How the next FE can have balanced units?

[Harvey]

Now that a new game is coming out, I have a wonder...how will they balance the units this time around.

I am aware that FE always tends to have units that are a pain to train(Mozu) and have units that are overpowered as hell(Ryoma) and somewhere inbetween have units that some like and others don't.

To me, I like characters who I can rely on so that they aren't too dependent on others to help them out or that they are dependent but can aid in my strategies big time. It also comes down to their personalities as well. Ogier might not seem that strong but as a character.

And then there's always the growth rates debate( Which btw isn't really Nintendo's problem here) and base stats to determine units in the long run.

So does it have to be the same like this? Or is it time for them to do something different?

[Kyne]

One big part of unit balancing is their class. Particularly in FE7 (my field of expertise) one big part of how good a unit is considered is whether they have a horse or not. Another is whether they have a penis or not. Men generally have higher Con and Strength in the GBA games, though Fates seems to have evened the playing field (which I kind of like and dislike at the same time?)

Anyway, back to the class thing. Archers were notoriously bad before Fates due to all the shit that is more effective than them at both range and melee, with their only redeeming factor being that they can hit fliers really hard, and even then you'd probably be better off with an axe user.

I think Fates went about fixing archers the wrong way (lol, look we're good against throwing knives and shuriken even though those are basically the most worthless weapon in the history of humanity. Yeah no, they're worthless but let's make them lower stats for some fucking reason). Giving them the ability to attack in melee (AAAAAAAA SHORT BOW; POINTBLANK WHYYYYY) among other things made them decent but I still don't think they are well implemented.

If archers were good in FE7, a lot of people would use Rebecca a lot more. If they were good in FE8, maybe Neimi might see some use, and Innes might not get benched immediately after joining.

So yeah, classes are very important, as well as bases and growths.

The other REALLY important thing is recruitment. If a unit is decent but you can get a better one earlier, (Karel compared to Guy, for an example) then that unit is deemed generally worse than the first one, with the only benefit being that if it's a pre-promote you don't have to blow a promotion item on them.

I also really hate how all of this stuff affects Karla negatively, effectively making her the shittiest unit in FE7. Like, yeah Renault has shitty stats, growths and recruitment as well, but at least the man has staff utility.

Of course that for me, character is often more important. Raven, for an example appears to be really good but I've never once used him because I hate edgelords like him that do nothing but bitch about life. Like, move on, dude.

Shit, I wrote an essay again. Whoops, lol.

[De Geso]

1 hour ago, Kyne said:

I think Fates went about fixing archers the wrong way (lol, look we're good against throwing knives and shuriken even though those are basically the most worthless weapon in the history of humanity. Yeah no, they're worthless but let's make them lower stats for some fucking reason). Giving them the ability to attack in melee (AAAAAAAA SHORT BOW; POINTBLANK WHYYYYY) among other things made them decent but I still don't think they are well implemented.

 

What crack are you smoking? Hidden weapons are absurdly powerful (partly because of the classes that use them, but still). Being able to beat a crowd of ninjas makes archers/outlaws/bow users in general very strong. 

I think not being able to attack at 1 range is what makes archers so traditionally bad - outside of Fates which is full of 1-2 range weapons (due to the implementation of Hidden Weapons) they have a lot of trouble on EP which is where most of the actions happens in FE.

If they really wanted to balance archers out they ought to make PP combat as important as EP combat, because as it stands you kill one unit per action at most during PP while you can kill an entire map on EP. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by YouSquiddinMe

[Kyne]

In the game yes. I'm saying that it makes no sense to base an entire class around them given how shitty they are in real life. I also complain about how bows are used in melee given their historical use. In short, I'm complaining about lack of realism in a fantasy game.

[De Geso]

2 minutes ago, Kyne said:

In the game yes. I'm saying that it makes no sense to base an entire class around them given how shitty they are in real life. I also complain about how bows are used in melee given their historical use. In short, I'm complaining about lack of realism in a fantasy game.

