Corsair:
- Pistol Shot:
- Skill Damage Increased 267.32 → 534.64
- Damage Per Level Increased 71 → 92.3
OHHH YEAS, SO STRONK, I HAVE 70-LVL ATTRIB ON THAT :3
now I only need to add Murmillo to my corsair if murmillo’s jump works the same way with hook as hoplite’s jump. and here comes the age of glorious piracy.
wait wat i saw someone mentioned me
after the cleric cat costume :3
I was hoping the next mounted swordsman class wouldn’t have spear requirements. Maybe Lancer is going to be a hidden class that requires Cataphract3 similar to Priest3/Chaplain.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Well, if they stay true to their word along Rank8 Oracle is gonna get the ‘‘Change Sex’’ skill, so no need to reroll in this scenario if you have a female one but don’t wanna bother making a new character.
swordies have there hidden ya greedy ass goat
archers hidden inboundddddd WOOOO
Given the fact that you have to buy all-purpose rune slabs from the master (anyone got her name btw?) like some kid buying a chemistry set you can be a Rune Caster without even knowing how to write.
Hell, there’s a class that literally gives you the hability to write in a paper, wake up people all our characters don’t know how to write.
As per ‘‘lore’’ if anything expecting Lancers to be a mounted class is the only thing in a good track of speculation (alongside them using two handed spears, which is a good place to put Lances in) due to lancers being a cavarly type of unit back in the days.
Yeees… I’m aware of that. I’m saying I doubt that the skill will let you equip the outfit. It would be nice if it did though. Especially if it didn’t de-equip it after it wears off.
It’s more the fact that Lancer can only be a mounted spear class, and Cataphract is already a mounted spear class. They’re going to inevitably overlap. It doesn’t really make sense to have both any more than it would make sense to have Chaplain as a normal class instead of a hidden class tied to Priest.
And a Cataphract is just a Greek lancer. Lancer is a generic term for a heavy cavalry unit wielding a lance, hussars were also lancers, mounted knights were generally lancers, they all serve the same purpose of breaking through enemy lines with heavily armored charges. Cataphracts were essentially the origin of this tactic in antiquity, so yes, one could say that lancers as a whole were Cataphracts first.
Unless the Lancer in ToS is based on more modern, renaissance period light cavalry lancer divisions, which isn’t impossible considering musketeers and cannoneers and pistols, in which case they would be more aptly called dragoons (proper historical dragoons not final fantasy dragoons), be lightly armored (because they realized in the era of crossbows and pikes and firearms, armor didn’t do anything anymore so you might as well have faster cavalry), and use spear and pistol with abilities usable both mounted and unmounted. But that seems unlikely.
They mentioned in the interview that the skil lis being given to Oracle as a way to give players functionalities generally closed to NPC, in other words the effects will be permanent until you ask an Oracle to change again.
@SlyGoat You talk as if there wheren’t a bunch of overlap in weapon choices in this game as is, the only truly exclusive weapons this far are Cannons, Muskets and Rapiers.
Given the number of data mined classes it seems likely there will be more than one hidden class per archetype in the near future.
@Jariu [quote=“Jariu, post:8327, topic:125464”]
You talk as if there wheren’t a bunch of overlap in weapon choices in this game as is, the only truly exclusive weapons this far are Cannons, Muskets and Rapiers.
[/quote]
It’s not the weapon choice, it’s the theme of the class. Hoplite was meant to be more of a spear/shield class while Final-Fantasy-Dragoon has no inherent reason to use a shield, using either 1h spear or 2h spear, and Cataphracts are the mounted spear class. So unless Lancer really does end up being a spear/pistol class with both mounted and unmounted abilities (aka, a dragoon), I don’t see how they’ll differentiate it from Cataphracts (aka, Greek lancers).
And of course, just the fact that it’s another mounted Spear class means we’ve still got no option to go mounted as a non-spear class. Swordsman might as well be called Spearsman at this point considering how few viable endgame builds will use a sword.
Offtopic but it was artillery (canons/explosives) that caused armor reductions, not crossbows or firearms.
Armor reached a peak around the time of the war of the roses where it was so insanely effective that battles were won on fatigue, with battle lines hitting each other repeatedly while rotating men out of the front line to rest until the other side got too tired and fell over.
It was explosives and artillery that caused a shift towards mobility. Armor was beating all weaponry at its peak, including firearms of the time as they were only balls as opposed to bullets.
There are numerous examples of heavy drawn longbows and firearms failing against quality plate and chain over on YT. Crossbows were weak compared to longbows anyway, they came into popular use because they didn’t require 5+years of training and obscene strength to use them.
I would quite like to see some proper shock cavalry. I’m hoping lancer gives us that.
http://www.tosbase.com/game/classes/Hackapell/ ima go out on a limb and say the skills in here are for lancer then?
or is this game really becoming tree of mounted spear people
you get a mount and you get a mount and everyone gets a mount!!
Well, FF Dragoon’s equipment varies from game to game and player prefererence. Granted if you are relating directly to FFXIVs Dragoon then sure, but in older games the Dragoon (or Dragoon arquetype characters for the most part) lack the ‘‘Two Handed’’ Skill naturally and as such would by default equip their Spear alongside a Shield unless the player changes so with some games even picturing Dragoons or equivalent as fairly resiliant characters.
