Alastor plays and ranks the whole series! Mission Complete! ...For now.

[Jotari]

 

Quote

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we took this game, kept the villagers, but made cavaliers promote straight to gold knights, made archers promote straight to bow knights, made mercenaries promote straight to dread fighters, and made knights promote straight to barons.

That's four mediocre middle classes we've cut out of just four existing class paths, each with their own special animations, models, sprites, everything. We take that budget out of there, and what could we do with that cash?

...Why, we could create two entire new class sets. Not classes, class sets.

With that, Echoes could've added player-usable axes by adding playable axefighters and playable wyvern riders!

 

I think you overestimate how budget intensive it is to make a class. Especially for the likes of Echoes which was the third game on an engine. If they wanted to have an axe wielding class it wouldn't have been hard to do. Likewise in the original Gaiden which was made on the same engine as Shadow Dragon. Adding more classes, especially the likes of axe wielding classes that they already have animation for, there wouldn't have been an issue. If they were tight on budget animations then they wouldn't have went to the completely unnecessary trouble of having enemy and player variations of the same class having different sprites. Or even the fact that yeah, they already did make an axe class in Gaiden, they just made it enemy only. Making it playable would have required no effort at all. I don't think it was a case of budget at all, but a choice in game design to have their classes like that. Now that being said I do agree that Gaiden handles a three tier system rather poorly, but that's mostly because the first and second tiers do basically nothing to distinguish themselves, for the most part (banish on Falcon Knights is nice). And I think a lot of this comes from the lack of dual weapon types for anyone but Alm. But by the same criteria, I reckon the lack of dual weapon types is the reason they decided to have so few playable classes to begin with.

Quote

 

The only game that I think can remotely justify its choice to have three tiers of classes is Radiant Dawn, and there it mostly works because it's a sequel and they needed to properly convey that the returning cast was still as badass as when we left them but still had room to grow. But still, it definitely comes at a price. Because while a lot of it has to do with them splitting up armor, mages and cavalry into multiple classes, one for each weapon type... there's still like sixty classes in Radiant Dawn, ignoring the non-humans, and yet the number of endgame-relevant human classes is still just 20 (keep in mind I was counting unique classes for both numbers there because I don't have all day and Radiant Dawn's class list is fucking dizzying).

 

I don't think it was particularly necessary in Radiant Dawn. They didn't feel the need to make third tier classes for Mystery of the Emblem yet it doesn't feel weird that Gordin's an archer and Ogma's a mercenary. If anything it feels weird that Abel is a Paladin (I guess in canon Shadow Dragon was an Abel solo). I don't think anyone would have been all that upset if the returning Radiant Dawn units were first tier units. Hell Mist keeps the same class and promotion as in Path of Radiance yet Cleric jumps from a tier 1 class to a tier 2 class for no real reason, which is kind of immersion breaking. The way they did end up implementing three tiers in Radiant Dawn left the vast majority of characters as "prepromotes" which had the effect of actually turning the genuine tier 1 characters into trainee units. Which in turn made the Dawn Brigade chapters way harder than they should have been since the units in it end up significantly underlevelled compared to the Dawn Brigade. And while that spike in difficulty is kind of cool from a gameplay challenge perspective, it's pretty artifical and would have been done away with entirely if the Dawn Brigade and Greil Mercenaries just began on equal footing. The Greil Mercs and Dawn Brigade have roughly equal number of chapters before part 4, but because the Greil Mercs are all prepromoted, they have an additional 20 levels over the Dawn Brigade, yet the Dawn Brigade don't have an additional 10 or so chapters to compensate for that. I can see why they did it as there is some sense to keeping veteran units from the last game promoted, but it's a superficial fix to a problem that doesn't actually exist and it caused way more issue for the balance of the game than it actually solved.

Quote

 

 

As for why I ultimately decided using Three Houses as an example of this wouldn't be fair?

True, Three Houses' system isn't the most resource-efficient, creating models for 36 classes (ignoring DLC and personals), 18 of which are realistically relevant in the endgame (taking both the master and advanced classes together and then removing wyvern rider, warrior and grappler for being obsoleted by wyvern lord and war master). So, basically exactly half. Meanwhile, Fates created 47 classes (again ignoring personals and DLC and the like), 25 Hoshidan and 22 Nohrian, and 29 of them are relevant in the endgame, a little under 2/3.

But really, “only half of classes are relevant in the endgame” is true of every system before branching promotions made it so that there were more promoted classes than base classes. Due to the weird and wonky way they stretched the existing series' classes out into those four tiers, and due to the fact that this isn't really strictly a clearly-defined, objective multi-tier system since the last two tiers are more or less equal, when all is said and done this system basically comes out even with games of the past.

At least by the endgame. Before you get to advanced and master classes it causes unit variety to start at rock goddamned bottom, make no mistake. So it does play a role in how mediocre and same-y character performance is in the early-game. But by the endgame... they didn't misallocate their budget nearly as much as my instincts told me they did.

