Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SullyMcGully

  1. Alright! I added a Google Sheet. Let me know about any blanks I can fill in or any things you can confirm.
  2. /sub as long as it's after September 17th.
  3. Fire Emblem is infamous for frequently having bogus paralogue requirements, whether it's beating a turn limit in FE6, meeting random EXP requirements in FE7, or needing to kill off your units in FE11. The latest game in the series, Three Houses, has unfortunately continued this trend, and it has made paralogues in this game downright confusing. Multiple sites have information on how paralogues work in this game but a lot of that information is contradictory or inadequate. Therefore, my goal with this thread is to provide a place where we can work together to clear up 3 things about each of this game's paralogues: 1) What are the requirements for each paralogue? 2) On which routes can each paralogue be accessed? And 3) what changes about each paralogue depending on the route you're playing? Paralogue requirements are tied primarily to two things: having the proper units and being at a certain point in the story. The second of these requirements isn't really such a big deal. Anybody who has played through the game once before can understand why paralogues would have to be completed by the deadlines provided and why certain paralogues are not available until after certain events. However, knowing which units are required for each paralogue requires studying ahead. Before the timeskip, it appears that as long as you have just one of the required units for a paralogue recruited, the paralogue will be available. Other required units will be brought along for the mission, but if they have not been recruited, then they will simply be mission assistance units who don't gain EXP. However, after the timeskip, you will need to have all of the required units for a paralogue recruited into your ranks. I could go on a diatribe about how annoying it is to have to recruit Caspar (a unit Mercedes doesn't even support with) in order to unlock Mercedes' paralogue on the Blue Lions route but that is not the purpose of this thread. I merely want to avoid any unpleasant surprises where you discover that your unit's paralogue is locked because you didn't recruit a random member of another house. I've heard rumors that there are other factors locking certain paralogues, such as having Byleth's support with the required units at a certain level or having protected certain NPCs during missions. I believe these rumors are untrue but if I'm incorrect please let me know. Certain paralogues seem to be route-locked. In some cases this is obvious. For instance, Annette's paralogue requires both Annette and Gilbert to play and since Gilbert is available on the Blue Lions route only, Annette's paralogue will be unavailable on other routes. Hubert's paralogue will obviously only work on the Black Eagles!Edelgard route because that's the only one where Hubert is available post-timeskip. However, some of these route locks are less self-evident. I've heard reports that any paralogue featuring a unit who did not start as a member of the Black Eagles house will be unavailable on the Black Eagles!Edelgard route EVEN IF you have recruited that unit later yourself. I'm not sure if other anomalies like that exist. Lastly, paralogues seem to play out differently on different routes. For instance, Ingrid and Dorothea's paralogue seems to have different dialogue at the ending for Blue Lions and Black Eagles playthroughs. If you play as the Blue Lions, you get Luin. If you play as the Black Eagles, you get a Goddess Ring. This raises a lot of questions. Is the ending dialogue and item obtained dependent on which route you are playing or which character you have recruited? If the former, what happens if you play this mission as the Golden Deer? If the latter, what happens if you've recruited both Ingrid and Dorothea? From what I've heard, Petra and Bernadetta's paralogue is available on all routes, even though when I played it on my Black Eagles!Edelgard playthrough, they were very plainly Does the dialogue and enemy selection of this paralogue change depending on which route you are playing? My hope is that by discussing our experiences with the games paralogues, we can firmly establish how they are each unlocked and what changes in each one from one route to another. I look forward to hearing your input below! EDIT: I'm putting all the information I can confirm in this Google Sheet. I'm drawing a blank for a lot of things post-timeskip though. If there's anything in here you can confirm or that you believe is incorrect, let me know! Three Houses Paralogue Sheet
  4. Note regarding Dancers: just because you make a unit into a dancer and keep them in that class for the rest of the game doesn't mean you shouldn't consider certifying them in other classes. A lot of weaker units (read: Dorothea) benefit heavily from the defensive base stat boosts provided by advanced classes even if they never actually use those classes. An Advanced Seal is often as much a cheap stat booster as a means to change classes.