Eh I have little concern for realism in FE when the weapon triangle exists

Besides that the status of a weapon's strength irl doesn't mean anything when talking about game balance lol

[Kyne]

This is true, but I feel like it could have been done better. Plus, you can't convince me that they didn't add hidden weapons EXCLUSIVELY because Hoshido is based in Japan. Butlers and Maids wouldn't exist in this game if not for Ninjas, I'm sure of it. I mean generally FE makes sense of which units it brings into the game. Utility and combat. Utility is all mystical and stuff with clerics and bards, but combat has mages and normal people. Including people who, in theory, shouldn't have the first clue of how to fight in the game is freaking weird to me.

[SpearOfLies]

The player have only two point blank bow and only the shining bow is worth to use against same level unit(cause every weapon can be used against weaker enemy). And from far I can remember, only boss have point blank bow which is good thing than a boss cannot attack no matter what. Aside from the fact someone else say that fates have weak bow unit which is not truth, saying that bow unit is too good is also false.

Realistic gameplay is pointless without balance and fun gameplay. Aside from ninja, I believe that fates have a balanced gameplay.

[Trymer]

well if skills make a return to this Fire Emblem installment, just maybe they could make the lv.15 skill of the Sniper "Point Blank" instead of "Bowfaire".

I don't know where Bowfaire should go then (Maybe the Bow Knight, as to make those units more inclined to actually use the bow over the sword?).

This way you'd still have to invest in a unit, but once he/she gets there they'll be EP monsters.

[Extrasolar]

7 hours ago, Kyne said:

One big part of unit balancing is their class. Particularly in FE7 (my field of expertise) one big part of how good a unit is considered is whether they have a horse or not. Another is whether they have a penis or not. Men generally have higher Con and Strength in the GBA games, though Fates seems to have evened the playing field (which I kind of like and dislike at the same time?)

Anyway, back to the class thing. Archers were notoriously bad before Fates due to all the shit that is more effective than them at both range and melee, with their only redeeming factor being that they can hit fliers really hard, and even then you'd probably be better off with an axe user.

I think Fates went about fixing archers the wrong way (lol, look we're good against throwing knives and shuriken even though those are basically the most worthless weapon in the history of humanity. Yeah no, they're worthless but let's make them lower stats for some fucking reason). Giving them the ability to attack in melee (AAAAAAAA SHORT BOW; POINTBLANK WHYYYYY) among other things made them decent but I still don't think they are well implemented.

If archers were good in FE7, a lot of people would use Rebecca a lot more. If they were good in FE8, maybe Neimi might see some use, and Innes might not get benched immediately after joining.

So yeah, classes are very important, as well as bases and growths.

The other REALLY important thing is recruitment. If a unit is decent but you can get a better one earlier, (Karel compared to Guy, for an example) then that unit is deemed generally worse than the first one, with the only benefit being that if it's a pre-promote you don't have to blow a promotion item on them.

I also really hate how all of this stuff affects Karla negatively, effectively making her the shittiest unit in FE7. Like, yeah Renault has shitty stats, growths and recruitment as well, but at least the man has staff utility.

Of course that for me, character is often more important. Raven, for an example appears to be really good but I've never once used him because I hate edgelords like him that do nothing but bitch about life. Like, move on, dude.

Shit, I wrote an essay again. Whoops, lol.

A lot of the time, whether a class is considered good or not boils down to the units themselves, as well as their own potential of growth.

The Archer class in Radiant Dawn is considered one of the best classes in the game, just because Shinon and to a lesser extent Rolf simply break the game in half. Rolf himself isn't too bad POR either. Before that? Yeah...archers in the series got mediocre to subpar growths, and thus weren't all that used.

Availability will always be an issue as far as unit balance goes, I think. There's no way that IS can make every unit in the game available early on, so it stands to reason that by the time you get [insert character here], you'll already have another member of their class trained up and in a permanent spot on your team; thus, said unit falls by the wayside. Then, by necessity, the later unit has to come in as a pre-promote with stronger bases if they want any hope of possibly being used, and that comes with its own problems. The only remedy is to make the earlier units inferior in growths to the point that they can't eclipse the new unit, but that also brings balance problems in and of itself.
 

