Jump to content
Valmese Soldier

There should be a new class that uses firearms

Recommended Posts

This idea came to me when I was playing Awakening. I wanted to use my archer, but I didn't like how even though being on the offensive with him wouldn't allow the enemy to retaliate because once it was the enemies phase, he'd be a sitting duck and wouldn't even be that much help if it's just one enemy, he'd just be there. I wished that my archer could just somehow defend himself against the enemies that go into close quarters (single square) space, and that's when I thought of this; ironically, it wasn't firing bullets, but bayonet usage that made me think of maybe using a gunman as a class in Fire Emblem. Specifically, I think a Musketeer would be the name for the base class, and Rifleman could be the name for the advanced class.

Some of you may think this may not work too well in a fantasy setting, but that's not true; in some "Sword & Sorcery" worlds, gunpowder weaponry exists along with swords, bows, magic, etc. A great example of this is Legend of Zelda.

Anyway, here's how I think a Musketeer class would be: their design would be a round hat with a feather, puffy renaissance/late medievalish sleeves, and a big/long shirt with a nation's crest on it, sort of like this: 

Spoiler

mna_1429_01.jpg

Here are some traits about a gunman-type soldier class

  • The Musketeer would be similar to how Bow-using classes were in Echoes: a lot of range, but usually quite slow and not very much skill. I'd say 2-5 or 7 range.
  • When we think of gunman, especially olden ones, we don't think of very fast combatants: we usually think of slow marchers on a field, and also because it takes time to reload, especially very old firearms.
  • Bullets are either lance-type on the triangle (because in melee range bayonets are like lances) or they are neutral.
  • They also aren't known for any skills or abilities in stopping magical attacks so low resistance for them, as well as defense that is better than resistance but sill relatively low because most gunman were much less armored than most medieval-type combatants. A moderately good or decent defense growth could be argued because some armor was on gun-wielding infantry for at least another century or two.
  • Low skill because early firearms were pretty inaccurate and it doesn't take much skill to learn how to use them. Crits can be justified as headshots.
  • In close range, they'd use the bayonet attached to their gun, but it'd basically be a nerfed version of a lance, and would lower your speed by 3-5 and has a lower damage output than a lance of the same level.
  • They would have a lot of power, because bullets are powerful. As an addendum to this, firearms would do very well against heavily armored units in contrast to bow-users in Echoes which had a harder time with heavily armored units; I'd say that heavily armored units have their defense at 75% against firearm users.
  • Since I'd envision a gunman type class to be able to hit from far away, do a lot of damage, have 5-6 movement (base-advanced), and have a way to fight enemies on an adjacent square, you'd have to purchase ammo for them at the store, so even if a FE game with this class didn't have weapon uses, gunman classes would be different and once they're out of ammo, they have to resort to using what comes down to as a nerfed lance, but there's an exception to that (which I will write about soon).

The advanced class for a Musketeer would be Rifleman, who is now able to wield swords as well as guns. Rifleman infantry throughout history before the 20th century have been very colorful and can have interesting headwear, so I can see Intelligent Systems, should they want to introduce classes like these into the games, a lot of ideas and space for interesting designs. Here's an example: 

  • However, if they get to S rank in firearms, then they get a repeating rifle which is basically like a brave weapon in that it hits 4 times if the Rifleman has at least +5 speed over the enemy, but if not, then twice.
  • They'd use up your ammo fast, so you'd couldn't just overuse them.
  • A sword meant for the Rifleman class would be the Saber, and it would increase the users speed by 3-5.
  • They would get little, if any defense boosts when promoting from a Musketeer from a Rifleman, because at least the Musketeer would wear some armor. Perhaps they even loose a little bit of defense upon of promoting due to a lack of armor (although magical classes still boost defense upon promoting, so a raise of it could still happen).

 

With this in mind, what do you think it would be like to go against a class type like this? What kind of personality do you think would be good for the first firearm-wielding unit? Or would their class or weapon of choice not bear much of an effect on their personality? I don't think so, but that's just me.  I'd say that in a support between a Knight and a Musketeer, the Knight and Musketeer get into a fight because the Knight would say their way of fighting is cowardly and cheap and they're too reliant on their gadget, but the musketeer/rifleman would have their own argument saying that what their doing is more practical and safer, etc. If it's like Fates/Awakening, they somehow get married after this if they are the opposite sex.

 

 

Edited by Valmese Soldier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns in Fire Emblem isn't too far fetched. They could go for a Renaissance era Fire Emblem which would still keep the medieval weapons (and magic) while adding primitive guns such as muskets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the archer thing...