 

Why is endgame even a metric by which to judge the use of classes? We could get rid of promotion entirely and then 100% of the game's classes are relevant to end game, but I don't think that would really make the end game, or any part of the game, all that much better. Likewise I don't think "More classes = More quality" is all that solid an argument (and this is coming from the guy who's designed a fantasy system with over a hundred different classes, so it's not like I have a bias against the idea). It's not about how many classes there are, it's about how they're utilized and made distinct from each other.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Jotari

[Interdimensional Observer]

51 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Why is endgame even a metric by which to judge the use of classes? We could get rid of promotion entirely and then 100% of the game's classes are relevant to end game

You might be able to take it even further, and create a classless world altogether.

Three Houses might be the FE most suited for that. Skill ranks are what gates class access. Abolish the seals and the exams, and going classless seems entirely feasible. Make horses/pegasi/wyverns/armor into equipment, and give them usability ranks as with weapons. There are two major fixes you'd need: 

• One to keep everyone from becoming a mount-having fully-magicked armor unit. 
• And a second to reallocate Ability and special Combat Arts.

For the former issue, add another Ability slot, perhaps make it a special slot that can hold only one of: Equip Armor, Equip Horse, Equip Pegasus, Equip Wyvern, or "Equip Catalyst" (enable magic usage). As a character gains sheer levels alone, the number of these slots increases to 2 and then 3 by the lategame Thus, it eventually becomes possible to have Equip Armor and Equip Horse on the same unit, and if combined with the "Steely Steed" Ability in the third slot for some kind of Armor+Horse equipping synergy bonus, you'd effectively get a Great Knight.

For the later issue, institute more school training? Perhaps "Stem and Leaf" skill trees? The "Stems" would provide the actual Rank ups. Some, but not all (Prowesses, -Faires, -Breakers) character-specific and universal Combat Arts and Abilities alike would be located in offshoot "Leaf" paths. They still require WEXP to unlock, but won't get you better Prowesses, nor increase your actual Skill levels and thus unlock new weapons you can use. So now you have to decide whether unlocking new tiers of weapons and Stem Abilities/CAs are worth delaying in favor of Leaf Abilities/CAs.

-I'm merely entertaining a notion on the spot, without thinking it entirely through.

[Acacia Sgt]

How did you got access to my WIP still-in-the-planning-stages RP documents?

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

You might be able to take it even further, and create a classless world altogether.

Three Houses might be the FE most suited for that. Skill ranks are what gates class access. Abolish the seals and the exams, and going classless seems entirely feasible. Make horses/pegasi/wyverns/armor into equipment, and give them usability ranks as with weapons. There are two major fixes you'd need: 

• One to keep everyone from becoming a mount-having fully-magicked armor unit. 
• And a second to reallocate Ability and special Combat Arts.

For the former issue, add another Ability slot, perhaps make it a special slot that can hold only one of: Equip Armor, Equip Horse, Equip Pegasus, Equip Wyvern, or "Equip Catalyst" (enable magic usage). As a character gains sheer levels alone, the number of these slots increases to 2 and then 3 by the lategame Thus, it eventually becomes possible to have Equip Armor and Equip Horse on the same unit, and if combined with the "Steely Steed" Ability in the third slot for some kind of Armor+Horse equipping synergy bonus, you'd effectively get a Great Knight.

For the later issue, institute more school training? Perhaps "Stem and Leaf" skill trees? The "Stems" would provide the actual Rank ups. Some, but not all (Prowesses, -Faires, -Breakers) character-specific and universal Combat Arts and Abilities alike would be located in offshoot "Leaf" paths. They still require WEXP to unlock, but won't get you better Prowesses, nor increase your actual Skill levels and thus unlock new weapons you can use. So now you have to decide whether unlocking new tiers of weapons and Stem Abilities/CAs are worth delaying in favor of Leaf Abilities/CAs.

-I'm merely entertaining a notion on the spot, without thinking it entirely through.

It would certainly be an interesting approach to designing a Fire Emblem game, and I wouldn't object to it on principle, but I don't think as a whole Fire Emblem would be better off without classes and that it'd make for a good standard. And some people have been wanting something like it since even before Three Houses. One issue I could see would be identity when it comes to enemy units. Glancing at an enemy's class tells me pretty much everything I need to know about that enemy due to the archtypical way in which classes are designed. Like I know what kind of statlines a mercenary and a myrmidon are going to have because I know what their classes are like. Change that to just an enemy with a sword or axe and my intuitive knowledge of that enemy's weakness will go out the window. Enemies will either constantly trip me up based on having unexpected stats meaning paranoid checking of enemy stats, or enemies would boil down entirely to the weapon they using and nothing else. Enhanced even more so if enemies are to have skills. Essentially classes must still exist in some form for enemies, which means either checking their stats religiously or reducing the enemy's class variance to one of each weapon. Well either that or just ignore the system entirely and give enemies classic class designs even if they aren't technically a myrmidon or a warrior etc.

[Anathaco]

6 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

And then there's some... “big brother” stuff, and Dimitri implying that he feels that literally any story about his childhood would be embarrassing... which probably made more sense in the original Japanese when that was before he started putting on a macho act...

I mean to be fair that’s a pretty common attitude to take even without a whole macho personality. I got the feeling it wasn’t so much that any story about his childhood would be embarrassing, but more so that Gustave would have told the more embarrassing ones so that’s what would come up now.