5 hours ago, YouSquiddinMe said:

What crack are you smoking? Hidden weapons are absurdly powerful (partly because of the classes that use them, but still). Being able to beat a crowd of ninjas makes archers/outlaws/bow users in general very strong. 

I think not being able to attack at 1 range is what makes archers so traditionally bad - outside of Fates which is full of 1-2 range weapons (due to the implementation of Hidden Weapons) they have a lot of trouble on EP which is where most of the actions happens in FE.

If they really wanted to balance archers out they ought to make PP combat as important as EP combat, because as it stands you kill one unit per action at most during PP while you can kill an entire map on EP. 

Hidden weapons pre-Fates (just daggers) were pretty worthless, unless you had Volke wielding a knife in Radiant Dawn and activating Lethality every five seconds. They did next to no damage, and had no advantages in which their use was preferred to the much stronger physical weapons or even magic. I wouldn't say hidden weapons themselves are strong in Fates (the debuff they provide falls off in relevance around midgame), but the poison thing attached to the ninja class themselves is good, as well as the reposition ability.

I think what made archers traditionally bad was the fact that most archers in the series had subpar to mediocre growths. If they want to take archers from the laughingstock that they are in most games, buff the archer units themselves. Make them able to compete with the other physical-attacking classes. Compare them to a class like Mercenary, where most if not all of them are good, if not amazing units in the games that they are in. And Mercenary is considered one of the best classes in the series because of it.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Jedi]

3 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

The Archer class in Radiant Dawn is considered one of the best classes in the game, just because Shinon and to a lesser extent Rolf simply break the game in half. Rolf himself isn't too bad POR either. Before that? Yeah...archers in the series got mediocre to subpar growths, and thus weren't all that used.

Shinon is the only good Sniper in RD, Rolf is mediocre at best, and he isn't good in PoR unless you pool all your BEXP into him. Snipers like Innes, Klein, Igrene, Jeorge, etc have always been considered fairly solid due to their starting stats and weapon ranks (Briggid and Faval would be considered REALLY GOOD if they weren't in Horse Emblem as well), the issue with regular archers (as Snipers are generally always good). Is that their base stats are always too low for their low experience gain, due to the fact that they lack an enemy phase role in combat. 

Also Shinon doesn't come close to breaking RD in half. His lack of a good enemy phase until the Double Bow, doesn't allow that.

[Extrasolar]

6 minutes ago, Jedi said:

Shinon is the only good Sniper in RD, Rolf is mediocre at best, and he isn't good in PoR unless you pool all your BEXP into him. Snipers like Innes, Klein, Igrene, Jeorge, etc have always been considered fairly solid due to their starting stats and weapon ranks (Briggid and Faval would be considered REALLY GOOD if they weren't in Horse Emblem as well), the issue with regular archers (as Snipers are generally always good). Is that their base stats are always too low for their low experience gain, due to the fact that they lack an enemy phase role in combat. 

Also Shinon doesn't come close to breaking RD in half. His lack of a good enemy phase until the Double Bow, doesn't allow that.

Hmm, maybe you've just had bad Rolfs in RD. While he starts weaker than Shinon, when trained up he's comparable, if not superior, just going off of his growths alone. Mine have always turned out pretty great.

Those archers are gained later in the games, whereas the archers the player contends with early are mediocre at best in stats and growths.

Just because he can't attack on the enemy phase doesn't mean he's not broken. He's a dodge monster that never gets hit by anything, double attacks everything in the game, crits on pretty much every attack if he doesn't activate Deadeye and kill the enemy anyway (or at least puts it to sleep if it somehow survives). Even if he does get hit (a rare, rare occurance), he takes very little damage due to his high HP and decent defense. Sounds pretty broken to me. He doesn't necessarily need a wyvern or one-range weapon to exaggerate that fact.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Interdimensional Observer]

Rolf is probably better in the original Japanese release of RD, where 2nd tier units absolutely needed one of only 7 Master Crowns to promote. Giving one to Shinon would be a giant cost of resources. With Shinon possibly unable to promote, he would cap level all too soon, and thus give Rolf a chance to catch up.