I've probably said this somewhere before, but I strongly feel there's no reason they shouldn't be able to fight from close range unless they're using a longbow.  Skilled archers in history as well as in the modern era have proven that archers can fight from close range before.  I think the only reason this isn't the case in FE is for some arbitrary gameplay reason, but that's why one should rebalance instead of keeping things "as is".

On-topic, I wouldn't mind receiving guns so long as they stay in-line with the setting.  I'd even be a little open to modern firearms if the work with whatever FE they're in, but at that point it'd be more like Advance Wars or Valkyria Chronicles.  As long as they're interesting and don't muck with the game's conventions too much, I don't care what they do.

I'll probably even pitch an idea here if I can think of one, but right now I can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could go all Warring States of Japan with it too, have a Nobunaga like figure introduce guns into the fray etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if they were added, they would have to be to armor what arrows are to fliers. Guns were THE great equalizer in warfare. Also, any class that uses firearms would have to have terrible skill, as marksmanship with old guns like how I see them is poor as well as a crapshoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the idea of a Gunner class with primitive firearms, though I myself would imagine them as more of a late-game enemy-only class, with firearms being an invention created by one of the antagonist kingdom's scientists.  Alternatively, they could be used by the East Asia-inspired kingdom of we get another one of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking; why not have pistols, which can theoretically be used by almost any class. They ignore strength; doing a set amount of damage, and they cannot double. Perhaps the pistols either have limited ammo or can only be used once/battle. Yes, guns were useful in that pretty much anyone could use them with minimal training, and they could pierce all but the very best armour. However, they were a pain to reload, and a lot of strategies revolved around making that one shot count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

I really like the idea of a Gunner class with primitive firearms, though I myself would imagine them as more of a late-game enemy-only class, with firearms being an invention created by one of the antagonist kingdom's scientists.  Alternatively, they could be used by the East Asia-inspired kingdom of we get another one of those.

This sounds like a great idea. Firearms can be quite OP, so it'd make sense to be enemy-only and for the antagonistic Kingdom (or Empire, rather) when starting to lose, unleashes it's secret weapon. They would surprise the protagonists in the cutscene where they are introduced, and would make for a good challenge for people who enjoy strategy, like Conquest Lunatic. If they were just one late-game class, I'd say they'd be Musketeers and when in melee range would use rapiers.

Now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense for gunners to be the antithesis to heavily armored classes, especially Knights, in the same way that Archers are the antithesis to Pegasus Knights. Even though a gunner class should lack skill, Knight classes have abysmal speed, which means they'd be quite likely for a Musketeer to hit. You'd have to rely on very speedy dodgy units and hope you're lucky or the most defensive non-heavily armored unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

I think if they were added, they would have to be to armor what arrows are to fliers.

I had always thought that, if I ever made a REALLY ambitious hack, this is something I'd do. I have had a large number of thoughts (shower thoughts, I guess) as far as how to add guns and balance them in Fire Emblem terms. Another thing I would do is make most of them pretty heavy (if the hack had weight) or have them just give a speed debuff, to mirror slow rates of fire for muzzle loaded firearms.

I also remember a hack where a boss used a shotgun. It was supposed to be a joke, but it was pretty cool nonetheless. I think it was "Mathew's Nightmare." Of course, it was a one-off boss and weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would not know how to say but kiran could be the only one to use a firearm,at least it is what it seems to be, in addition its sprite shows that it attacks.

 

always consider those who use crossbow with an early version of the firearms, in addition that in fire emblem 7 the old woman gives you the explosive mine, 

in short the idea seems interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe to make it true medieval fantasy, add a siege weapon that only musketeers can operate. Cannons. They'd probably have a shorter range than ballistae (to mirror the horizontal trajectory, so that they can't be shot over mountains), but do more damage. A mounted musketeer class could also be added. Instead of low hit rates (old firearms aren't that inaccurate), just give really high weights (like 20 to 30). High might, but an inability to double (except the slowest units) and unexceptional hit would probably help balance. Or maybe give the weapons low might, but make them armor piercing (a la luna)? Also, how would the damage be calculated, anyway? Strength doesn't make a gun hurt more. Maybe have them pierce and have high might, but not add any damage from the user's stats? I feel as though the formulas would be complicated.

Rambling a bit. I'll stop now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ertrick36 said:

I strongly feel there's no reason they shouldn't be able to fight from close range unless they're using a longbow

Ya like in FE2/Echoes. I think Archers cannot shoot from close range because of balancing. You would just have another decent melee unit capable of range combat as well. Like mages, I guess. That is the job for mages and what makes them practical.
I think Archers are kind of in a bad position. I do not tend to use them much in FE. Unless I can get a hold of a Longbow, there are other classes or units capable of dealing with whatever situation you are in.

