Original System [PEACH] Fire Emblem Fates Inspired Forum Play by Post System.

[Hammerpriest]

Hello everyone.

I've been a Forum Emblemier for a while now, playing Fire Emblem Play by Post games all over the internet for about 7 years. These have ranged from Freeform RP, to straight up Fire Emblem on a forum, and I think after all this time I'm ready to throw in my hat as a Forum Emblem GM. To facilitate this, I've created this system that draws from many different Fire Emblem games in order to give the feeling of the more recent games, while still remaining as balanced as the GBA games could be at times. I drew particular inspiration from aje8's setup, and by proxy, Thesummoner's setup over from the Giant in the Playground Forum, but have thrown in some Fates style changes as well.

[spoiler=Here's the link to the google doc]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RXZgfU-7QhKv-Oi0d03hpVgFaoPfT3kRPNvrADDIE0I/edit?usp=sharing

Frequently Asked Questions:

Q: What does PEACH stand for?
A: Please Evaluate and Criticize Honestly.

Q: Why do Trainees have lowered growths? Aren't they supposed to start weak and grow strong?

A: This is something of a misconception that pops up a lot. Trainees grow stronger because they get 10 more levels than other characters plus promotion bonuses when they promote. The Three Trainees from Sacred Stones actually have pretty poor growths and bases to offset this. What you might be thinking of is an Est or Nino archetypal character. A character who joins much later than the others and at a much lower level than the party average in exchange for sizable growth bonuses.

Q: Why haven't you doubled HP investment like most systems?

A: I have adjusted both the growths and base stat totals to account for the minimum HP thresholds which often are the reason for the HP investment doubling in the first place.

Q: Why is there a minimum on growth rates?

A: Minimums prevent players from dumping weaker stats into oblivion for massive unintended benefits such as sword users dumping skill, or everyone dumping luck.

Q: Why is X class penalized/benefited by the base stat rules?

A: My goal was to bring parity to classes in a way that didn't cripple their unique strengths and to compensate knights for the loss in movement. Movement is king, and those with more need to have meaningful tradeoffs. One to Two range units don't have to worry about an awful Enemy Phase offense by being defenseless like Archers against melee or melee against ranged, so they have to pay for the massive leap in versatility. Fliers already pay for flight by losing all terrain bonuses and being weak to a common weapon type. Mages hit a defense stat that is almost nonexistant on the majority of the classes, can counter in melee, can attack at range, and often have solid utility tomes. My changes to bases align with the core series and most Homebrews of FE games. In particular, despite mages receiving large penalties (-5 base stats, -20% growths) this is a straight buff from the gigantic base and growth penalties they have in Fire Emblem Fates.

Q: Why not both Strength and Magic? Why only one?

A: Hybrid classes are by their very nature, insanely difficult to balance. Because they have to split their bases and stats between two different offensive stats, hybrid characters often teeter on the brink of being overpowered by being able to hit every unit in their weak spots at all times, or being able to barely do competent damage to any unit because they're all over the place. Fates and Awakening try to solve this by loading up the hybrids with tons of free stats and growths to bring them to parity for the other classes, but I personally feel that someone shouldn't be rewarded for being versatile with more stats to increase their reliability. In the end, I couldn't find a way to meaningfully implement hybrids in both a satisfying and balanced way, so I had to make the compromise to cut them out entirely.

Q: Why no weapon durability?

A: I'm gonna be honest here. Weapon durability has always been an insignificant hindrance to 99% of Fire Emblem players save for LTC runs of certain games in the series. Either you got to shop in between chapters making it needless bookkeeping, or you just wasted a turn ferrying an item mule back and forth. I've opted to save players and myself the headache. This does mean that I needed other balancing levers to pull from which is why...

Q: What are these odd effects on weapons?

A: Drawing inspiration from Fates, I've used add effects and add penalties to weapons in order to fine tune each weapon class to have a niche. I don't know if they're all 100% balanced, but I could definitely use advice here.

Q: Why aren't you using Fates style Weapon Triangle Advantages and Disadvantages based on rank?

