Board 8 > What's the worst non-joke job in an RPG?

(+) Yeah! (+)

And why is it Beast Tamer in FFTA?

Started playing it again from the start (never finished it) and oh man...

> Not every battle has monsters
> You need to equip different weapons to tame different types of monsters
> The accuracy is like 70% at best and that's if you do it from behind
> It only lasts one turn

Yikes.
Actually what the heck is wrong with the accuracy in the game, it sure is fun when nothing happens for 5 turns since everyone keeps missing each other.

I struggle to think of a beast tamer-style class in any RPG that didn't feel underwhelming, honestly.

I think Berserker

KamikazePotato posted...

I struggle to think of a beast tamer-style class in any RPG that didn't feel underwhelming, honestly.

FF5 Beastmaster is quite strong.

Yeah berserker sucks

Berserker no thanks

KamikazePotato posted...

I struggle to think of a beast tamer-style class in any RPG that didn't feel underwhelming, honestly.

WoW hunters

Steiner posted...

WoW hunters

For a second I thought you were taking a swipe at WoW hunters, and I was going to have to set you straight.

If by "job," you mean a generic class and not a specific character, and that there's some level of choosing taking place, one of my least favorite is Witch from Ogre Battle. Witches deal zero damage in combat, in a game where the party that deals more damage (not necessarily who survives) is declared the victor. This might be okay considering the point of the witch is to stun the enemies so they don't do damage, but her attack basically never lands. It IS group-wide, so even if it misses four enemies and stuns the fifth, you theoretically get some value, but not as much as if you just attacked one more time typically.

Oh, and enemy witches always inevitably stun your entire squad. Makes me wonder if they're more like magikarp, where if you suffer through carrying them for a while, they get better eventually...but I've never bothered to find out.

KamikazePotato posted...

I struggle to think of a beast tamer-style class in any RPG that didn't feel underwhelming, honestly.

Ogre Battle 64 is fine for beast tamers. But they don't actually capture beasts in that, just boost your beast allies.

My first thought was FFV Berserker but there may be some worse ones out there.

I guess FF1 thief is really bad too, considering other choices are just better.

Healer.

Like, the pacifist kind. Not the "can nuke people late game" kind. Playing a pacifist healer in Nethack suuuuucks, and moves over to beast tamer territory.

Final Fantasy berserker is bad when it's forced; less so when it's an evasion tank (like X-2, where they were cool as hell.)

Most boring goes to buffers/debuffers. Lucas wasn't BAD in Mother 3, but man is his playstyle boring compared to even Boney who literally can't do anything but "goes first" and "attacks."

FFT Oracle and Archer both also spring to mind.

I like Berserkers! Sometimes you just want to hit things and not think.

FFT archer

Isquen posted...

Most boring goes to buffers/debuffers

nah these classes rock and are usually the most broken

Isquen posted...

Playing a pacifist healer in Nethack suuuuucks, and moves over to beast tamer territory.

Would you really count Nethack conducts as jobs? Thats like a self-imposed challenge rather than a predetermined set of abilities and stats. Especially since Nethack does in fact have Classes

WazzupGenius00 posted...

Would you really count Nethack conducts as jobs? Thats like a self-imposed challenge rather than a predetermined set of abilities and stats. Especially since Nethack does in fact have Classes

Yes, because Healer is a class in Nethack. Even without counting it as a pacifist it sucks at combat almost as much as the Tourist, which fulfills the "joke" portion.

KamikazePotato posted...

I struggle to think of a beast tamer-style class in any RPG that didn't feel underwhelming, honestly.

The one Bravely Default 2 was pretty busted
But nobody played BD2 so

Steiner posted...

nah these classes rock and are usually the most broken

I like playing them! They don't suck! They're just mechanically boring, much of the time. I dont even know why I brought them up - though I was probably thinking of PSO1 specifically with the human female casters focusing on the buff spells and then just being murdermode with weapon attacks otherwise.

(My current D&D wizard is a debuff heavy utility Conjurer, so I'm not AVERSE to it, but video games rarely do them justice.)

Buffers and debuffers can be good depending on the game's mechanics I think.

Sorta related Animists in FFTA have sorry accuracy so why bother - potentially - afflicting status effects (...well, different from stat debuffs) when you can just deal some damage.

Maniac64 posted...

Ogre Battle 64 is fine for beast tamers. But they don't actually capture beasts in that, just boost your beast allies.

They were really mid in the original. Not so bad they qualify for the topic, but definitely nothing to aspire toward.

Raka_Putra posted...

Sorta related Animists in FFTA have sorry accuracy so why bother - potentially - afflicting status effects (...well, different from stat debuffs) when you can just deal some damage.

Its been a long time since I played it but I remember accuracy numbers being mostly miserable across the board in FFTA, it was kind of an annoying game to play

If you count TTRPG classes, I've heard bad things about the Truenamer from one of the later D&D3.5 sourcebooks. Basically, you have to make a skill check to use any of your abilities, the DC of the check goes up by 2 every time you pass it (resetting on a long rest), and level scaling increases the base DC faster than you can increase the skill.