6 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

True, Three Houses' system isn't the most resource-efficient, creating models for 36 classes (ignoring DLC and personals), 18 of which are realistically relevant in the endgame (taking both the master and advanced classes together and then removing wyvern rider, warrior and grappler for being obsoleted by wyvern lord and war master). So, basically exactly half. Meanwhile, Fates created 47 classes (again ignoring personals and DLC and the like), 25 Hoshidan and 22 Nohrian, and 29 of them are relevant in the endgame, a little under 2/3.

Random correction that Grappler is definitely a viable class option for endgame, so 19/36.

As for the main point I kinda agree, kinda disagree. I disagree because I’m not sure judging purely by endgame viability is a good idea, but I think the main draw of a two tiered class system is a genuine feeling of progression. Since games with more than two tiers aren’t going to have the overall power ceiling be higher, it means the more class tiers you have the less of a jump between them it’ll be. The thing that basically distinguishes 3H class tiers is ability quality (both mastered and innate) but overall I feel that promotions in 3H just… aren’t as significant as in other games. That could just be me though.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

6 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

True, Three Houses' system isn't the most resource-efficient, creating models for 36 classes (ignoring DLC and personals), 18 of which are realistically relevant in the endgame (taking both the master and advanced classes together and then removing wyvern rider, warrior and grappler for being obsoleted by wyvern lord and war master). So, basically exactly half. Meanwhile, Fates created 47 classes (again ignoring personals and DLC and the like), 25 Hoshidan and 22 Nohrian, and 29 of them are relevant in the endgame, a little under 2/3.

Minor nitpick, but Grappler retains its relevance into the endgame, even measured against War Master. Grappler has free movement through forests, as well as Fierce Iron Fist, both of which War Master is lacking. Also, Dancer could be considered among the endgame-relevant classes, unless you're treating it as a personal class and excluding it on that basis.

6 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we took this game, kept the villagers, but made cavaliers promote straight to gold knights, made archers promote straight to bow knights, made mercenaries promote straight to dread fighters, and made knights promote straight to barons.

The tricky part is, figuring out when they would promote, and what kind of boost they would receive. If Archer -> Bow Knight happens at level 7, suddenly that unit is just stomping the enemy. On the flip side, if it happens at level 16, the Archer will have to go through a long mediocre phase. Not only this, but it also limits qhat the enemy army can throw at you: pathetic low-move Archers, or Bow Knights with almost double the attack range. There's no "middle-ground threat" anymore.

Also, the game already has more classes they could give us. They could've given us an Arcanist, who then promotes into Cantor. Or a Brigand, who... admittedly, could use at least one promotion. But they didn't, likely out of fidelity to the original.

At a fundamental level, I don't think "proportion of classes that are endgame viable" is a fair way to assess the class system. At least, no more than I think the "20/20 averages" approach of rating units is a good one.

6 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Seteth: Flayn is not the type of person to just wander off on her own without telling me where she is going!

...Unless she's been, I dunno, kidnapped? You don't honestly think she's missing entirely of her own doing, do you?

Thinking on it, why didn't they kidnap Flayn away from the monastery? Rather than letting her stay a full month under everybody's noses? Thankfully, the Chuch's ineptitude is only outmatched by the Slitherers' incompetence.

6 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

That, uh... sounds like the exact opposite of a reason why the ruler would have to have a crest. Having a crest should therefore mark you for a career in the military, not as the ruler. Why is it essential that the person in charge of House Gautier has to be the Gautier who takes the lance into battle? I mean, look at fucking Eldigan! He's got major Hezul blood, and he's asked with using the Mystletainn in combat. But he's not in charge of the Hezul bloodline's domain, his king is! His king who does not need to have major Hezul blood as well, as Chagall very handily demonstrates.

Isn't "Chagall as King" presented as... a bad thing, though? Like, Eldigan belongs to the "rightful lineage" to lead Augustria, but due to a historical deal, the throne is instead held by Chagall. Whose hotneaded nature and capriciousness cause his country's downfall.

6 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

It's funny that even though Rhea seems fine with the explanation... like, the dent to your support points with her still happens, like she's still just as mad.

Sylvain: Yes. I... I will not soon forget.

And... that's the most acting and emoting I've seen from Sylvain all game.

I do like how, in at least this one instance, Sylvain (not Teach) receives the weapon into his inventory. Can't wait until we get to the Paralogues, where every student hands their Relic over to Teach. In open defiance of Rhea's sternest warnings.

[Alastor15243]

6 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Isn't "Chagall as King" presented as... a bad thing, though? Like, Eldigan belongs to the "rightful lineage" to lead Augustria, but due to a historical deal, the throne is instead held by Chagall. Whose hotneaded nature and capriciousness cause his country's downfall.

That's not because he doesn't have major holy blood though. By all accounts his father sounds like he was a fine king, and certainly he was portrayed as one.