A: I'm not using this because it's a real pain to manage all the bookkeeping. It also obfuscates the significance of the weapon triangle until much later when the player has already been conditioned to ignore it because the effects are so minor which is why I use the series standard +/- 15 hit +/- 1 Might.

Q: Why are you using pre Fates stat calculations?

A: Fates has very awkward stat calculations such as (Skill/2)-2 for crit rate or 3(Speed/2) for avoid. Not to mention the humongous luck nerfs. To keep things simple, I am using the GBA/GC formulas.

Q: Incapacitation? Why not permadeath? Barring that, why not just let players come back for free?

A: Dying and losing a character isn't fun. While the element of tension and suspense of hitting 0 hp must exist for the game to have meaningful consequences, Forum Emblem games with one and done death systems tend to die very, very quickly due to player attrition. This element still leaves death on the table as a meaningful consequence, but also makes it so one bad crit doesn't end a character and an entire game.

Q: What are these Status Effects?

A: They are a framework for either other people wanting to add items and weapons in that cause them, or an element that is easily stripped out by those who do not. I felt that their inclusion outweighed the negatives so I added them in, though they are incredibly rare.

Q: X Class isn't here and it's my favorite! What gives?

A: I am using a very heavily modified version of the Fates class trees that brings it more in-line with the GBA and GC classes. I also renamed classes to their classic names to foster a feeling of nostalgia. If you really want to be a samurai, feel free to rename myrmidon on your name plate, or thief for ninja and so on.

Q: Do these unpromoted class bonuses like Myrmidon's Crit +5 stack or get replaced by a promoted class's benefits?

A: They stack. So Myrmidon to Swordmaster gets Crit +15, Avo +10 for example. These are based off the Fates bonuses, but slightly modified along franchise lines.

Q: What are Class Base Growths? Do I have to set my growths as these?

A: Class Base Growths are growth rate bonuses added on top of your character's personal growths to reinforce the intended roles of each class.

Q: What are Class Base Stats? Do I have to use these?

A: While generic unnamed mooks do in fact use these, you do not have to. They exist as a means of calculating Promotion bonuses.

Q: What are promotion bonuses and how do I calculate them?

A: As mentioned in the doc, Promotion bonuses are found by subtracting the base stats from your intended promotion choice and your current class. In rare cases, this does mean that some stats can go down on promotion, though I tried to make this as uncommon as possible,

Q: Why don't daggers have status debuffs?

A: Raw stat debuffs that are dynamic and changing every turn on potentially multiple units a turn on both phases, mid phase are a massive bookkeeping headache.

Q: What are braces?

A: Similar to earlier FE games in the series, I tried to give dancers a bit more to do than just being a refresh bot. I gave them other strong utility tools that should see them making more significant choices in combat other than just "refresh the biggest hitter."

ERRATA:

Q: What exactly does the Retainer system do for me, and why add it?
A: Forum Emblems that I've seen and participated in offer suffer from two major problems as I've mentioned earlier. The retainer system doesn't solve either problem, but it blunts both player attrition and player density. By offering more units tied to player performance and RP, more goal is to encourage players to experience all the game has to offer on hand,

As for what they do, they can be deployed to the player's current map as a unit, deployed to a side map the players chose to pass up to still reap some benefits or serve as a replacement PC in case a player dies.

Q: Who creates the retainers? Do Players get to decide on their backstories if they do?
A: It's up to the player. If while RP'ing, they feel like an NPC would make a good retainer of theirs, they can take it up with me and we'll discuss whether it's appropriate in the context of the RP. If it is, I will decide the NPC's backstory, but still allow the player to build the characters stats within their pre-existing class if they had one. Otherwise, the PC fully creates the retainer and is in full control of their backstory. They can either RP them themselves, or let me RP them.

Q: Why an MvP system?
A: I wanted to reward the players for being exceptional in both RP and playstyle. I've seen other Forum Emblems use this system and wanted to give it a go.

