain LP as easily, but they have more LP than other characters.)

I'm pretty sure the original post is asking about classes specifically called "Ranger", not classes that could be considered to fill that role.

Also, if we're talking about DEX classes or builds, I could point out SaGa 2's Agility Robots. Basically, equip a Robot with as many Agility based items as you can, and you get a character who can:
* Consistently hit any enemy not defending. (Note that an enemy needs to use a shield or shield-like ability to defend.)
* Can do huge damage to single targets. (Note that late-game bosses tend to take only half damage from physical attacks, but Agility Robots are so strong they still do plenty of damage, and further more one particular mid-game problem boss does not have this protection.)
* Can't be hit by most physical attacks. In fact, it would take something like a machine gun, grenade, or chain saw to hit such a robot. This allows the robot to tank in the first party spot.
* Is so fast that, if you're not playing the remake, initiative overflow becomes a real problem. (In the remake, will be acting first nearly all the time.)
* Lacks magic, so not good for huge groups (though there's the Yoichi Bow, and in the remake, fans), and vulnerable to enemy spells (except status ailments (exception to the exception: petrify)).

Solution: Reduce the power gap between focused and balanced builds. Make it harder to increase a skill that's already high, but not hard to learn and train a new skill later in the game. (This also means that a party that's lacking a role that turns out to be necessary later in the game isn't screwed.)

Pathfinder 2e also takes this approach a different way; the feats that seem the most powerful are those that give abilities from other classes, rather than those that improve the character's main class abilities. (Also, don't forget the Free Archetype variant that's apparently popular.)

I guess is need to spend more time with these two. I've barely played them, but i have them on my phone. Well, in that case it's more of a rare feature than a non-existant one. Point otherwise remains. No, because he specifically mentions archer in Might and Magic and Rogue from diablo: Implying that he is referring to the same group as them, but that those games are the exception to the rule and he wants to discuss the normal rather than the exception. So he's definitely referring to archers, rogues, etc. Well he's especially focused on western RPGs as opposed to JRPGs, but it's hard to talk about WRPGs without JRPGs. The fantastical nature of JRPGs tends to lead to things being more obvious and easier to talk about, but both really have the same issues.

That's an interesting take, but then you dis-incentivize pure classes in favor of the all-rounders. And to that end, you end up eroding the class system, because everyone has the same role.

As for parties lacking roles, that's why you're encouraged to make a party with the 4 main classes in a final fantasy game (Fighter, Black Mage, White Mage, Thief)

Another approach is the FF3 approach where you spec your characters to assigend jobs, but they can learn multiple jobs (and gain job levels more quickly than main levels). Final Fantasy series (and i include bravely default in this) does this really well, especially if you can have dual classes (secondary job). This usually ensures you have your specialties selected, but you're never lacking unless you plan poorly, and you only then need to reload the save before the battle.

I don't think the series really encourages thieves that much, except if you look at later FF1 remakes that rebalanced the classes (but failed to re-balance most of the enemies, making the game too easy until the final boss).

What we see is this, looking mainly at original versions of the games:
* FF1: Thief is easily the worst class in the game. They're good at running away, but that's about it. Well, they can cast FAST (Haste) after class change, but Red Mages can do that earlier, and are probably better at fighting pre-clas change, and not that much worse after (and with RW you get access to spells like LIFE and EXIT that the Ninja (Thief after class change) never gets).
* (No FF2 because no class system. With that said, high Agility means high Evade %, which would make the game much easier, provided you equip a shield.)
* FF3: You don't even get this class until later on. This class has one part in the game where it really shines, around mid-game (not to mention one part where, unless you knew about it in advance, you'll likely not have keys and need to use a thief, which fortunately happens during the part where thieves are actually good), but that doesn't last. There's nothing good to steal (first FF game where you can try to steal), and if you try to run away, then don't be surprised if normally weak enemies kill one of your defenseless characters (in a game where Phoenix Downs are limited in supply and not buyable).
* FF4: You don't get a thief *at all*. There is a ninja you get later, and he can steal, but there's nothing worth stealing.
* FF5: There's finally items worth stealing, and thieves are fast. Furthermore, there are some nice convenient abilities, like the ability to dash outside of combat. So, perhaps this game does encourage the use of a thief. Unfortunately, thieves aren't that useful otherwise, unless you learn Mug and equip the Chicken Knife, which is a unique weapon you don't get until late game, and you can't get both it and the Brave Blade. (Chicken Knife has more damage potential, but is harder to use since it can make you run away.)
* FF6 has one party member who is a thief, and there are decent items to steal. FF9 makes the main character a thief, but annoyingly there are no good steals outside of non-repeatable fights.