 

[Acacia Sgt]

Chagall is also part of the "rightful lineage", that of being Hezul's direct descendant. The deal over there is that Hezul's daughter (very likely not the firstborn child) was the one who inherited the holy blood (no explanation why, common theory is that she was born after Hezul received the Holy Blood, and it didn't retroactively applied to the already born child(ren)), and not Hezul's heir. Said daughter married into Nordion's royal family, thus an accordance of vassalage.

That said, I think, once Chagall takes the throne, there are people voicing they'd rather want Eldigan be King. But that only rose up to Chagall's own actions. No word there was serious voicing of Nordion becoming the main power of Agustria because they held the Major Blood before that. But then, it was likely long accepted since it was acknowledged it was an extraordinary situation that the Holy Blood jumped dynasties.

[Interdimensional Observer]

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

One issue I could see would be identity when it comes to enemy units. Glancing at an enemy's class tells me pretty much everything I need to know about that enemy due to the archtypical way in which classes are designed.

I do see your point here. Permadeath makes failure to properly digest enemy intel particularly problematic for FE. 

 

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

That said, I think, once Chagall takes the throne, there are people voicing they'd rather want Eldigan be King. But that only rose up to Chagall's own actions. No word there was serious voicing of Nordion becoming the main power of Agustria because they held the Major Blood before that.

The curse of popularity, and or success in service to the realm, and or bloodlines. Popularity is something you might not intentionally cultivate, but happens. You've no say over your blood. And the alternative to succeeding for your country, is failing, which will also get you into hot water. 

If Chagall could only see that Eldigan was unshakeable in loyalty, it's paranoid, but it isn't unrealistic. There have been no shortage over millennia of young heirs and potential heirs who got killed for no reason, other than being related to someone who wants power without the slightest fear of it being undone. And for popularity and military success, Georgy Zhukov comes to mind. As does the way older Belisarius, who admittedly did consider, as per Eastern Roman "tradition", taking the throne when Justinian was near-death with bubonic plague and lacked a son to succeed him, which you couldn't call a violent usurpation unless Justinian had already picked his successor. Though Belisarius managed to stay alive and simply retired when Justinian recovered, and Zhukov was as lucky to avoid Comrade Purge's very sanguine side. Eldigan might've been allowed to live had the Augustrian kingdom not been on the verge of total conquest by the Grannvalians.

[lenticular]

  

8 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Ingrid allegedly envies Mercedes for, among other things, her “keen eye for fashion”, when Ingrid said quite plainly in her talk with Annette that she doesn't much care about how she looks beyond basic hygiene.

Not really. Her support with Annette has her say that she's somewhat interested in it but has never found it a high enough priority to be worth investing her time and money into. Which I think makes it entirely natural to admire someone who has spent the time to develop that particular skillset. (Source: personal experience.)

8 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

So, according to Dimitri, the justification for why House Gautier is specifically obsessed with making sure its heirs have Crests... is because their territory requires them to be able to repel invaders.

That, uh... sounds like the exact opposite of a reason why the ruler would have to have a crest. Having a crest should therefore mark you for a career in the military, not as the ruler. Why is it essential that the person in charge of House Gautier has to be the Gautier who takes the lance into battle? I mean, look at fucking Eldigan! He's got major Hezul blood, and he's tasked with using the Mystletainn in combat. But he's not in charge of the Hezul bloodline's domain, his king is! His king who does not need to have major Hezul blood as well, as Chagall very handily demonstrates.

Not going to comment on the Genealogy stuff, since I've never played it, but Three Houses quite clearly depicts a world where nobles and rulers are still expected to go into battle themselves. Which is a system that has plenty of precedent throughout real-world human history as well, including medieval Europe which is a primary inspiration for Fire Emblem. Maybe you could say that it would be a better political system if the rulers weren't also fighters, but that isn't the system that's in place in the world that's presented. I'm also not sure it actually would be a better system. If there's a cadet branch of the ruling noble family that also happens to have all of the military might -- and all of the potential popularity that can come with successful military campaigns -- then it wouldn't take much to lead to instability, coups, and overthrown rulers.

2 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Minor nitpick, but Grappler retains its relevance into the endgame, even measured against War Master. Grappler has free movement through forests, as well as Fierce Iron Fist, both of which War Master is lacking. Also, Dancer could be considered among the endgame-relevant classes, unless you're treating it as a personal class and excluding it on that basis.

I'd add that Warrior is also potentially relevant into endgame, given that War Master is gender-locked. Admitedly, Warrior isn't a good class, and any female axe user is better off being put on a wyvern, but if we were only counting good classes then there'd be several others that we'd have to kick out as well. There isn't a straight "does the same thing but better" upgrade for female characters in the same way that Wyvern Lord is just better Wyvern Rider and War Master is just better Warrior (for males).

[AnonymousSpeed]

10 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Do you see my point here? When you add extra tiers to the game, you aren't making the endgame cooler. After all, there's no sacred law that says that endgame classes are only allowed to have a level of cool that scales with the number of tiers in the game. You're just adding mediocre fluff to the middle. And for what? Nothing, really, except an increase to the cost that each class set takes to produce.