Q: Why change Weapon Mastery bonuses?
A: I've folded weapon proficiency bonuses into the base stats of weapons to discourage sticking to primarily lower ranked weapons only and to encourage moving on up the weapon world. This also lowers general bookkeeping and should serve as a net gain to the system.

Q: Why lower enemy base stats?
A: So that players don't have to struggle to just kill a group of 2 or 3 enemies until higher level.

And that's all. Let me know what you think/give me advice/criticism in the posts below. Thank you for reading!

Edited May 14, 2016 by Hammerpriest

[eclipse]

We've got a lot of FE-style RPs running around right now. Take a gander at 'em and see how yours is similar/different!

[Terrador]

A couple of notes, as someone who's been involved in the CREATIVE PROCESSES for FERP before and doesn't have the literal worst eye for design and balance.

Growth minimums matter, yes, but stacking bases into important stats is still Totally A Thing, and is especially rewarded by the fact that very rarely will a forum game extend for a long period. There are a lot of design elements I like in this game, but it doesn't address the "stack thwomp/offense, get bitches" problem of characters being capable of going nuclear for a certain role.

Similarly, I suspect Trainees are underpowered; their caps are so very low, as are their bases, that one shovels an enormous amount of EXP into them for almost no reward. Have you playtested it yet? Like, just run an EXTREMELY bare-bones half-dozen maps with one player (and widely-contributed test builds) and see how things turn out? I'd highly recommend it; you'll soon see "oh hey this is really buff" "oh hey this build isn't super tenable", and act accordingly.

Not all stats are created equal, especially under these parameters; why bother investing in Skill and Luck bases when I can rely on a Bronze's +10 Dodge and enormous HIT to carry me until the growths kick in? That said, increasing difficulty does begin to mitigate some of these problems; even without high LCK enemies still get dodgy, they have high CRT by way of being reliable, and high ATK makes DEF stacking less ridiculous. Let's say everyone has 40 HP and 20, 15, and 10 DEF. If enemy ATKs run 20~25 that 20 DEF is almost invincible; if they run more to the tune of ~30-35 it's a very different story. High difficulty comes with its own problems, but it is an element of design that needs to be considered, and an emergency patch for unforseen design elements rearing their ugly heads.

Incidentally, you may want to increase EXP falloff (and change base EXP accordingly); when the party tank is getting 3 EXP a kill she's a lot less likely to be fed half the map deliberately. Further, I think Fatigue is a bit underpowered; a knockdown barely matters at all, unless you want to run a viciously difficult game where the danger is not in avoiding a character death, but in avoiding a wipe of the entire party. Finally, it appears that supports aren't codified.

All in all, as it stands the game is entirely playable; certainly better than my first attempts at design, but that still ran passably! Playtest it, make test builds, ask your friends (and your enemies!) to look for weaknesses. The new bard classes seem just Outright Fun (though as a note: a large pile of money could be used to powerlevel a pair of Muses or Virtuosos), and I look forward to seeing where it goes!

[Thany]

i havent read the google docs yet, but im slightly interested in this idea based off the FAQ i read so far. i might join this one once i read more information into it.

[sairyu]

Just a quick response to the above concerns by Terrador before Hammerpriest gets around to it.

1. In previous games we found that the nuclear offense option does not actually work as well as might be expected. While players may kill things quickly, they also tend to die very quickly (see: the introduction of the incapacitation rule). Similarly, trainees tend to spike in power around the time that they promote to a base class, and at their strongest at around 10th level, falling back in line with the average power curve of the party around level 20. Trainees are meant to be played around by the party, and they do tend to actually become useful reasonably quickly - when they don't die.

The most irritating stat stacking that I've encountered is the 9MAG, 5LCK, 9DEF, 9RES cleric/priest*, with all other stats dumped into HP. I believe that's why Hammerpriest has moved a good portion of growths into class chassis's.

2. EXP falloff generally begins to occur once PCs hit 8th level unless the DM is scaling enemies completely to their level. We've found that PCs will generally get to +5 or so levels of the average enemy level and then stop leveling with any modicum of speed. I personally scaled enemies up around an average baseline of 5th level for a professional soldier in the setting. Alternatively, some people scale to average party level in order to keep a steady rate of EXP progression.