I would call Japanese RD more balanced overall... except for the fact that 3-3 and 3-5 give Master Crowns and Haar can have one while Titania takes the other, allowing for steamrolling Part 3 to still happen. The Laguz Royals, some natural tier 3 Beorc, and the remaining 5 Crowns can handle Part 4 Final.

[SpearOfLies]

30 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

wouldn't say hidden weapons themselves are strong in Fates (the debuff they provide falls off in relevance around midgame), but the poison thing attached to the ninja class themselves is good, as well as the reposition ability.

Unless you use crappy debuff weapon then I hardly say they are not strong. Kaze's needle buff speed and debuff target speed(or silver hidden weapon to debuff speed). You can Saizo or Steel hidden weapon to debuff they strenght while Saizo hidden weapon buff strenght too. Flame shuriken for debuff mag but hidden weapon user already good against mage. Kagero's basically make next unit WTA very high dodge chance.

Sometimes you need more than two unit to kill one not boss enemy. A ninja make estreme easy to kill with just two unit. Ninja are most versatile unit of game and master ninja are the most stupid unit of fates.

[Extrasolar]

2 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Rolf is probably better in the original Japanese release of RD, where 2nd tier units absolutely needed one of only 7 Master Crowns to promote. Giving one to Shinon would be a giant cost of resources. With Shinon possibly unable to promote, he would cap level all too soon, and thus give Rolf a chance to catch up.

I would call Japanese RD more balanced overall... except for the fact that 3-3 and 3-5 give Master Crowns and Haar can have one while Titania takes the other, allowing for steamrolling Part 3 to still happen. The Laguz Royals, some natural tier 3 Beorc, and the remaining 5 Crowns can handle Part 4 Final.

Wait, so Japanese RD didn't have automatic promotion to third tier? o.o Wow...I had no idea.

Well...That's one thing I'm glad they added into the localized version, since items for promotion have always annoyed me. Granted, I'm sure that it did imbalance the game to an extent; since theoretically, you can have far more third tier units than a limited supply of Master Crowns would allow.

2 hours ago, SpearOfLies said:

Unless you use crappy debuff weapon then I hardly say they are not strong. Kaze's needle buff speed and debuff target speed(or silver hidden weapon to debuff speed). You can Saizo or Steel hidden weapon to debuff they strenght while Saizo hidden weapon buff strenght too. Flame shuriken for debuff mag but hidden weapon user already good against mage. Kagero's basically make next unit WTA very high dodge chance.

Sometimes you need more than two unit to kill one not boss enemy. A ninja make estreme easy to kill with just two unit. Ninja are most versatile unit of game and master ninja are the most stupid unit of fates.

Ehh... The debuff has never been all that meaningful in my experience. Late game, enemies have enough strength and defense not to care if a few points are knocked off. Enemy ninja are only annoying due to the poison making them actually deal damage that stacks from each ninja hit; if they didn't have it, Effie could literally stand there and facetank each ninja hit, losing 1 HP at the very most each shuriken, while one-shotting the ninja in return.

It's Saizo himself, with his high strength, that makes shurikens relevant when he uses them. Kagero's strength isn't too bad either, but in my experience Kaze kind of falls behind as he gets strength-screwed.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Extrasolar

[SpearOfLies]

10 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

Ehh... The debuff has never been all that meaningful in my experience. Late game, enemies have enough strength and defense not to care if a few points are knocked off. Enemy ninja are only annoying due to the poison making them actually deal damage that stacks from each ninja hit; if they didn't have it, Effie could literally stand there and facetank each ninja hit, losing 1 HP at the very most each shuriken, while one-shotting the ninja in return.

It's Saizo himself, with his high strength, that makes shurikens relevant when he uses them. Kagero's strength isn't too bad either, but in my experience Kaze kind of falls behind as he gets strength-screwed.