Real life Dragoons actually where well known for their usage of firearms (Muskets and the like, due to pistols being absolute as back then unles sthe other guy was right in front of you) alongside a Sabre of a sort as a sidearm in case close combat becomes necesary as they are light an easy to carry compared to the likes of a Spear, but we can’t shove to the sides the fact that the Spear/Firearm pair happened but I personally lack the general knoweldge to say for certain on this matter. But what I do know is that objectively a sword is a poor choice of weapon while being mounted compared to a Spear as this takes the most advantage out of your faster and higuer position due to being mounted.
A Sword, specially a one-handed Sword, is better suited as a sidearm rather than as your main weapon.
There’s a key point in the Lancer class being callad ‘‘Lancer’’ thought, a Lance is a type of Spear which can only be used effectively while mounted, sacrificing the throwing and speed capabilities of a regular Spear for higuer leverage and size aka range by comparission; to reflect this I’d expect them to get a ‘‘Mastery’’ attribute on Two-Handed spears much like Dragoon, maybe even the same atribute who knows.
Edit: I totally forgot Cataphract had one lol, that one is nice too.
If you think that the only viable endgame builds for Swordsman are Spear users then that’s just your way to see things, multiple builds have found success in Two-Handed Swords not to mention Fencer with Rapiers, a kind of One-handed sword.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I’m contemplating on taking my Sword C3, Rodelero C3 into Dragoon instead of Shinobi, but then… I took Sword C3 for Shinobi so meh.
Dragoon does give you both Spear masteries because there’s a fair assumption you don’t have one or both going into it.
Cataphracts weren’t greek lancers. Lances weren’t even a thing when they were around (Sassanid Dynasty Persia). In fact, if we were going full historical Cataphracts were mostly sword and shield fans in full scale armor.
Lancers being a non-mounted class would be weird, because as a weapon lances gain momentum from charging in to break through shields and armor and horses just let you do that. Expecting Lances to be an entirely different weapon like Rapiers, but everything’s still theorycrafting.
I’m more interested in Miko and Murmillo.
Few things: firing a musket from horseback while riding sounds like a nightmare, not to mention reloading it. Dragoons used hand blunderbusses, I say “pistol” because that is what it would be in the context of ToS. Said hand blunderbuss was actually called a dragon, which is where the term dragoon comes from. As cavalry units they were usually deployed with a lance, a dragon (hand blunderbuss/pistol), and a saber. Lances were ungodly efficient at mowing down enemies on foot while you ride them down, even if the foe in question was armored. The pistol would be held in the other hand to fire at someone on your other side while you lance his buddy and maybe trample someone inbetween, and then you would circle away from the melee to reload, maybe fetch another lance if you could because lances tended to break, and charge again. They were mounted skirmishers. The saber was a sidearm for when you were forced to dismount, your lance broke, or you had to fight another cavalry unit, because they could simply ride up next to you and render your lance useless. Dragoons were also specifically trained to fight on foot just as well as on horse, because as skirmishers it was inevitable that eventually they’d suffer a broken lance, drop their pistol, lose their horse, etc. and be stuck in a position where retreat was impossible.
But as to the lancer thing specifically, if they really did introduce a “lance” weapon that was wielded one-handed and had the power and reach of a two-handed spear while only being usable mounted, that would at least be an interesting differentiation from cataphracts.
Where do you get the idea that lances weren’t a thing? Because they weren’t called lances? Swords weren’t called swords but they were still swords. A lance is just a spear designed for use from horseback. I’ve never heard of cataphracts being armed with swords (though certainly they’d have swords as a sidearm), as they were a heavy horse unit so that would make little sense. All of the marble and bronze depictions I’ve seen of cataphracts have them wielding what I’d be very comfortable calling a lance.
Also, cataphracts certainly predate the Sassanid empire, the Persians were employing heavy horse as far back as the Achaemenid, and the concept of the heavily armored cavalry charge using lances originated in Greece, most notably with Alexander’s companion cavalry - as well as the word cataphract itself. Granted, the Romans were as far as I know the first to deploy the heavily armored horsemen all decked out in scale coats, armored horses and all, so perhaps I should’ve said “Roman lancers” instead. Or “Byzantine lancers,” maybe that would be the most fitting if you really want to constrain your definition of what a lance is.
The Byzantines evolved the two-handed kontos the Persians and Romans used - which itself was a progression of the xyston, again a cavalry spear used by Greek companions - into the kontarion, which was designed to be held in the same way as the lance later European knights would use, in one hand and couched under the arm. So yes, cataphracts and their cavalry spears were the precursors to later heavily armored knights and lances, and effectively they were lancer units. Even the word lance is from the Roman lancea, albeit that was a much shorter spear designed to be thrown.
If you’ve ever seen a recreation of a kontarion, you’d know that thing can only be considered a lance. There’s no way to wield it in any manner other than pointing it at something and riding towards it. So we’ll go with “Cataphracts were just Byzantine lancers,” if you’d prefer.
First of all, I did say I don’t know much on the matter of those guys. I may know a fair bit about sword and polearm techniques and designs but that doesn’t instantly make an historian, heck I don’t realy even like firearms that much to begin with soI’ve never gone to deep there.
Of course a soldier would be trained in all manners of combat that could be required on it’s context certainly.
Second of all, are we really having this conversation, really?
Like for real as per historical accuracy it’s absolutely not worth it to go beyond ‘‘it’s a nice reference’’ because let’s be completely honest here, that’s as deep as it goes.