3. Concerning incapacitation, Hammerpriest neglected to mention that a recovered unit is supposed to deploy back at the supply tent or initial deployment zone. This mechanic is meant to punish the party by causing them to lose turns rather than making the fatigued unit steadily more unusable. Due to its nature, it is obviously less punishing on 'annihilate' maps, whileon timed maps the recovered unit may actually never make it to the objective in a reasonable time frame.

Edit: I'm not sure how Hammerpriest wants to do further testing and will leave that for him to respond to.

Edited May 11, 2016 by sairyu

[AnonymousSpeed]

...*ahem* While I don't have any of the qualifications Terrador does, uh...I read over it and I liked. It's nice to see something which is more Fate's inspired, because to my knowledge, Serenes doesn't have anything with those sorts of mechanics. I also like having the one attack stat, which, while a bit weird, does sound pretty fun, since I do like the idea of weird combinations of magical and physical abilities. I like the braces, I like the ability to trade growths for experience, I think it sounds nice.

On the note of experience, while I am again not the expert, you could perhaps make it so the level difference can eventually penalize the amount of experience you gain by allowing the value to become negative. For example, if five levels about the enemy, then your experience is (10 + -5) + (20 + -15) = 10 for killing them. Though, some would argue that might be too high. Again, I'm not an expert on these things, my own RP stole experience calculations from FE7...now, if only I was better at actually keeping posts coming...

[Shimmy Zmizz]

I read through the doc, and I have to say, the amount of recordkeeping in this system seems a lot less hefty than on other FE systems I've seen, which is much appreciated. Simpler mechanics go a long way in making the system fun.

Unfortunately, I can't tell you too much about any balancing issues, but I do have a piece of advice. The doc itself is kinda hard to read through. When you do an information dump like this, any flavor text you can throw in does wonders, and I think the format needs some work to make it an easier read.

Other than that, though, I like what I see, and would be interested in throwing my hat in the ring for a game

[Hammerpriest]

Alright, now that I'm home from work, I can get to responding to any feedback.

@Sairyu
Thanks for assist. For those confused, Sairyu is the person who was the primary developer of the brace system and who helped me throughout the entire design and playtest process.

@eclipse
I took a look at all of the active FERPs on the first page of the Roleplay thread, and while all of them have great ideas, none of them really fit what I really wanted. Return of the Emblem was the closest, so I've been lurking and watching that one for a while. I will note that some playtesters have expressed interest in an "Average" level up system similar to the one in Return of the Emblem, so I'll probably block out some time into looking into whether or not such a system could feasibly coexist with rolled levels. I've also become interested in the "Multiple Character" ideas that a few RP's have on here in order to offset low player counts. While I won't be giving players more PC's, I think I have an idea on a pretty cool and thematic Retainer system that I can implement.

@Thany
This isn't a signup thread just yet. I'd like a lot more feedback on what's here so I can hopefully iron out whatever kinks me and my playtesters managed to miss. Different perspectives are helpful, and I'd hate to rush this out and end up with a poor player experience. Plus I don't have a setting yet and just 10 or so proof of concept maps, so I don't have nearly enough of a content buffer to "Lifeproof" the game in case something happens. I will let you know when I transition into a full RP however, if you are still interested then of course.

@Terrador
Sairyu addressed some things, but I just wanted to follow-up. I have added the omitted clause about being forced to redeploy at the start of a map to the incapacitation rules. The goal isn't to just punish players with lowered stats though. Part of it is to severely punish players time economy wise. Going down costs a lot of turns before you can get up, and even more before you can reach the front. While this might be okay on some maps, in a few of my playtests I used timed maps, or maps with timed secondary objectives. Here is where I feel the incapacitation system really shined. Because players weren't scared of losing their characters, they were more likely to push aggressively for secondary objectives instead of turtling and settling for just the primary since the worst case scenario was they ended up having to settle. This allowed for much more map play to go on and a lot less, "Move tank forward to bait group, gank group."