I mean, sure, maybe, but I personally don't mind the rather limited number of classes which Gaiden/Echoes offers. There may only be 8 fully promoted classes, but those classes are highly differentiated from each other. Druid, Bishop, and Sage do not exactly present a compelling trilemma, whereas each class in Gaiden has a distinct niche which units of that class can embrace, subvert, reinterpret, etc. So the variety there is limited, but among the most genuine the series has ever offered.

8 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

How did you got access to my WIP still-in-the-planning-stages RP documents?

*interest intensifies*

3 hours ago, Anathaco said:

As for the main point I kinda agree, kinda disagree. I disagree because I’m not sure judging purely by endgame viability is a good idea, but I think the main draw of a two tiered class system is a genuine feeling of progression. Since games with more than two tiers aren’t going to have the overall power ceiling be higher, it means the more class tiers you have the less of a jump between them it’ll be. The thing that basically distinguishes 3H class tiers is ability quality (both mastered and innate) but overall I feel that promotions in 3H just… aren’t as significant as in other games. That could just be me though.

I think the loss of the promotion screen does a lot to hamper that feeling. Yeah, your stats do go up, but you don't get to see it (unless it affects character bases, like the armored classes do for your defense), which sort of "hides away" that boost.

Edited August 28, 2021 by AnonymousSpeed

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I do like how, in at least this one instance, Sylvain (not Teach) receives the weapon into his inventory. Can't wait until we get to the Paralogues, where every student hands their Relic over to Teach. In open defiance of Rhea's sternest warnings.

I kind of wish they did that for all the relics. Like it's kind of a case of "Here teach, I don't want to use this just yet so I'm giving it to you." "Yeah, sure, but I'm going to put it in your inventory immediately." Eh, maybe they did it that way to encourage people to use the relics with characters who don't have a matching crest. Which is commonly a smart way to use them (because for the most part those combat arts aren't too impressive). But I like characters having prfs too much to let anyone else use the relics, so it goes right into the inventory of its owner.

7 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I do see your point here. Permadeath makes failure to properly digest enemy intel particularly problematic for FE. 

 

The curse of popularity, and or success in service to the realm, and or bloodlines. Popularity is something you might not intentionally cultivate, but happens. You've no say over your blood. And the alternative to succeeding for your country, is failing, which will also get you into hot water. 

If Chagall could only see that Eldigan was unshakeable in loyalty, it's paranoid, but it isn't unrealistic. There have been no shortage over millennia of young heirs and potential heirs who got killed for no reason, other than being related to someone who wants power without the slightest fear of it being undone. And for popularity and military success, Georgy Zhukov comes to mind. As does the way older Belisarius, who admittedly did consider, as per Eastern Roman "tradition", taking the throne when Justinian was near-death with bubonic plague and lacked a son to succeed him, which you couldn't call a violent usurpation unless Justinian had already picked his successor. Though Belisarius managed to stay alive and simply retired when Justinian recovered, and Zhukov was as lucky to avoid Comrade Purge's very sanguine side. Eldigan might've been allowed to live had the Augustrian kingdom not been on the verge of total conquest by the Grannvalians.

You know I feel like Chagall gets a bit too much guff. Like, yes, the game is certainly trying to depict him as an idiot, but it's also trying to hold back on the expansionist element of Grannvale until the end of Chapter 3 so the twist of Sigurd being betrayed can be more impactful. If you actually consider things from Chagall's perspective he's not really all that wrong in Chapter 4 (I'll stress Chapter 4 here, as yeah he was definitely looking for trouble in Chapter 3 and got far more than he could handle). Half his country had been taken from him and Grannvale was making no attempt to give it back despite Sigurd's promises. And Eldigan, his main military power, is not only a risk to his own leadership with his popularity, but he's actively refused to fight Sigurd. He was there on the field, in a position to potentially win the war for Agustria, and Eldigan just turns around and goes home to plead patience with a nation that's slowly taking over the entire continent. Chagall is a bit of an idiot, but much like Eldigan (and Sigurd), he really didn't have any better options at the time.

[Acacia Sgt]

5 hours ago, Jotari said:

You know I feel like Chagall gets a bit too much guff. Like, yes, the game is certainly trying to depict him as an idiot, but it's also trying to hold back on the expansionist element of Grannvale until the end of Chapter 3 so the twist of Sigurd being betrayed can be more impactful. If you actually consider things from Chagall's perspective he's not really all that wrong in Chapter 4 (I'll stress Chapter 4 here, as yeah he was definitely looking for trouble in Chapter 3 and got far more than he could handle). Half his country had been taken from him and Grannvale was making no attempt to give it back despite Sigurd's promises. And Eldigan, his main military power, is not only a risk to his own leadership with his popularity, but he's actively refused to fight Sigurd. He was there on the field, in a position to potentially win the war for Agustria, and Eldigan just turns around and goes home to plead patience with a nation that's slowly taking over the entire continent. Chagall is a bit of an idiot, but much like Eldigan (and Sigurd), he really didn't have any better options at the time.