You either minmax that one skill and mostly suck, or never meaningfully contribute to any encounter, ever.

Yes, because Healer is a class in Nethack. Even without counting it as a pacifist it sucks at combat almost as much as the Tourist, which fulfills the "joke" portion.

Sucks at offense, sure, but you start with a metric ton of healing, have innate immunity to poison, and get basically infinite food as soon as you can cast level 3 spells. I'd probably rank Archaeologist below Healer, and maybe Rogue too. They're better than Healer in the late game (as is Tourist, honestly) but the late game isn't where most of my characters die.

Sorta related Animists in FFTA have sorry accuracy so why bother - potentially - afflicting status effects (...well, different from stat debuffs) when you can just deal some damage.
Its been a long time since I played it but I remember accuracy numbers being mostly miserable across the board in FFTA, it was kind of an annoying game to play.

My memory is that in FFTA, all status effects have the same accuracy (50/60/70 from front/side/back), regardless of how powerful the status is. Which means that once your Animist has their Frog-inflicting skill and Concentrate, they can just spam Frog at 70-90% accuracy. Why accept an 80% chance of just dealing some damage, when you can get an 80% chance of indefinitely crippling the target?

BlackMageJawa posted...

If you count TTRPG classes, I've heard bad things about the Truenamer from one of the later D&D3.5 sourcebooks. Basically, you have to make a skill check to use any of your abilities, the DC of the check goes up by 2 every time you pass it (resetting on a long rest), and level scaling increases the base DC faster than you can increase the skill.

You either minmax that one skill and mostly suck, or never meaningfully contribute to any encounter, ever.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?214115-In-the-Beginning-Was-the-Word-and-the-Word-Was-Suck-A-Guide-to-Truenamers

That guide is a work of art.

I'm pretty sure FFTA was the game where I missed with 100% chance to hit.

Here's a hot take: I hate blue mage.

I know they often have the best spells, but I never really care in any game not named FF7.

MalcolmMasher posted...

Yes, because Healer is a class in Nethack. Even without counting it as a pacifist it sucks at combat almost as much as the Tourist, which fulfills the "joke" portion.

Sucks at offense, sure, but you start with a metric ton of healing, have innate immunity to poison, and get basically infinite food as soon as you can cast level 3 spells. I'd probably rank Archaeologist below Healer, and maybe Rogue too. They're better than Healer in the late game (as is Tourist, honestly) but the late game isn't where most of my characters die.

Sorta related Animists in FFTA have sorry accuracy so why bother - potentially - afflicting status effects (...well, different from stat debuffs) when you can just deal some damage.
Its been a long time since I played it but I remember accuracy numbers being mostly miserable across the board in FFTA, it was kind of an annoying game to play.

My memory is that in FFTA, all status effects have the same accuracy (50/60/70 from front/side/back), regardless of how powerful the status is. Which means that once your Animist has their Frog-inflicting skill and Concentrate, they can just spam Frog at 70-90% accuracy. Why accept an 80% chance of just dealing some damage, when you can get an 80% chance of indefinitely crippling the target?

Assassin could do this with instant death

Steiner posted...

WoW hunters

azuarc posted...

For a second I thought you were taking a swipe at WoW hunters, and I was going to have to set you straight.

Hey now, they USED to be, at least. I remember the days of Marksman Hunter being the only viable path.

Crescent-Moon posted...

Assassin could do this with instant death

and with the right build a Blue Mage could put the entire enemy squad to sleep, giving everything 100% hit chance

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Hey now, they USED to be, at least. I remember the days of Marksman Hunter being the only viable path.

That was only ever the case if youre evaluating strictly through the lens of endgame raiding. And even then, Hunter doesnt even belong in this discussion.

UltimaterializerX posted...

The only bad jobs in that game are thief (even thats borderline), dancers in chapter 4, and no math skill calculator.

why is a Dancer specifically bad in Chapter 4?

I thought the topic title said non-woke job.

Punnyz posted...

why is a Dancer specifically bad in Chapter 4?

@UltimaterializerX -kun

I found dancers still useful because they could turn people into frogs randomly.

Alanna82 posted...

I found dancers still useful because they could turn people into frogs randomly.

Not to mention the dance that reduces enemy speed.

oh I never used them for damage so eh

I just use them to destroy enemy speed before my DPS engages

....yea who the fuck uses them for damage?

In the early game, if you get several Dancers, you can basically kill the enemy before they get near you. I haven't done this myself, but I used to read about Single Class Challenge playthroughs, and Dancers have an easy early game for that reason. You'd need several for it to build that way, though, and it's a pretty specific build that isn't as good later. You're also less likely to get Dancers that early due to high job level requirements.