On trainees: our playtesting showed that they performed adequately enough as a high risk high reward tradeoff, but I can definitely see the risk being way too high for the reward. I think I'll buff their experience gain by either 1.5 times or by counting them as their level minus 10. I might also give them a buff of 1 to all their caps if their risk/reward ratio is significantly out of whack. I think it bears repeating that like all classes, they gain +13 stats on promotion and then regain their lost growths by adopting the class growth bonuses of their chosen class.

On minimum stats and glass cannons: That's Forum Emblem for you. I've often found that most players rolled glass over the years. I've also found that while these players get a lot of kills to make them buff, they also have a tendency to explode at a moment's notice or miss when it's most important due to the lack of skill. The relative safety of bronze weapons might be an enabler, so that is definitely something I can adjust downwards if future playtesting shows 0 skl 0 lck to be a viable success route off of base hit alone until growths kick in. I've locked off 25% of the player's growths into their class chassis to kind of combat this as well.

On Muse chain leveling: Yeah I'm gonna errata that out right now. I'll be changing the refresh duration to read "Instant, Once Per Turn" to curb chain dancing. Thanks for the assist!

On exp concerns
My earlier playtests straight up used the exp curve from Fire Emblem Fates to discourage map solos and the feedback was overwhelmingly negative. Exp falloff was so high that players often dreaded killing bosses since gaining too many levels meant using them on the next map was a major liabilty. Meanwhile, off-utility classes like muse would gain too many levels performing utility actions that their weapon levels would never increase since players didn't want them to fight now that they got much less xp.

After switching to this system, I've had much less complaints about the exp curve though I guess players wouldn't complain about becoming stronger more often. My playtests kept enemies on a scale of 1 = mook 5 = veteran 10 = elite promoted/20 = Hero 20/10 = legend 20/20 = mythic though so maybe I just need more playtests.

@AnonymusSpeed

One single attack stat was how the GBA games did it, so I did have some precedent there. As for experience, the formula does in fact account for being high level with the difference between the enemies level and the player's resulting in a negative number. This is similar but a more streamlined version of the GBA experience curve.

EDIT:
@Shimmy Zmizz
Keeping recordkeeping down was definitely a major objective of mine. I had an early build with 100% custom classes and skills, and the burden of recordkeeping was simply way too high. Player's often were mixing up which modifiers they would get where, which skills came into effect when, and just how strong various stat debuffs were currently in effect. It forced me to go entirely back to the drawing board in order to find elegant solutions to some of the problems, while still retaining the feel of the more recent Fire Emblem games.

The formatting isn't great. I can definitely agree there. I will continue to try and refine the formatting to make the document more accessible to potential players, and hope that one day I can figure out a way that doesn't increase the already heavy page bloat. I've started to go back and add in example text to the calculations text, and once I start to build a more concrete setting, I would love to break up tables with some lore and art. However, that isn't really feasible at the moment.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Hammerpriest

[Terrador]

Oh, the Trainees receive their growths again after promoting? I failed to realize that; I forgot that class growths were deducted from the amount you're allotted.

That said, if you're looking into a fixed/average level setup I may have an idea for you, based on Path of Radiance: use fixed growths. Basically, the players have (their total amount of growths) to allot into a growth point bases for each stat, capped at 80. Each level, they gain a number of growth points equal to their growth; when they level up, they gain an amount of growth points equal to their growth in the stat. When the growth points reach or exceed 100, subtract 100 and raise the stat by one. Because I'm a lazy jackwagon, let's use a character from a game I'm playing as an example.