To be fair, Grannvale wouldn't be attacking if he hadn't declared war first. That said, the whole thing was a False Flag operation orchestrated by the Loptyr Cult and Lombard/Reptor/Arvis. Since King Imuka was able to keep cordial relations between both countries. Then the Cult provoked Verdane into attacking Grannvale, triggering the counter invasion and conquest, which sent Chaggall into paranoia they'd be next. So then the Cult convince Chaggall to kill Imuka, then attack Grannvale first before they attack him (might not be true, but then LRA would've ensure they wouldn't so Chaggall would be the aggressor; more so when most of the Grannvale army was in Isaach thanks to another False Flag). Sigurd's attempt at keeping the peace would've likewise been sabotaged, all things considered, thus prompting Chaggall and Eldigan to resume hostilities.

So Chaggall was both a puppet and a bad ruler. They go hand in hand.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Acacia Sgt

[Jotari]

51 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

To be fair, Grannvale wouldn't be attacking if he hadn't declared war first. That said, the whole thing was a False Flag operation orchestrated by the Loptyr Cult and Lombard/Reptor/Arvis. Since King Imuka was able to keep cordial relations between both countries. Then the Cult provoked Verdane into attacking Grannvale, triggering the counter invasion and conquest, which sent Chaggall into paranoia they'd be next. So then the Cult convince Chaggall to kill Imuka, then attack Grannvale first before they attack him (might not be true, but then LRA would've ensure they wouldn't so Chaggall would be the aggressor; more so when most of the Grannvale army was in Isaach thanks to another False Flag). Sigurd's attempt at keeping the peace would've likewise been sabotaged, all things considered, thus prompting Chaggall and Eldigan to resume hostilities.

So Chaggall was both a puppet and a bad ruler. They go hand in hand.

Yeah, that's why I was specifying Chapter 4 over Chapter 3.

[Acacia Sgt]

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Yeah, that's why I was specifying Chapter 4 over Chapter 3.

3 and 2, actually. 4 is the Silessia chapter... which surprisingly for all that happened in the continent, it's a wonder Lewyn's uncles' rebellion had no involvement of either LRA or the Cult. That I know of. They did showed up at the end, but no word they goaded the uncles into attacking Sigurd and the Queen.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Acacia Sgt

[Jotari]

Just now, Acacia Sgt said:

3 and 2, actually.

Gah XD I've been one off the entire time. Chapter 3 not 4. 4 is of course the Silesia chapter when Chagall is already dead. My subconscious must have been counting the prologue as 1.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

21 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Three Houses might be the FE most suited for that. Skill ranks are what gates class access. Abolish the seals and the exams, and going classless seems entirely feasible. Make horses/pegasi/wyverns/armor into equipment, and give them usability ranks as with weapons. There are two major fixes you'd need: 

• One to keep everyone from becoming a mount-having fully-magicked armor unit. 
• And a second to reallocate Ability and special Combat Arts.

For the former issue, add another Ability slot, perhaps make it a special slot that can hold only one of: Equip Armor, Equip Horse, Equip Pegasus, Equip Wyvern, or "Equip Catalyst" (enable magic usage). As a character gains sheer levels alone, the number of these slots increases to 2 and then 3 by the lategame Thus, it eventually becomes possible to have Equip Armor and Equip Horse on the same unit, and if combined with the "Steely Steed" Ability in the third slot for some kind of Armor+Horse equipping synergy bonus, you'd effectively get a Great Knight.

Here's how I would do it:

Units start with a single "Equip" slot, which increases to two at level 10, then three at level 30. The first slot is always a weapon or spell, while the latter slots can be anything else.

Shields can be equipped based on Armor rank (i.e. Leather at E, Iron at D, etc.). Shields generally get improved stats across the board, and can be forged. Wielding a shield increases Armor rank for every combat. Armor-effective weapons do bonus damage against foes with a shield equipped.

Horses can be equipped similarly, based on Riding rank. Different ranks give different effects - the lowest rank gives a movement boost, while higher-rank ones give Canto, and provide other skills and stat boosts. "Dismounting" is done by unequipping the Horse. Horses have a Weight stat, potentially affecting attack speed. Anti-cavalry weapons work similarly to anti-armors.

Pegasi and Wyverns work similarly. Different ranks, different effects. Bows do effective damage like before. You can stack a Shield with a mount, but not two mounts together (mounts are restricted to slot 2).

Also, all animals would be buyable at the Stables. As the game progresses, more mounts become available to buy.

16 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

That's not because he doesn't have major holy blood though. By all accounts his father sounds like he was a fine king, and certainly he was portrayed as one.

Huh, I didn't remember that detail of the backstory.

14 hours ago, lenticular said:

I'd add that Warrior is also potentially relevant into endgame, given that War Master is gender-locked. Admitedly, Warrior isn't a good class, and any female axe user is better off being put on a wyvern, but if we were only counting good classes then there'd be several others that we'd have to kick out as well. There isn't a straight "does the same thing but better" upgrade for female characters in the same way that Wyvern Lord is just better Wyvern Rider and War Master is just better Warrior (for males).

Fair point. Any one of Edelgard, Annette, or Hilda could end up in Warrior. Wyvern classes are better overall, but they do miss out on access to grounded battalions.