Though I do agree that having one doing Slow Dance on a big map, isn't that bad late game, though there are some broken options available (e.g. Calculator)

if you have dancers open then you should have other classes available to that character that can deal more damage

but in a SCC I GUESS yall have a point

Dancers even limited to chapter 4 should be nowhere near the discussion of a bad class. So they take a bit to kill stuff boo hoo. Crippling stats and random status ailments are good.

Raka_Putra posted...

Actually what the heck is wrong with the accuracy in the game, it sure is fun when nothing happens for 5 turns since everyone keeps missing each other.

as someone who is pretty familiar with FFTA, I'm going to respond to this rather than the actual question posed on the topic. yes, base accuracy rates can suck. they can also be easily fixed by training units properly.

if your units still have trash accuracy and damage after the first few missions, it's likely because you have failed to train them. the way you level up units in this game is actually extremely important, it's a subtle mechanic of the game that isn't explained very well, is often overlooked by people playing the game casually, and can lead to WILDLY different results in terms of how consistent and effective your units are.

the short explanation is that you always want your characters to gain levels in the appropriate class so that they gain the BEST possible stats for their desired 'complete' build. these means when you want to learn an ability in the archer class, you might need to make sure that character doesn't gain enough EXP to gain a level while they are on the map, until they finish mastering the ability you wanted them to pick up. then you switch them to a different class when they're at 90 EXP and have them gain a level in the class that is going to give them the best stats. you have to meticulously do this for every character, every time you want to level them up, in order to create a guild full of the best units.

this tedious and overly complicated process is both one of the best and worst things about the game, and I think you have to go into it with the right mindset to truly enjoy it. that being said, there's a reason why they give you so many character slots in your guild, and why new characters are constantly showing up. if you keep the average level of the members of your guild very low, you can constantly recruit 'fresh' characters with blank slate builds, and start building them up correctly from scratch.

this is actually why characters like Montblanc are pretty terrible from a guild management perspective. if I recall correctly, you can't get rid of him, and the more you use him, the higher your 'average level' is going to be for the guild. on the flipside, if you never use Montblanc and always keep him at a low level, it'll be easier to keep the average level lower.

(the reason why getting fresh recruits at a low level is important is because it allows you to raise them properly through the correct leveling path. look at a Paladin who joins at Level 9 vs a Paladin that you raised yourself, properly, and you will see a massive difference in stats)

it's also possible to get the Cinquedea very early on in the game, a Thief weapon that allows you to learn Steal Ability, which makes the process of learning new Abilities extremely diverse and allows WAYS more options for the early game and basically through the process of the entire game. learning Steal Ability early on allows you to gain access to abilities that are otherwise impossible to learn at that early point in the game.

however, this process of getting Cinquedea early on is another obtuse grind that will take over an hour, and most people wouldn't even know it's possible to do. if I was going to fix one thing about the game I would have simply given players access to more weapons and abilities early on.

MariaTaylor posted...

this is actually why characters like Montblanc are pretty terrible from a guild management perspective. if I recall correctly, you can't get rid of him

I think you can't dismiss him, but you can kill him off in a jagd if you really want him gone, since the game has perma-death in those areas

MariaTaylor posted...

as someone who is pretty familiar with FFTA, I'm going to respond to this rather than the actual question posed on the topic. yes, base accuracy rates can suck. they can also be easily fixed by training units properly.

if your units still have trash accuracy and damage after the first few missions, it's likely because you have failed to train them. the way you level up units in this game is actually extremely important, it's a subtle mechanic of the game that isn't explained very well, is often overlooked by people playing the game casually, and can lead to WILDLY different results in terms of how consistent and effective your units are.

the short explanation is that you always want your characters to gain levels in the appropriate class so that they gain the BEST possible stats for their desired 'complete' build. these means when you want to learn an ability in the archer class, you might need to make sure that character doesn't gain enough EXP to gain a level while they are on the map, until they finish mastering the ability you wanted them to pick up. then you switch them to a different class when they're at 90 EXP and have them gain a level in the class that is going to give them the best stats. you have to meticulously do this for every character, every time you want to level them up, in order to create a guild full of the best units.

this tedious and overly complicated process is both one of the best and worst things about the game, and I think you have to go into it with the right mindset to truly enjoy it. that being said, there's a reason why they give you so many character slots in your guild, and why new characters are constantly showing up. if you keep the average level of the members of your guild very low, you can constantly recruit 'fresh' characters with blank slate builds, and start building them up correctly from scratch.

this is actually why characters like Montblanc are pretty terrible from a guild management perspective. if I recall correctly, you can't get rid of him, and the more you use him, the higher your 'average level' is going to be for the guild. on the flipside, if you never use Montblanc and always keep him at a low level, it'll be easier to keep the average level lower.

(the reason why getting fresh recruits at a low level is important is because it allows you to raise them properly through the correct leveling path. look at a Paladin who joins at Level 9 vs a Paladin that you raised yourself, properly, and you will see a massive difference in stats)

Damn you kinda just blew my mind. Had no idea FFTA worked like that. How about TA2?