Parameter HP  STR MAG SKL SPE LCK DEF RES Total
Growths    70  50  10  35  40  40  40  20  305
GP Lv1     30  50  0   30  70  60  65  0   305
Grow Lv2  +70 +50 +10 +35 +40 +40 +40 +20  305
Stats Lv2  +1  +1          +1  +1  +1      +5
GP Lv2     00  00  20  65  10  00  05  20  120
Grow Lv3  +70 +50 +10 +35 +40 +40 +40 +20  305
Stats Lv3              +1                  +1
GP Lv3     70  50  30  00  50  40  45  40  325
Grow Lv4  +70 +50 +10 +35 +40 +40 +40 +20  305
Stats Lv4  +1  +1                          +2
GP Lv4     40  00  40  35  90  80  85  60  430

And so on. Stats remain average always at this point, though this is a small buff to player in general to give growth points a base (which is just more enertaining in general to be honest!)

That said, there's another game-inspired mechanic to stop players from becoming horribly screwed: dynamic growths, seen in Shadow Dragon and I believe New Mystery of the Emblem. So how it works is when a stat fails to proc, a dynamic growth is added equal to 10% of the original growth. If it procs, 10% of (100-original growth) is removed from the value; however, no matter how low this value is, the growth will never be calculated as less than its base value. This is also a buff to player characters in general, obviously, but is an elegant and extant solution. Let's have another example, with poor Angus as our guinea pig!

As a note, decimals do round down.

Parameter      HP   STR   MAG   SKL   SPE   LCK   DEF   RES
OG growths     70   50    10    35    40    40    40    20
Level 2 RNs    52!  18!   64    19!   25!   13!   4!    90
New Dynamics   67   45    11    28.5  34    34    34    22
Level 3 RNs    71   68    30    31!   90    12!   57    80
New Dynamics   74   50    12    22    38    28    38    24

Notice that his Skill procced when reaching level 3; the dynamics solely track below-base (and even negative) values. They exist to cause weak stats to approach their averages, not for high stats to fall again!

Hope this is useful for you!

Edited May 12, 2016 by Terrador

[sairyu]

For simplicity, we used a straight calculation for average growths of: stat = growth x level + base

Players were given a choice between rolled (single roll) and average; the spread for the chosen option was roughly 60:40 average growths to rolled growths.

Dynamic gains may not be a good fit for forum emblem due to the need to track level-ups in addition to anything else occurring. However we have never tested it, so it may turn out to be less a strong solution. I am of the mind that randomness should not be intrinsicly rewarded as a choice, but can see why it would be frustrating to suffer from poor gains.

[Hammerpriest]

Alright. Big update.

I have added some Special Playtest rules to the end of the doc. An MvP system, An Average Levels system, and the Retainer System.

I'm planning on either having me or Sairyu run a playtest for these rules on this forum starting this weekend. Anyone who is interested can reply to this thread, and we will set up a new thread when we are ready. If all goes well in this playtest, I think we will be ready to start a test campaign under these rules.

[Shimmy Zmizz]

I'd be interested in playing, though I am new to Forum Emblem play, and not quite sure how doing a game like this works yet.

[sairyu]

The tentative idea right now is to have every interested person create one [1] first level character.

All generated characters will be placed in a single party, which will then run through a few placeholder maps with various objectives such as annihilate all enemies, seize and defend, survive, and reach point X. There will be approximately five [5] maps.

For the test run only, every player will have the option to control the above party either alone with others. Every run of maps will be done in parallel. This means that we will be running X instances of the test game, with each instance having a few players controlling that party. If there are four player characters, up to four games will be run simultaneously; fewer, if players wish to collaborate. The player(s) running every instance will decide at the start whether to use random or average growths on a per character basis.

We will be using these runs to collect feedback on how well the system works and on various mechanics.

Please share any opinions of the system that you might form as a result of the testing in this thread.

Edit: We will also be testing if a rating mechanic makes sense for the system; currently it covers three [3] categories: speed/tactics, combat/exp, and funds/items found.

Edit: I realize that I never actually answered your question. The short of it is that this type of forum FE runs like the GBA games, with sprites on a battle-map. The PCs usually take the role of a tactician, though some groups may find it more in-character or engaging to have all players individually control their characters. In this case, we are going with the tactician setup.