Also, it feels like the 4th main class in Final Fantasy games is actually Monk, not Thief, particularly looking at the earlier games. (FF3 gives you Monk early, while FF1 allows high level Monks to do more damage than any other class, to the point of being able to one hit kill the final boss.)

FF usually requires stealing to get the best equipment. Monk in particular doesn't make a strong dex clss in FF specifically because it usually has the highest HP gain. Also, your thieves usually branch into "ninja"/"assassin" in FF which ends up being your higheset damage dealer. And, of course, lead character (even though they supposedly tried to avoid even making a lead character) of FF6 and FF9. I will admit the stealing bit is of limited use, though.

FF didn't even have stealing until FF3, and didn't even have any worhtwhile steals until FF5. (This is not counting stealing from Odin in the 3D remakes, which came later.)

FF1 Monks aren't a dex class; they're a class whose power comes from level (or, in later remakes, the Stamina stat), and who are late-bloomers who focus on damage and HP at the expense of all else. (Also, I believe they don't get as many good HP level ups as Fighters, though they're high Endurance (which affects level-up HP gains) makes up for it.) They are, however, a main class and are far more useful than Thieves (though I'd argue that Red Mages make better Thief substitutes).

Neither of the main characters in FF6 are thieves; they're both Mage Knights, the closest that you'd get to a Red Mage in an even-numbered Final Fantasy (not counting 14, since I don't consider it main series due to being an entirely different genre).

Yes, a mage can cast so many "Circle of..." buffs and then AoE cloud soup - Stinking Cloud, etc...
If you make all your saves against the clouds, and are immune to fire, acid, ice, electricity & sonic spells thrown at you. Reaching the mage & scoring a hit on a Blur, Blinking, Displaced, Mirror Imaged, Invisible, Epic Dodge, 50% Ethereal mage will get you 0 damage and a payback of the buffs applied. It's all about levels, situation and application.

Plus the mage will thunk you with an ugly 6+3/4 quarterstaff... ;-p (Hail Duck Dodgers)

It also depends on the mechanics of the specific game, and what spells are present. If most of those spells don't exist in the game, then your argument doesn't apply.

(Then again, I'm aware of one game, Star Ocean 3, where the party's mage can tank with the right setup, simply by having a lot of MP, a lot of MP regen, and all damage going to MP instead of HP. (Note that 0 MP = death in SO3.))

Pathfinder Oracles don't know all their spells. They only know the following spells:
* As many spells as a Sorcerer would know.
* Plus those from the Mystery. (Note that Sorcerers get bloodline spells, which are comparable to an Oracle's mystery spells.)
* Plus either Cure or Inflict spells (which are generally considered weak, anyway).

(Also, this is assuming 1e; 2e is different mechanically, and there are ways to get a Sorcerer with healing spells with just the 2e Core Rulebook.)

It's not the spells available, it's that Oracles don't need to LEARN any. As to Sorcerers who have to get spells only by level up and their spell book is thus limited, much more than Oracles.

I'd be happier in a D&D 2.5 Rules, anything before Monk Class.
I can build anything I want from the basic 4 classes - Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue.

It might just be me, but I don't really like the basic Rogue class, especially in CRPGs where it often consists of there being a mechanic that basically says "you need a rogue". Honestly, such games would be better if they took out the mechanic and the Rogue class, and just reduced the party size by 1 (but not below 4).

(Rogue can be more meaningful in TTRPGs, but I'd personally prefer an Expert class that doesn't have the automatic association with thievery.)