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

I kind of wish they did that for all the relics. Like it's kind of a case of "Here teach, I don't want to use this just yet so I'm giving it to you." "Yeah, sure, but I'm going to put it in your inventory immediately." Eh, maybe they did it that way to encourage people to use the relics with characters who don't have a matching crest. Which is commonly a smart way to use them (because for the most part those combat arts aren't too impressive). But I like characters having prfs too much to let anyone else use the relics, so it goes right into the inventory of its owner.

I definitely don't mind swapping the Relics around. My current playthrough has Lorenz with the Luín, Constance with Thyrsus, and Teach with Thunderbrand. That said, making the weapons Prfs (or limited to units with the proper Crest) would have been better in terms of lore.

Anyway, when they're given to Teach, I just tend to put them right into the Convoy. I would've preferred them to go straight to the Convoy. Same for items won from the Arena.

[ZeManaphy]

I don’t get your complaints about supports. Supports in Three Houses do have a gameplay influence for starters, they help increase your gambits hit rates. That’s objectively true. I also don’t see how it’s any more difficult to pair up people for their endings compared to Awakening/Fates. Yes, you get to choose your final S-Rank support in those games, but that’s because children are a critical mechanic that it would be unfair for it to be automatic. In contrast, paired endings in Three Houses are only seen at then end and have virtually no impact on the campaign gameplay wise. I also don’t see how it’s more difficult to separate characters from gaining supports. If you don’t want Bernie and Ferdinand gaining support points, you can just have them not interact with each other by not serving as the adjacent, not doing Monasteries activities with them, or having them not be adjacent to each other fight. And if you really don’t want them have any supports, you cannot just play them. Granted Byleth is guaranteed supports with characters thanks to tutoring unlike Corrin and Robin, but you can choose Byleth’s paired ending in the end, so it doesn’t matter. Also if there are way too many supports to watch, you can always skip them via the + button on the joycons. 

[Anathaco]

40 minutes ago, ZeManaphy said:

I don’t get your complaints about supports. Supports in Three Houses do have a gameplay influence for starters, they help increase your gambits hit rates. That’s objectively true. I also don’t see how it’s any more difficult to pair up people for their endings compared to Awakening/Fates. Yes, you get to choose your final S-Rank support in those games, but that’s because children are a critical mechanic that it would be unfair for it to be automatic. In contrast, paired endings in Three Houses are only seen at then end and have virtually no impact on the campaign gameplay wise. I also don’t see how it’s more difficult to separate characters from gaining supports. If you don’t want Bernie and Ferdinand gaining support points, you can just have them not interact with each other by not serving as the adjacent, not doing Monasteries activities with them, or having them not be adjacent to each other fight. And if you really don’t want them have any supports, you cannot just play them. Granted Byleth is guaranteed supports with characters thanks to tutoring unlike Corrin and Robin, but you can choose Byleth’s paired ending in the end, so it doesn’t matter. Also if there are way too many supports to watch, you can always skip them via the + button on the joycons. 

The point about supports having no gameplay influence wasn’t that they were useless, it was that they felt useless. Which while I don’t agree with I can definitely see, because supports are so common that it’s basically just a matter of time causing them to increase- and therefore replacing the increasing levels of support with, say, increasing professor level would probably be almost indistinguishable.

As for paired endings he does have a point. I’ve lost track of the times where I’ve gotten an ending that I didn’t want- the fact that they needed to add the DLC lady is proof of that. And if you don’t have that and want to avoid getting supports you have to go way too far out of your way for my liking- avoiding pairing units on the battlefield, never letting them eat together. Sure it’s possible, and maybe it’s easy for some- but for me at least it’s really annoying (or would be if I actively tried to not pair specific people up- I don’t care about paired endings that much, though I know people that do).

As for skipping, honestly sometimes even the prospect of skipping supports fills me with dread and I procrastinate completing them. I’m a fairly patient person, but sometimes I get so many supports that I can’t even be bothered to press a single button to skip them. I have no clue if I’m alone on that front, but yeah.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, ZeManaphy said:

I don’t get your complaints about supports. Supports in Three Houses do have a gameplay influence for starters, they help increase your gambits hit rates. That’s objectively true. I also don’t see how it’s any more difficult to pair up people for their endings compared to Awakening/Fates. Yes, you get to choose your final S-Rank support in those games, but that’s because children are a critical mechanic that it would be unfair for it to be automatic. In contrast, paired endings in Three Houses are only seen at then end and have virtually no impact on the campaign gameplay wise. I also don’t see how it’s more difficult to separate characters from gaining supports. If you don’t want Bernie and Ferdinand gaining support points, you can just have them not interact with each other by not serving as the adjacent, not doing Monasteries activities with them, or having them not be adjacent to each other fight. And if you really don’t want them have any supports, you cannot just play them. Granted Byleth is guaranteed supports with characters thanks to tutoring unlike Corrin and Robin, but you can choose Byleth’s paired ending in the end, so it doesn’t matter. Also if there are way too many supports to watch, you can always skip them via the + button on the joycons. 