Edited May 13, 2016 by sairyu

[Moblin Major General]

I had time to look everything over, and now I have decided to not only join, but to submit a character build (notify me of any errors)

Neophyte(Sword Trainee)

HP:16(40%)

Str:6(20%)

Skl:7(50%)

Spd:5(40%)

Lck:3(10%)

Def:3(30%)

Res:0(10%)

Promotes to: Myrmidon or Mercenary

Again, please tell me if there are any errors.

Edit: Fixed

Edited May 13, 2016 by Feldmarschall Rommel

[Hammerpriest]

Your base stats add up to 41 instead of 40. Other than that, you seem good. Just a reminder that the base stats for the class are for generics and just a guideline for pcs. You can allocate however you want within class caps and chargen rules.

[Illven]

Madame Baladwell

You crazy kids get off my lawn! When I was your age Iron swords were a gold piece, and we didn't have this crazy canto you whippersnapers are always listening to. And we had to go uphill for our staves! Both ways, on lava tiles!

Cleric level 1

Hp 16 75% (70)

Mag 10 40% (30)

Skl 0 20% (10)

Spd 2 25% (10)

Luck 4 25% (10)

Def 10 55% (50)

Res 10 70% (50)

[Shimmy Zmizz]

Alright, I think I'll throw my hat in the ring, then.

Isaac:

Knight lv1

HP: 22 (40%)

Str: 9 (45%)

Skl: 7 (40%)

Spd: 3 (20%)

Lck: 4 (15%)

Def: 11 (50%)

Res: 2 (20%)

Hopefully I did everything alright.

[scorri]

Seraphine:

Muse (Daggers, Braces)

HP: 16 (70%)
STR: 3 (20%)
SKL: 3 (20%)
SPD: 10 (60%)
LCK: 19 (25%)
DEF: 3 (55%)
RES: 2 (50%)

Some points though:
LCK cap for Muse is 19 (low compared to others) and then 36 for promo. Seems odd when SPD cap for Muse is 26 and then 32 for Virtuoso. I'd also point out Seraph seems to have a lot higher caps than other people (about 20 more than other nearby promo caps)

I'd suggest organizing weapons by weapon rank (probably added in fates stuff late but it's all out of order afterwards which is a bit confusing)

Braces: Unclear, do they require gold to be used? If so, seems kinda pointless, why would we ever use them? Also A Brace seems waaaaaaaaaay powerful

[Hammerpriest]

@Feldmarschall Rommel

Looks good now!

Alright, I think I'll throw my hat in the ring, then.

Isaac:

Knight lv1

HP: 22 (40%)

Str: 9 (45%)

Skl: 7 (40%)

Spd: 3 (20%)

Lck: 4 (15%)

Def: 11 (50%)

Res: 2 (20%)

Hopefully I did everything alright.

Looks good!

Seraphine:

Muse (Daggers, Braces)

HP: 16 (70%)
STR: 3 (20%)
SKL: 3 (20%)
SPD: 10 (60%)
LCK: 19 (25%)
DEF: 3 (55%)
RES: 2 (50%)

Some points though:
LCK cap for Muse is 19 (low compared to others) and then 36 for promo. Seems odd when SPD cap for Muse is 26 and then 32 for Virtuoso. I'd also point out Seraph seems to have a lot higher caps than other people (about 20 more than other nearby promo caps)

I'd suggest organizing weapons by weapon rank (probably added in fates stuff late but it's all out of order afterwards which is a bit confusing)

Braces: Unclear, do they require gold to be used? If so, seems kinda pointless, why would we ever use them? Also A Brace seems waaaaaaaaaay powerful

Looks Good!

On Muses:
Hmm. On a quick run through I agree on the caps. I've adjusted them as follows

Muse 35 18 25 26 22 20 21 Daggers C Braces B

Virtuoso 45 29 32 36 36 27 28 Daggers A Braces A

As far as Braces go: They don't require gold to be used. They have limited uses on purchase similar to healing staves. In order to offset this a bit, I've just changed the D rank braces to have infinite use but increased their costs.
Also the A rank Brace is pretty powerful yeah. But it has literally one use and costs as much as two A rank weapons. I think that's a fair tradeoff.