I mean the hiddem weapon named by their name. Enemy ninja are mostly annoying unless you play lunatic. Your hidder weapon user can make the difference using the correct hidden weapon and not the one who damage most. Master ninja is most stupid class.

[KliffIsTheOG]

They need to make bows useful like in Gaiden. After all, why can't an archer hit someone directly in front of them? And why can they only shoot the same distance as an axe can be thrown?

[Kyne]

I agree that they should be able to shoot farther, but they should NEVER be able to shoot in melee simply because no one would be dumb enough to allow them to do that. If you are fighting someone in melee and their weapon can swing or stab as fast/close to as fast as yours, you have to keep that in mind and not charge in blindly. If your opponent sill has to draw an arrow, nock the arrow onto the bowstring, aim and THEN shoot, you don't HAVE to be as cautious at all. You can, and in fact should, just charge the guy so he can't nock the arrow without getting his head chopped off. You don't have the time for that as an archer, this is why they carried shortswords as well.

[Harvey]

7 minutes ago, Kyne said:

I agree that they should be able to shoot farther, but they should NEVER be able to shoot in melee simply because no one would be dumb enough to allow them to do that. If you are fighting someone in melee and their weapon can swing or stab as fast/close to as fast as yours, you have to keep that in mind and not charge in blindly. If your opponent sill has to draw an arrow, nock the arrow onto the bowstring, aim and THEN shoot, you don't HAVE to be as cautious at all. You can, and in fact should, just charge the guy so he can't nock the arrow without getting his head chopped off. You don't have the time for that as an archer, this is why they carried shortswords as well.

Are you implying that it shouldn't happen realistically? Because I agree on that aspect. But in gameplay wise, since combats are turn based, I don't see how archers being melee hurts the class.

I'll say one thing though...If the next game has overpowered units, have a unit like Pent who's fun to use but cannot easily solo the rest of the game like Ryoma for example.

[SpearOfLies]

We can say magic as well then. Noone will let you cast a melee range unless you just move a little your hand to cast it. The critical animation of witch is so long that even an ancher can shoot it before she finish it.

[Kyne]

22 minutes ago, SpearOfLies said:

We can say magic as well then. Noone will let you cast a melee range unless you just move a little your hand to cast it. The critical animation of witch is so long that even an ancher can shoot it before she finish it.

That's just a case of bad (imo) animations though. Being mega flamboyant in your magic spells makes the animation take longer and imho look dumber. If most classes were like the GBA Sage or Druid, in which a small swing of your hands makes the spell get casted then that would make sense.

Plus, if we go full fantasy then the motions could just be to "charge the mana" or something silly like that, and it wouldn't probably be interrupted by getting hit. If you're nocking an arrow and someone attacks you, they are likely to hit your arms, which you need; they can cut at the bow, resulting in either a broken bow after a few shots or a severed bowstring OR they can cut at you.

And yes, I get it, fantasy game, sense does not have to be made and what not, but if something makes sense it seems better. Yes oversized swords are ridiculous looking and would never work but if you get past that they still function. An archer trying to attack in melee gets hit in real life and doesn't have to time to do it, and in vidja games it should be the same, because he DOES NOT HAVE THE TIME TO SHOOT. You can't rush an archer, considering how hard it is to draw a bow. 

[SpearOfLies]

7 minutes ago, Kyne said:

That's just a case of bad (imo) animations though. Being mega flamboyant in your magic spells makes the animation take longer and imho look dumber. If most classes were like the GBA Sage or Druid, in which a small swing of your hands makes the spell get casted then that would make sense.

Plus, if we go full fantasy then the motions could just be to "charge the mana" or something silly like that, and it wouldn't probably be interrupted by getting hit. If you're nocking an arrow and someone attacks you, they are likely to hit your arms, which you need; they can cut at the bow, resulting in either a broken bow after a few shots or a severed bowstring OR they can cut at you.

