mikalj

I do not believe either are in the game, but why should that matter if we are considering how to fix the class? I appreciate that +20 is probably overkill, but it would allow for a unit that is going 'against type' to be useful in the class - you could maybe use Yuri this way on Hard mode if you were having fun.

With so little offensive white magic, Heal +10 and White Tombefaire is clashing a little; maybe just combine them into Heal+20, in line with class progression? And for a niche, it would be cool if they got Rally Spectrum as the third skill, after Canto

Thanks for the feedback! I was hoping that in the overall scheme of things, the movement classes would be preferable at the Intermediate and Advanced level, but then eclipsed as combat classes by the time that units were able to get into buffed specialist Master classes. This would be balanced out by the fact that learning an alternative weapon and movement type delays progress in the major weapon that the powerful Master class uses. Certainly either path should be achievable over the course of a campaign, more so than trying to get to Great Knight. Additionally, would the moving of the Faire skills to the weapon classes (away from the movement classes) give enough of a baseline power vs. delayed skill reward within each tier? I think beginning with the GBA games mean that I have an aversion to the movement classes being the best combat classes when possible. Clearing every map with Seth and Marcus is the manner of gameplay I only want to do once.

I was about to post my own class overhaul topic, so I'll just jump in here instead. The thought for designing an overhaul was the fact that the Special classes feel like Master-type classes at the Advanced levels. Growth and stat modifiers are not being considered as part of the changes yet (nor base stats and movement). All classes are considered gender-unlocked apart from wyvern and pegasus being male and female variants. Beginner Classes: Move Lord down to this tier and make Authority the only requirement. Additionally gives Charm +2 as an ability on mastery. That would allow the lord units to mechanically stand out a bit in the early game without diverting them to swords. Intermediate Classes: Thematically separate these out into 'movement classes' and 'weapon classes'. The movement classes give the Blow skills on Mastery: Armor gives Armored; Peg/Wyv gives Darting; Cavalier gives Death; then make Troubadour and a pre-Dark flier class to have Warding and Fiendish respectively. The weapon classes give a similar rag-tag set of bonuses, some of which are stolen from Advanced: Steal/Wrath/Vantage/Unarmed/Hit/Renewal/Miracle. Make Mercenary a Lance class because foot lance units are unloved in the series as a whole. These are weaker or more situational skills, but the classes require less investment to get into. Advanced Classes: In large part, do a swap with the Master list - push all the single-discipline classes to level 30 and these shall be the more flexible but ultimately weaker classes, to match the Special ones. All the 'movement classes' top out here (you might have noticed I mentioned a weaker Wyvern Rider in the above tier - Lord will now be an Advanced class, but both will be de-tuned a little to match). For the movement classes: balance them around the Special ones in strength, with each combination of physical/magical and flying/riding represented. Fortress gets Wary Fighter, similar to lenticular's idea. Maybe even make a dumb Faith/Armor class if symmetry's important to you. For the weapon classes: get rid of all the specialist ones, and have Assassin, Hero, War Master and Mortal Savant joined with one other class. The various weapons are split across the span of these, and each class gets both relevant Faire skills, and a Seal attribute skill on mastery. Gremory can be here too (with balanced stats, as with others), but I'd give it the highest entry requirements because getting both magics to a similar rank by level 20 seems more acheiveable than getting two weapon proficiencies. Master Classes: All footlocked, I think it would be cool for each weapon to have a specialised Master class: Swordmaster/Warrior/Grappler/Sniper/Warlock/Bishop and a footlance class (Halberdier?). Each get a Mastery skill as the class skill; essentially Faire+Crit skills wrapped up like the Prowess ones are. Also put all the the Breaker skills in here, as well as some relevant extra skill (like Crit +20 for Warrior). Completing the class gives a Defiant skill and the best combat art for the weapon (I think this moves War Master's Strike to Warrior, but we can rename it). I'd maybe balance Astra with the others, it's been a while since I bothered with the Swordmaster class. Black Magic Classes: Instead of being gender-locked, I'd make it locked to the units that use Black Magic: Edelgard/Lysithea/Hubert/Hapi/Jeritza. It still requires Dark Seal. Death Knight becomes a Special class for these units, but gets Range+1 instead of Counterattack, which moves to the Dark Bishop class. Unique Classes: As others have mentioned, Edelgard's should get the option to use magic, and Dimitri's should either get a mount or a reduction in terrain penalties. I'd also like to see Byleth get an extra class at the same time the Lords do - give Keen Intuition and on mastery provide a White magic combat art. I've found that Byleth struggles for certifications in NG, so this allows them to keep up a little bit, but the combat art is a bonus for NG+ when White Magic A is a bit more attainable. Obviously I've skipped over the true work of balancing, which is in the stat distributions, but I was mostly searching for the opportunity to figure out what the classes would have looked like if they were all realeased at the time of Ashen Wolves.