On Seraphs:
Seraphs can't attack. They have high caps, but for the most part, will never get to use those caps save for Def, Res, Spd, and Luck, Mag on staves doesn't really do too much once weapon rank starts rising enough as the base healing is usually enough, and skill is only for status staves. I don't forsee it being an issue, but I certainly will keep an eye on any seraphs.

On formatting: That's a good Idea. I'll set aside some time tomorrow to completely reorganize the weapons tables.

Thank you for your input!

@ Everyone:
A quick update. I've folded weapon proficiency bonuses into the base stats of weapons to discourage sticking lower ranked weapons as Terrador mentioned earlier. This also lowers general bookkeeping and should serve as a net gain.

I've also lowered enemy base stats in a separate table. In previous playtests, I started players at higher levels to test different weapon features, ergo the base stats of enemies had less impact. On running a quick map playtest between me and Sairyu to make sure everything worked, the enemies proved a little too powerful. I realized that enemy stats may have been slightly skewed towards being fair opponents to higher level PCs. This should make the playtest go a lot smoother.

I'll update to FAQ to reflect these changes.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Hammerpriest

[Moblin Major General]

I forgot to name my character in the Neophyte Class. His name is Albert, for future reference.

[eclipse]

As long as I don't have to actually RP (I'm a little short on time).

Name: Anastasia

Class: Shaman

HP: 18 (40%)

Mag: 6 (45%)

Skl: 5 (35%)

Spd: 5 (40%)

Lck: 7 (15%)

Def: 4 (30%)

Res: 6 (25%)

(I think I got the math right, lemme know if I screwed up)

[Hammerpriest]

As long as I don't have to actually RP (I'm a little short on time).

Name: Anastasia

Class: Shaman

HP: 18 (40%)

Mag: 6 (45%)

Skl: 5 (35%)

Spd: 5 (40%)

Lck: 7 (15%)

Def: 4 (30%)

Res: 6 (25%)

(I think I got the math right, lemme know if I screwed up)

As a shaman, you still get 230% growths, it's just your class bonus growths for being a shaman have 20% less. Other than that You're good. Also don't worry about RP'ing. This first set is just a quickish playtest, A final draft if you will.

EDIT: Edited the FAQ to reflect recent Errata.

EDIT: 2 Organized the Weapons Tables by Weapon Ranks and also whoops. You're good Eclipse. I derped on the math.

EDIT 3: I'm going to busy tonight so the playtest most likely won't start today, so hopefully we'll get one more tester. If not that's okay. I've got 3 maps ready, but here's a teaser of the first.

The goal is to start slow with a smaller map and then move onto a more complex one. Once the list of testers is finalized, I will add a grid and place both enemy and allied units.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Hammerpriest

[A Random Player]

hey, I can be the last tester if you want.

Name: Arthur

Class: Cavalier (Lances)

HP: 19 (50%)

Str: 8 (55%)

Skl: 5 (20%)

Spd: 6 (40%)
Lck: 4 (15%)

Def: 7 (30%)

Res: 5 (20%)

Edit: Forgot the weapons. Let me know if anything's still missing

Edited May 14, 2016 by A Random Player

[Hammerpriest]

hey, I can be the last tester if you want.

Name: Arthur

Class: Cavalier (Lances)

HP: 19 (50%)

Str: 8 (55%)

Skl: 5 (20%)

Spd: 6 (40%)

Lck: 4 (15%)

Def: 7 (30%)

Res: 5 (20%)

Edit: Forgot the weapons. Let me know if anything's still missing

Posting from mobile atm. Your numbers look good. I'll begin finalizing the map when I get home. Also a question. Like Sairyu mentioned earlier, it's possible to split the playtest into parallel maps using the same party to get more testing done. Would any of you 6 be interested in taking control of your own map? Ideally we'd run 2-3 versions of these maps.

[eclipse]

So, two separate battles at the same time? I think I can do that.