As for the topic... From what is outlined I guess gunmen would be like the axemen of ranged combat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DolphinDingus said:

Maybe to make it true medieval fantasy, add a siege weapon that only musketeers can operate. Cannons. They'd probably have a shorter range than ballistae (to mirror the horizontal trajectory, so that they can't be shot over mountains), but do more damage. A mounted musketeer class could also be added. Instead of low hit rates (old firearms aren't that inaccurate), just give really high weights (like 20 to 30). High might, but an inability to double (except the slowest units) and unexceptional hit would probably help balance. Or maybe give the weapons low might, but make them armor piercing (a la luna)? Also, how would the damage be calculated, anyway? Strength doesn't make a gun hurt more. Maybe have them pierce and have high might, but not add any damage from the user's stats? I feel as though the formulas would be complicated.

Cannons are an interesting thought. If they have separate weapon classes for cavaliers, I could see a branched promotion where sword cavaliers could get guns as a nod to 18th century cavalry. That's very interesting for the stat penalties. As for something like Luna, I don't know how you would calculate this, but maybe the might of the weapon is set, the defense of the target is set to 0, and the Skill stat of the attacker increases the damage, because let's be honest, getting hit by a bullet is going to probably cripple you, even if it misses something important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love for them to have a Renaissance style FE with a Gunner class. I like the look they used in Granblue a lot.

Spoiler

HuGjPWt.jpg

The way I would implement them would be to give them 1-2 range like magic (bows would be 2-3 range) and makes them do high damage/high crit at the cost of not doubling and having lower hit than bows. Their damage would be based on Skill rather than strength.

In terms of the story, I could see them being created to replace bows (too much training) and magic (limited to magical bloodlines). They're still primitive weapons which is why other weapons are still used, but they're a sign of the changing times.

15 hours ago, Ertrick36 said:

For the archer thing...

I've probably said this somewhere before, but I strongly feel there's no reason they shouldn't be able to fight from close range unless they're using a longbow.  Skilled archers in history as well as in the modern era have proven that archers can fight from close range before.  I think the only reason this isn't the case in FE is for some arbitrary gameplay reason, but that's why one should rebalance instead of keeping things "as is".

I have no doubt that one could fire a bow even at point blank range, but if an enemy were close enough to swing a sword at you, I think I'd drop the bow and pick up my own sword.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NekoKnight said:

I have no doubt that one could fire a bow even at point blank range, but if an enemy were close enough to swing a sword at you, I think I'd drop the bow and pick up my own sword.

If I recall from my rudimentary understanding of history, archers had their own way of dealing with foes at melee range, and it didn't require a sword.

In any event, the case shouldn't be that they'd be totally defenseless at melee range just because they had their bow out at the time.  Maybe they wouldn't be quite as effective as dedicated melee units, but not outright useless and passive.  I mean unless they use longbows, which are incredibly cumbersome for that kind of fighting.  At that point, it'd be like firing a bolt-action sniper rifle at near point-blank; you could do it, but it isn't an effective battle strategy.

Spoiler

That is unless you play CoD, apparently.

8 hours ago, MadJak91 said:

Ya like in FE2/Echoes. I think Archers cannot shoot from close range because of balancing. You would just have another decent melee unit capable of range combat as well. Like mages, I guess. That is the job for mages and what makes them practical.

That's why you'd change the way bow users would work.  You don't have to make them effective at melee range; just make it so that they can fight back in some way, and I'm not just talking about giving them a sword or whatever.  Perhaps they could have a passive that causes their damage output to be halved for melee combat.  Or prevent doubling at that range.  Or give them different classes of bows, one of which is good for close-mid range (1-2 range), but isn't so powerful, and another which is much more powerful and long-range (anywhere in the 2-4 range), but is weak/ineffective at close range.

It doesn't have to be just FE Gaiden archers versus FE Awakening archers; there are ways to balance this so that they have a utility without being downright useless otherwise or diminishing the roles of other units if you think about it enough.  But I digress; the topic is about firearms and firearm troops, not bows and archers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

As for something like Luna, I don't know how you would calculate this, but maybe the might of the weapon is set, the defense of the target is set to 0, and the Skill stat of the attacker increases the damage, because let's be honest, getting hit by a bullet is going to probably cripple you, even if it misses something important.

Yeah, this is exactly what I had in mind. Maybe have decent base damage of the gun, but add half of the unit's skill to balance out the piercing nature of the bullets.