And yes, I get it, fantasy game, sense does not have to be made and what not, but if something makes sense it seems better. Yes oversized swords are ridiculous looking and would never work but if you get past that they still function. An archer trying to attack in melee gets hit in real life and doesn't have to time to do it, and in vidja games it should be the same, because he DOES NOT HAVE THE TIME TO SHOOT. You can't rush an archer, considering how hard it is to draw a bow. 

I answer you as well bad animation. I challenge you to dodge a fireball. I challenge you to attack a cavalier with a sword without his horse kick you away. I challenge you hit a fly creature. Stop complain about realism.

You all seems treat 1 range bow as broken mechanics while Fates have only 2 close range bow for players which one make the archer extreme weak and other are usefull only to one class which is not so strong. SoV will have 1-3 range archer but I hear that the original have shit stats to balance. So I see no point to say that archer have unbalanced range as knowing as well they was the one weakest class.

[Kyne]

Dodging a Fireball would be possible, just like with any other projectile. In fact, in the games they appear to be slower than arrows, and we know those have been dodged quite a bit in the past. Horsemen have been attacked with swords and axes and other relatively short weapons and been defeated. Sometimes, the horse has even had it's legs chopped off before attacking the man himself. A flying creature would have to come down to attack me, so a Pegasus knight wouldn't be invulnerable, not to mention that they can't maintain permanent flight. A creature like that would have to rest quite often, especially with a person on top of them. 

Boom. Done. Plus, fireballs and pegasi don't exist so can't really compare them to anything in the real world. I can complain about realism when referring to bows, because they exist in the real world. I have a frame of reference and I know how they work. The bows in these games don't appear to function any differently than normal bows either (other than the fact that the draw weight on fantasy bows must be so light a toddler could draw it), so it's not a case of a fantasy weapon functioning differently.

I'm also not treating a 1-range bow as anything "broken". I'm just saying that it A- does not make sense, B- makes the archers into a unit that does exactly the same thing as all the others and C- makes the game samey. All it does it make my tactics boil down to putting someone who can attack from melee AND from range in a bush, fort or other defensive structure, and having the opponents mindlessly throw themselves at them to win. 

Cavalry can go really far and pick off units others wouldn't be able to, and they also have rather versatile weaponry and stats.

Fliers can do the same and fly over troublesome terrain.

Berserkers are relatively bulky with their HP and they have high damage and crits.

Swordmasters doge and crit.

Most classes have some sort of ability. The archers boil down to being the same thing as the average unit except they are good at taking down fliers. Wow. How special and different. It's not like I have other weapons in the other types that can do the same or anything...

If archers were made to have the strength archers in real life had (which is to say, the ability to attack without putting themselves in danger) I could form strategies around them that are more original than "stick this one person in a forest, give them someone to pair up with to prevent dual strikes and watch them wreck face as if they were a normal melee unit with a throwing weapon."

Giving the archers ridiculous range would make them good at picking off targets from afar and give me new strategies to work with. Making it so they can't attack from melee, balances them, and gives you an incentive not to fuck up.

If you REALLY want your archers to attack from melee, give them sword ranks and a class ability that lets them switch weapons based on where they are being attacked from.

[Extrasolar]

21 minutes ago, Kyne said:

The bows in these games don't appear to function any differently than normal bows either (other than the fact that the draw weight on fantasy bows must be so light a toddler could draw it), so it's not a case of a fantasy weapon functioning differently.

I'm also not treating a 1-range bow as anything "broken". I'm just saying that it A- does not make sense, B- makes the archers into a unit that does exactly the same thing as all the others and C- makes the game samey. All it does it make my tactics boil down to putting someone who can attack from melee AND from range in a bush, fort or other defensive structure, and having the opponents mindlessly throw themselves at them to win. 

Cavalry can go really far and pick off units others wouldn't be able to, and they also have rather versatile weaponry and stats.

Fliers can do the same and fly over troublesome terrain.

Berserkers are relatively bulky with their HP and they have high damage and crits.

Swordmasters doge and crit.

Most classes have some sort of ability. The archers boil down to being the same thing as the average unit except they are good at taking down fliers. Wow. How special and different. It's not like I have other weapons in the other types that can do the same or anything...