Rutger is just everything that the GBA games are meant to be: a crit machine with great-feeling animations.

There's also the cut content of the Azure Moon house splitting up post-timeskip, with at least Felix and Annette leaving you. (There may have been a third student, but I do not remember.) There're recorded dialog for it, and map placements for them when they're not in your party/dead in a later AM map.

Yeah I was really disappointed with Scotland against the Czechs especially - I feel the same in that if they had played with the same intensity against them as they had against the English then they could have taken the game. The loss of Gilmour against the Croats was a big one, I wanted to see him neutralise Modric and level out the quality between the sides. It's also a shame because I really rated Clarke while he was a club manager, but I feel like some of his tactical choices were odd and perhaps the games could have gone differently if he had more directly tackled some of the opposition threats. However, being the only team to expose how average England's side was (tactically, especially) is something Scotland should hold their head up high over, even if outright celebrating it seems a bit overboard. Italy 100% deserved it, they won the tough side of the draw and were the better finalists. A weaker side without Spinazzola, but still the most interesting Italy team I've seen in a while. England's celebrating over beating Germany was definitely the worst over-hyping in the tournament. Knowing how long German fans have wanted Low out of his job, they're no-where near the side of 2014. Denmark had been playing really well, but they looked too tired to see out the tournament - if they'd have had to play a 3rd place game I think Spain would have destroyed them. I understand where you're coming from on the commentry/punditry side of things. Football's obsession with celebrity coverage makes it one of the weakest-presented sports, in my opinion. I'm not saying that ex-professionals don't have a place in sports coverage, but football ones are particularly biased. I really like badminton coverage, which has English and Dane representation for the English-language commentary in major matches - and although they're both former players, the sport is so low-profile that they have to provide insightful coverage to earn their position. Rugby League can similarly have good coverage when the staff aren't presenters drafted in from other sports for finals to help 'recognisability'. Formula 1 is a mixed bag; most of the analysts are somewhat impartial, but the lead commentator especially has British bias - even though they're technically fronting global English-language coverage. Tennis is the other sport I know with commentary I don't like, and it's similarly the mix of feeling the need to lean in to nationality coverage (like Raducanu this Wimbledon) and ex-players being in the box to boost recognition. People can find impartial commentators quite dry, but yeah - it's pretty exclusionary when you don't share a bias. It's true at club-level football too, co-commentators especially are just full of past-club-bias that makes watching as a neutral pretty insufferable. And I absolutely agree that abuse of sportspeople is deplorable, as was the laser-pointer incident. Not a problem exclusively for any one group of fans in any one sport, these people should be exposed as individuals and not allowed to hide behind a group identity. Heard one guy had his uni place revoked for abuse directed at Rashford - that seems the kind of responsibility people need to take for their garbage behaviour.

Don't take a read on British life from the amount of antagonism you see online. As others have said, the media focus and hype is far more than anything than you'd ever encounter in person. 'The English media' is generally the British media (with the exception of regional papers, since there's very few - if any - regional television stations). The perception of the media being 'English' stems from its heavy London bias - something that's as much an annoyance to English people in Leeds and Plymouth as it is to non-English people in Glasow, Cardiff and Belfast. The BBC do have more large regional offices now, with regular major programming coming from Glasgow Quay and Salford among other places, but the London-culture is hard to shift. There's also limited demand for it to shift to too regional a model when the population of London alone is larger than that of Scotland and Wales combined. r/ScottishFootball had lots of anti-English content through the Euros, but it doesn't represent how the vast majority of Scottish people interacted with anyone English in their presence during the same period; that's the same phenomenon of apparent 'insufferability' in reverse. The main difference is that English people wouldn't have seen The National's depicion of Mancini as Braveheart before it went viral because it doesn't circulate in front of them. That being said, neither would have many Scottish people... it's not really a widely circulating rag. Ultimately, being an English person living in Scotland or a Scottish person living in England isn't going to factor into conversation much. If England had won the tournament, it's highly unlikely that any English person living in Scotland would have made a meal about it for a year because people tend not to act in a way that gets them kicked out of their social circles.