  5. This. Don't make the mistake I made on my first playthrough. I checked on the battalions I had equipped on characters lategame and I suddenly realized that the King of Lions Corp gave a 10 MT boost. And it wasn't the only battalion with crazy stat boosts. Suddenly not training Felix's authority at all looked really foolish. Also making Felix a Mortal Savant fixes the age-old issue of sword units: not being able to attack at range. He even gets 3 range utility with Thoron. Felix's magic growth isn't the best, but in this game a good many enemies have resistance so bad that they can get 1HKO'd by a professional mage, and Felix is pretty much guaranteed to double.
  6. I killed the Death Knight every time he showed up in my Hard!BE playthrough. Having a horseslayer really helps, though IDK if your can get one that early without NG+. Also use Gambits to get him down statwise so that he potentially will at least not double your units.
  7. -Battalions and Gambits: Battalions should stay at least on an aesthetic level. They look awesome. That said some battalions provide broken stat boosts and gambits are OP on player phase and just plain annoying on enemy phase. IMO battalions should be less focused on providing pair-up-esque stat boosts and more on providing unique tools to units. Gambit being an area-of-effect attack that can't be countered and blocks movement is just too much. A gambit could focus on just one of those things and still be useful. Finally, give incentives for not using a battalion if you're in a certain class. It never made sense to me that my super-stealthy assassins to have a noisy army of pegasus knights following them around. -Significantly reduced weapon limitations on classes: Keep this, and expand on it by creating even more classes with less stringent requirements. Remember how in Tellius Paladins could pick and choose which of the 4 main melee weapons they'd focus on? I want to see more options like that. What if I want to be a Great Knight but my unit fares better with lances than with axes? Why should my decent hybrid unit have to sacrifice all magic utility to be in a flying class? I like that we have more options, but it can go further than this. -Weapon level determining promotion: See above. -Gauntlets as a weapon type: Kinda OP, but the fact that you can't use them on horseback kinda makes it so you have to choose between having an OP offensive weapon or OP movement and Canto. Any incentive to not go Horse Emblem is appreciated. -Durability as a the resource for combat arts: This, along with the Blacksmith system, was good because it took weapon durability from being an annoying constraint that worried you to being an important limit to be used to strategic advantage. However most weapon-based combat arts (barring range extenders and effectiveness adders) hardly see any use outside of the early game. -Legendary weapons being usable by anyone but having additional affects when used with their prf users: It worked well with the story in this game but I'm not set on it existing in future games. -Paralogues being side character focused: Yes I like this a lot. My issue with the way it was implemented in this game is that some paralogues depended on you recruiting certain characters (and that wouldn't be an issue in a typical FE game where recruiting all of the playable characters in a single playthrough is completely normal.) Still, I didn't like how Mercedes' paralogue depended on you recruiting Caspar despite Caspar having... nothing to do with Merecedes or the content of the paralogue. Just seemed like an unnecessary complication. -Giant enemies: It was cool for this game. It reminded me of the GBA games where you'd have to fight giant enemies at the end and wonder in panic "how do I fight an enemy that takes up 9 spaces?" I like that there was a structure to killing giant enemies in this game. However, I wish there was more variety in the types of monsters and more creativity in taking them down. -Tomeless Magic regenerating each map: I liked this, though I feel like certain tomes need to be readjusted. Running out of magic was too easy early game and too difficult lategame. Characters in the beginning with only a Thunder spell were good for 4 attacks before they were useless, while characters later in the game had so many different spells that they had no incentive to ever use some of them. -Enemy aggro indicators: These were convenient, but in Easy Mode they locked enemy AI into doing things that intelligent enemies wouldn't have done (and intelligent players would have known to plan for) and in Hard Mode they were often inaccurate, as the AI would choose to do the smart thing instead of the thing their indicator had said they would do. -3D exploration: I liked Garreg Mach a lot. I could make an entire topic about how much fine-tuning it needs though. Also I miss the explorable dungeons (and semi-explorable villages) of SoV. Once you figured out where everything was, Garreg Mach was less like an environment to explore and more like a 3D menu. I like 3D exploration and Garreg Mach is better than nothing, but I'd prefer something that actually changes over time. -Zooming: I loved this, but it was always very difficult to actually play the game while zoomed in. Also I feel like ideally, it shouldn't have to cut to battle scenes.
  8. Multiple quests in the game give you access to weak battalions like "Kingdom Youths" or "Bandits". Is there something I'm missing about these? They're incredibly weak and generally outclassed by other battalions at the same rank. And you keep getting these battalions well into the game, when none of your characters would be using E-rank battalions in the first place. Is there something more to this or are they just useless battalions?