I think the reason archers in FE games have always attacked from range is because, throughout history, archers would rarely (depending on the culture) use bows in close combat. Instead, they would switch to a sword or the like. Because of this, I think it was decided to make bows 2 range only. Since IS has traditionally preferred to give unpromoted classes only one weapon type (with the obvious exception of cavaliers, something I've always thought is dumb), they left archers with just bows. I think they wanted to make the game seem like it borrowed concepts from historic warfare, but not invalidate other sword infantry completely. Still begs the question of why bows only have 2 to 3 range in most titles...

Cool thing about making guns a weapon type is the sheer variety that could be chosen from. Basic guns could be muskets, higher level or higher range guns could be rifles, maybe make a 1 range, high damage blunderbuss, repeating rifles could have the brave effect, revolvers could be light and easy to double with, old guns could have the devil effect. Of course, most of what I listed wouldn't be available until late in the hypothetical FE we're talking about, since they'd need to be designed first. Wow, this topic is really making me nerd out on guns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎22‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 1:09 AM, Valmese Soldier said:

Some of you may think this may not work too well in a fantasy setting, but that's not true; in some "Sword & Sorcery" worlds, gunpowder weaponry exists along with swords, bows, magic, etc. A great example of this is Legend of Zelda.

Bombs and Powder Kegs in Majora's Mask are the only examples I can think of, and they make lousy weapons compared to the rest of your equipment.

As for muskets in FE, I'll be fine as long as they're horrendously inaccurate, like they were in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dandee Leone said:

Nintendo would never allow firearms to be in Fire Emblem.

Pokemon has cannons, Zelda has cannons, Mario has a lot of cannons, and IS also has Famicom Wars. Also, Metroid has used missiles since the beginning, and no one has given Nintendo shit for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Pokemon has cannons, Zelda has cannons, Mario has a lot of cannons, and IS also has Famicom Wars. Also, Metroid has used missiles since the beginning, and no one has given Nintendo shit for that.

Not to mention that it was at least considered for Awakening that it would be set on Mars, which would undoubtedly have involved guns of some kind. I don't see a tone problem for guns in the "spells and swords" genre anyway. Final Fantasy games in the Ivalice setting have guns and no one gives it a second glance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/9/2017 at 2:35 AM, Ertrick36 said:

Skilled archers in history as well as in the modern era have proven that archers can fight from close range before.

On 22/9/2017 at 6:55 PM, Ertrick36 said:

If I recall from my rudimentary understanding of history, archers had their own way of dealing with foes at melee range, and it didn't require a sword.

Sources please? I'm genuinely curious.

9 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Pokemon has cannons, Zelda has cannons, Mario has a lot of cannons, and IS also has Famicom Wars. Also, Metroid has used missiles since the beginning, and no one has given Nintendo shit for that.

I don't know anything about Metroid, but cannons in Pokemon (and Zelda too I guess) aren't really realistic or portrayed as the terrifying stuff that they were in real life, which would probably be the case with FE; I doubt they're pointed at people in those games as well. Also, (realistic) firearms like musket or rifles or whatever are very different from cannons in that they're much more closely linked to contemporary war and forms of violence; last but not least, cannons are IMHO more "cartoonish", somehow "less rough": they can be used to shoot at walls or ships, they are not necessarily aimed at humans. Realistic guns and the likes though are necessarily pointed at humans, which is much less "family-friendly". I don't know if I explained myself, but think about that one Pokémon episode that got censored because Officer Jenny pointed a gun at Ash & Co: Fire Emblem does aim to be almost as "family-friendly" as Pokémon, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Koumal8 said:

I don't know anything about Metroid, but cannons in Pokemon (and Zelda too I guess) aren't really realistic or portrayed as the terrifying stuff that they were in real life, which would probably be the case with FE; I doubt they're pointed at people in those games as well. Also, (realistic) firearms like musket or rifles or whatever are very different from cannons in that they're much more closely linked to contemporary war and forms of violence; last but not least, cannons are IMHO more "cartoonish", somehow "less rough": they can be used to shoot at walls or ships, they are not necessarily aimed at humans. Realistic guns and the likes though are necessarily pointed at humans, which is much less "family-friendly". I don't know if I explained myself, but think about that one Pokémon episode that got censored because Officer Jenny pointed a gun at Ash & Co: Fire Emblem does aim to be almost as "family-friendly" as Pokémon, doesn't it?

How is Camilla "family friendly"? What about her describing the fate of Scarlet in Conquest? Fire Emblem is inherently about war, and only the GBA games got anything lower than E10+, and even though Echoes was a lot more family friendly than Fates, Sonya was a thing, and it was also implied that the bandit leader wanted to rape Silque. I doubt the ESRB would take it to M for guns. CERO and PEGI might, but not the ESRB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...