If archers were made to have the strength archers in real life had (which is to say, the ability to attack without putting themselves in danger) I could form strategies around them that are more original than "stick this one person in a forest, give them someone to pair up with to prevent dual strikes and watch them wreck face as if they were a normal melee unit with a throwing weapon."

Giving the archers ridiculous range would make them good at picking off targets from afar and give me new strategies to work with. Making it so they can't attack from melee, balances them, and gives you an incentive not to fuck up.

If you REALLY want your archers to attack from melee, give them sword ranks and a class ability that lets them switch weapons based on where they are being attacked from.

In all fairness, bow realism in FE is hopelessly screwed from the get-go. Archers in the series already get far closer than they need to to their enemy before they take their shot, and if things were realistic, not only would archers easily be able to attack from 5 - 6 range at the very least, but they'd also have to be arcing their shots just like real archers have to do. Making archers able to attack from one range without being interrupted won't make it make any less sense than it already does, considering casters can cast from short range as well, when you'd expect the melee enemy to just run up to them and smack 'em in the middle of their casting.

Archers - or better said, snipers - are also meant to be a high critically-hitting class in the vein of berserkers and swordsmasters, as far as their niche goes. Their thing is that they can crit from range and are anti-air units. They're just as specialized as the other classes, and I don't think they need to be able to use swords or anything. If anything, that would kind of muddle their role. Real-life bowmen weren't in the habit of lugging around swords just in case they got cornered in melee by an enemy.

10 hours ago, Kyne said:

That's just a case of bad (imo) animations though. Being mega flamboyant in your magic spells makes the animation take longer and imho look dumber. If most classes were like the GBA Sage or Druid, in which a small swing of your hands makes the spell get casted then that would make sense.

Plus, if we go full fantasy then the motions could just be to "charge the mana" or something silly like that, and it wouldn't probably be interrupted by getting hit. If you're nocking an arrow and someone attacks you, they are likely to hit your arms, which you need; they can cut at the bow, resulting in either a broken bow after a few shots or a severed bowstring OR they can cut at you.

And yes, I get it, fantasy game, sense does not have to be made and what not, but if something makes sense it seems better. Yes oversized swords are ridiculous looking and would never work but if you get past that they still function. An archer trying to attack in melee gets hit in real life and doesn't have to time to do it, and in vidja games it should be the same, because he DOES NOT HAVE THE TIME TO SHOOT. You can't rush an archer, considering how hard it is to draw a bow. 

I think it's a case of drawing from the classic tabletop inspiration. There, hand gestures are a necessary component of spellcasting; if you don't do it exactly right, the spell fizzles harmlessly and you're SOL. FE took that and ran with it, with some games making the motions fancier than others.

And if you do get hit while casting in tabletop, there's a chance that you fail to cast the spell, but it can still go off depending on the roll. And see my above point about archers already getting far closer than they need to be; even from 2 range, they're roughly 20 feet away from the enemy at most. More than enough time, if things were realistic, for the melee guy to run up and hit him before he gets his shot off.

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Kyne]

Agreed with most of it. Just expressing my opinion. As for the real life bowmen thing... yes they did. There appears to be this misconception that swords are heavy. A one-hander would weigh like 1 kilo. A longsword would weight 1-5 kilo. A GREATSWORD still only weighs 3 kilos on average. Slap that one-hander in a sheath or scabbard, wear it on your hip along with a buckler hung from the hilt of your sword with a string and it doesn't bother you at all.

[Extrasolar]

5 minutes ago, Kyne said:

Agreed with most of it. Just expressing my opinion. As for the real life bowmen thing... yes they did. There appears to be this misconception that swords are heavy. A one-hander would weigh like 1 kilo. A longsword would weight 1-5 kilo. A GREATSWORD still only weighs 3 kilos on average. Slap that one-hander in a sheath or scabbard, wear it on your hip along with a buckler hung from the hilt of your sword with a string and it doesn't bother you at all.

I looked it up and can't find any evidence that bowman commonly carried swords. Do you have links or anything for this?