  9. Greil is better from a lore perspective. While in most aspects the lore and backstory in 3H outdoes anything we've previously seen in Fire Emblem games, this is one area where it falls flat. We hear a lot about how legendary "Blade Breaker" Jeralt (and even his child "Ashen Demon" Byleth) are in the mercenary world, but we hear relatively little about his actual exploits. After Jeralt dies, he pretty much fades from the story altogether. Whereas long after Greil dies, his actions continue to be brought up. The information he conveys posthumously through Volke is a major plot point in PoR. He's an important part of the Black Knight's character arc for reasons we don't even truly figure out until the RD endgame. While Jeralt burns brightly and then dies out, we spend the remainder of two games following Greil's death figuring out just how important of a character he really was. That said, as far as personalities go, I like Jeralt more. He feels a lot more fatherly than Greil. While Greil seems unnecessarily strict and harsh at times and rarely opens up emotionally, Jeralt is a jovial, honest, and good-natured character who likes to laugh, drink, and brag about their kid. Jeralt feels like a dad doing his best to raise an emotionless child born under questionable circumstances. Greil is a lot more closed-off, and while he loves his kids, he rarely shows it. I feel like Greil's death was handled better though. Way cooler to die fighting than to die getting stabbed by a random kid. Though one thing I hear a lot is that "if a puny knife like that could kill Jeralt then he must have been pretty weak." Doesn't Manuela say afterwards that it wasn't an ordinary knife? And Monica isn't an ordinary kid either. Jeralt dying due to an unusual, unexpected stab wound isn't unexplainable, it's just significantly less cool than dying battling the Black Knight. I feel like both cases are good examples of how much better Fire Emblem handles important deaths than other games though. In a lot of JRPGs death scenes are often overdramatized and then the game rushes to leave them behind. Often times you don't feel like characters got a chance to really mourn. I've played games where an entire civilization gets destroyed and nobody really stops to give it a second thought. Greil and Jeralt are each mourned in their own way. In Greil's case we see characters like Ike and Titania let down their emotional guards for brief moments, which is a rare treat. With Jeralt you get to walk through the monastery and see how each character reacts to Byleth's loss. In PoR Greil's death is followed by one of the most tense battles in the game (IMO in the entire series) as the emotionally ragged mercenaries are forced to fight for their lives in a brutal survival map. In 3H your next mission after Jeralt's death allows you to vent your anger and (in a rare show of impulsiveness from Byleth) get revenge on the very villains who took your father from you. In conclusion, both deaths rank very highly among my favorite video game deaths. I feel like I like Jeralt as a character more, but Greil has greater story significance. That said, Greil got two games to flesh out his backstory. I'd totally be down to play a prequel to 3H with Jeralt as your main character.
  10. Honestly I'd be completely fine with this whole "Master classes are side-grades" deal if it weren't for one thing: Movement. Like, it's generally agreed that Catherine fits best as a Swordmaster. However, in this game Swordmasters only have 5 MOV meaning she'll be falling behind my other units. If only there weren't that MOV disadvantage, I'd be fine with considering Master Classes and Advanced Classes as being more-or-less on the same level. Basically, most of your traditional Fire Emblem classes are already in this game. They just have various issues that make being in them feel awkward. This is definitely not the most intuitive class system we've seen in FE history.
  11. I think so. Actually, it seems like you can get more than one dancer in a route using NG+... I wonder if there are any restrictions with that...
  12. 1. What's your biggest worry about FE3H? 2. What's your biggest hope about FE3H? 3. Is it true that you used to be a moderator and mafia player on Smogon? 4. What's a mechanic from older FEs you want to return in the future? 5. What's a mechanic from older FEs you never want to see again? 6. If you were an FE character what would be your class? 7. If you were an FE character what would be your best stat? 8. If you were an FE character what would be your worst stat? 9. Ever play Harudoku's Discord-based FE game? 10. Best advice for a wannabe FE fangame designer?
