GilliamYaeger
M'crazy.
It's also because most bosses are completely immune to debuffs and the fights where those debuffs do work - ie random encounters - aren't hard enough to bother.
VI and it's a combination of factors at play there, but the games going forward from there carried on with most of them. Resource management took a backseat on more than one level, random encounters dropped in difficulty and your tools to deal with them were overall stronger and more spammable, and bosses were mostly blanket immune.Final Fantasy gets flack for buffs and debuffs not being important, and looking at the first few games I don't really see it…when did that start
All abilities that survived into Octopath as well!Ranger appears to be a bow-focused attacker with high agility. Its special ability, 'Barrage,' allows it to use a bow to attack every enemy on screen, for reduced individual damage. Thief can steal stuff from enemies. Knight has some kind of 'guard' ability … And Scholar has an ability to scan enemy HP and weaknesses and to improve the effectiveness of items,
I'm not immediately finding info on the pixel remaster but in both the NES and DS games it is differently effective versions of 'the Knight takes a lot less damage'.Thief can steal stuff from enemies. Knight has some kind of 'guard' ability and I am not clear on how it works in Pixel Remaster because it appears to have changed a lot between the NES original, the DS port and PR?
Usually the "automatically defend characters with HP in the critical range" skill is called Cover, AFIKI'm not immediately finding info on the pixel remaster but in both the NES and DS games it is differently effective versions of 'the Knight takes a lot less damage'.
It's unclear from some wiki diving whether it also adds 'the knight protects critically injured allies by tanking hits' (critically injured meaning below 1/16th of max hp) or whether that's completely passive without needing to Guard. I know that in the next final fantasy game with a Knight class that's a separate passive, but in that game Guard just full hard stops physical attacks but does nothing to magical which is apparently not how it works in 3.
I don't remember for sure, but it was probably Final Fantasy IV, AKA the west's Final Fantasy II, which had its difficulty intentionally and severely nerfed.
The DS Version undoes those nerfs and it shows.
It feels to me like, over time, as part of distancing itself from its D&D/Wizardry roots, Final Fantasy has made a conscious effort to abandon the race spread of the early game. In FFXIV, the Elezen are very obviously some kind of elf, but the Lalafell, the resident "small people" race, are more like… weird halflings/gnomes than they are dwarves, and when one of the later expansions introduces a distant region in which the lalafell are called dwarves, there's significant work going into changing their aesthetic. And that's FFXIV; from my recollection, in FFVII and FFVIII there are only humans and human-looking people, and in FFIX there's… the protagonist is a Saiyan and then a bunch of Weird Stuff like Freya being a… fox lady? Rat person?
Which was a goddamn mistake because they did it wrong the first time and continued to do it wrong after. Handing literally everything but sometimes party buffing off to the skill system was a terrible idea. No, I'm not mad about how utterly miserable playing a full magic party in DQIX was, why do you ask?Dragon Quest didn't bring non-spell abilities in until Dragon Quest 6 in '95 at the tail end of the SNES.
Meaning aside from Ur and Akuz, there are only two places for me to visit
Thinking about it, I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that it never did and the belief that it did comes from people who didn't want to engage with those systems just grinding until they could numberslam everything.Final Fantasy gets flack for buffs and debuffs not being important, and looking at the first few games I don't really see it…when did that start?
See I can tell you're a series veteran because you actually bring up Disruptive Wave. Though I disagree with the assertion that it makes buffs pointless because DQ AI isn't reactive and thus has to wait until the game randomly lets them use it.While it does take debuffs seriously, post-8 Dragon Quest games DO make buffs basically pointless; every boss has a "wipe out all your buffs" move they use pretty much every turn if they can thanks to DQ bosses getting multiple moves per turn, and there are lower-mp options to make them lose a move.
Thinking about it, I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that it never did and the belief that it did comes from people who didn't want to engage with those systems just grinding until they could numberslam everything.
Which, incidentally, is the source of a lot of claims about JRPGs being mindless grindfests. Dragon Quest in particular gets that a lot from people who never even think to engage with the debuffs the games expect you to be using because they've had "JRPG debuffs bad" drilled into their heads for so long they don't question it.
Funny you should mention action economy, considering what major change to FF battle systems is gonna happen in the next game...All in all it just comes down to the brutal efficiency of action economy in turn based games.
I don't know when it shows up, but I have distinctive memories of my childhood self struggling to understand how the ATB system worked.Funny you should mention action economy, considering what major change to FF battle systems is gonna happen in the next game...
But we'll take ten turns to that bridge's one when we get to it.
Funny you should mention action economy, considering what major change to FF battle systems is gonna happen in the next game...
But we'll take ten turns to that bridge's one when we get to it.
False. Level 5 death originated several years earlier, inFinal Fantasy 5.Level 5 Death originated in that game, and there it was a map cleaner.