  13. I will /in if it is necessary for the game to start but don't expect much from me in that case.
  14. /sub
  15. Isn't there usually like an actual poll? ##Vote: @Bartozio Heh.
  16. So you mean to tell me you didn't let JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL?
  17. So I learned something interesting today: 1 in 25 Americans claims to have had a "near-death experience" or NDE. An NDE is when someone on the verge of death (flatlining, slipping into a coma) has an unexplainable vision of something like an afterlife. Things in common among many NDEs include people seeing themselves be operated on in the third person, people seeing deceased loved ones and relatives, a bright light, feelings of peace and aliveness, and even being offered a choice between staying in "the afterlife" or returning to reality. Even some hardened scientists believe these NDEs provide evidence for the hereafter. I'd heard stories, but up until now, I hadn't seen that statistic. NDEs are a lot more common than I thought. Do any of you feel like you or somebody you know had an NDE? Do you believe NDEs are real? Please share your opinions below!
  18. Perhaps. But I would consider ignorance rather hard to define and additionally hard to correct. Even if you took everyone's emotions out of the equation, people would still arrive at a plethora of opposing viewpoints. There isn't a perfect solution to everything, even in ideal circumstances. I think that's just how things are naturally. But the thing here is even educated people disagree. My brother-in-law went to Princeton, Oxford, and Harvard, graduating close to the top of his class in each. He's currently a high-ranking law clerk on path to eventually becoming a district judge. And he would disagree with you (who if I recall is also a well-educated lawyer) on a ton of political matters. He hasn't been sheltered from opposing viewpoints and he doesn't have strong emotional reasons tying him down. In fact, when he entered Princeton, he was an atheist socialist. He actually became a Christian conservative as a by-product of his higher education. My point here is, what kind of education are you suggesting would get people to see your point of view? The highest educational institutions in the land produce people on both extremes.
  19. Excuse me, you're the person who said this earlier aren't you? You see I don't think you understand. When you treat a significant group of people (most of who you have never met) like they are your mental inferiors, it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong. You've put yourself in a position of superiority and arrogance which is not helping to bring about a peaceful end to the situation and you are ignoring the underlying reasons for why people believe what they believe. Do you automatically assume that since you believe you're right and these people seem to you to be wrong that it is a battle of good and evil? I want you to visualize your own passion and then superimpose it on one of those nameless members of the groups you disagree with. That's how a lot of them feel. They think they're good and you're evil. There are reasons they feel this way. So how does this situation end? Hatred? Suppression? Civil war? Politics are merely a vehicle for hatred in this instance. Yes, there are groups who can't logically be conceded to. I'd say just about any group that already uses terror/violence to their ends should be punished, and not compromised with. But there are also many, many others I feel are only radical because they see the other side as radical. People who won't concede because they (rightly so) think you think you're better than them. All human interactions should be tempered by the fact that most people aren't evil for the heck of it. People are evil because of the evil that has been done to them and the environment they've been exposed to. In short, these people are still people. Dehumanizing your enemy is the first step to causing another Holocaust-like tragedy. And I feel like when we dismiss our enemies as being "unworthy of consideration or respect" we are little better than they are.
  20. I think the biggest threat to democracy is polarization. Tocqueville wrote of how he saw "the tyranny of the majority" as the bane of all democracies. The way world politics work right now, it is no longer a matter of "I disagree with you on politics, but I understand why you see things the way you do and respect that." It has become more of a matter of "YOUR SIDE IS EVIL! YOU SUPPORT THE MURDER OF UNBORN CHILDREN/THE END OF GAY MARRIAGE AND THERE IS NOTHING UNDERSTANDABLE OR SYMPATHETIC ABOUT YOUR CAUSE! THERE CAN BE NO FREEDOM UNTIL YOU AND YOUR PARTY ARE PURGED FROM EXISTENCE!" Which of course will only fire up the other side and create more support for radicals like Trump who are ill-equipped to compromise and treat their political enemies as human beings worthy of respect. People seem to have a mindset of "if we can destroy the other side, everything will be OK" when that isn't how it is. You'll never destroy the other side. At most, you may de-legitimize their political power, but that results in "the tyranny of the majority," which is a minority being ruled against its will. That situation is a powder keg waiting to explode. Ideally, I would like to see people in world politics moving towards conciliation. It means people in power on both the left and right need to acknowledge that people are emotionally attached to their ideals, and that instead of trying to humiliate the people they disagree with, they need to reach out and understand that they have concerns that the government should be addressing too. People think the key to prosperity lies in making a government that only ever has to worry about making the left happy, or the right happy. A realistically successful government needs to balance the needs of both sides. Ignoring and marginalizing a side just leads to catastrophes.
  21. NATALIE! After all this time you are still the most adorablest! Stupid lucky Hatti...
  • Create New...