Two points kind of seem in contradiction there. I might not want Bernadetta and  Ferdinand to get married, but if I'm interested in getting those gameplay benefits,  then I am going to want them to get their A support. And from there it's basically Genealogy of the Holy War style of blindly keeping units close or away from each other in hopes that the support points dole out ina preferred way. Course I reject the whole notion of paired endings as being something worth caring about to begin with, but I do see the logic in not liking how the game takes the control away from you. And I think the developers knew that too what with making an exception for Byleth and letting you have an active choice there.

[ZeManaphy]

2 hours ago, Anathaco said:

The point about supports having no gameplay influence wasn’t that they were useless, it was that they felt useless. Which while I don’t agree with I can definitely see, because supports are so common that it’s basically just a matter of time causing them to increase- and therefore replacing the increasing levels of support with, say, increasing professor level would probably be almost indistinguishable.

As for paired endings he does have a point. I’ve lost track of the times where I’ve gotten an ending that I didn’t want- the fact that they needed to add the DLC lady is proof of that. And if you don’t have that and want to avoid getting supports you have to go way too far out of your way for my liking- avoiding pairing units on the battlefield, never letting them eat together. Sure it’s possible, and maybe it’s easy for some- but for me at least it’s really annoying (or would be if I actively tried to not pair specific people up- I don’t care about paired endings that much, though I know people that do).

As for skipping, honestly sometimes even the prospect of skipping supports fills me with dread and I procrastinate completing them. I’m a fairly patient person, but sometimes I get so many supports that I can’t even be bothered to press a single button to skip them. I have no clue if I’m alone on that front, but yeah.

Just because it feels like they have no effect doesn’t mean that they in function have zero effect. I really don’t know what to say if you find it so time-consuming to literally press a button once in order to skip a cutscene. It really doesn’t take much time at all. I guess you are more impatient than you think? 
 

Also, the DLC lady being the only way to track relationships is false. If you check your character’s personal history page, it will show you the closet ally to that person from left to right, with left being the closest. That’s how I managed to see who were the closest prior to the DLC.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Two points kind of seem in contradiction there. I might not want Bernadetta and  Ferdinand to get married, but if I'm interested in getting those gameplay benefits,  then I am going to want them to get their A support. And from there it's basically Genealogy of the Holy War style of blindly keeping units close or away from each other in hopes that the support points dole out ina preferred way. Course I reject the whole notion of paired endings as being something worth caring about to begin with, but I do see the logic in not liking how the game takes the control away from you. And I think the developers knew that too what with making an exception for Byleth and letting you have an active choice there.

As for how to get characters to their ideal match, I never had too much trouble for my units to get paired up. It does require planning and some manipulation, like taking advantage of Axuillary battles and  the pair up to help increase support points. I did not get all the paired endings, and the ones I did not get were single endings, but I never found it that bothersome because Paired ending are purely aesthetic in this game, at least not to the point you guys are making out to be. 

 

[Alastor15243]

19 minutes ago, ZeManaphy said:

I really don’t know what to say if you find it so time-consuming to literally press a button once in order to skip a cutscene. It really doesn’t take much time at all. I guess you are more impatient than you think? 

Would it be a legitimate defense of a movie with tons of pointless, repetitive filler scenes that you can just skip to the next scene on the DVD? Does anything you don't physically have to watch become immune to criticism?

Edited August 29, 2021 by Alastor15243

[Anathaco]

21 minutes ago, ZeManaphy said:

Just because it feels like they have no effect doesn’t mean that they in function have zero effect

Unless I missed something nobody ever said that they had zero effect. Just that because 90% of supports have the same bonuses (the other 10% being the few special pairs that give +3 damage), supports could theoretically be replaced with some other system that provides the exact same gameplay benefits and there would be very little impact on the overall game. Essentially, the high number of supports leads to very little identity in terms of gameplay bonuses (compared to something like affinities from GBA or the personal buffs given in Echoes.

26 minutes ago, ZeManaphy said:

I really don’t know what to say if you find it so time-consuming to literally press a button once in order to skip a cutscene. It really doesn’t take much time at all. I guess you are more impatient than you think? 

It’s not just skipping it, it’s also navigating between the support pairs, and triggering the support, then skipping it, acknowledging the little dialogue box that comes after it that announces that support level has been raised, rinse and repeat like 8 times.

Yes this is nitpicking your point but now that I’m thinking about it it’s even more tedious than I remembered.

And for what it’s worth I’m pretty patient with a lot of other stuff in this game- I save scum basically anything that may require it, including gardening for stat boosters which literally needs you to replay a whole week to work. I don’t mind doing any of that. But something about skipping through supports actively turns me off. Go figure, I guess.

33 minutes ago, ZeManaphy said:

Also, the DLC lady being the only way to track relationships is false. If you check your character’s personal history page, it will show you the closet ally to that person from left to right, with left being the closest. That’s how I managed to see who were the closest prior to the DLC.

True, but when did I say anything about tracking? The DLC lady is still the only way to automatically force a paired endings of your choice.

To reiterate, I don’t even have that strong an opinion on this, I’m not someone super big on pairing my characters. But I honestly think the fact that they’re purely aesthetic works against the game in this case. You’re actively changing the way you play not to get a different gameplay outcome, but to change some text during the credits that ultimately won’t matter ever again.

Also while writing this a thought occurred to me that I found kinda funny. The game’s answer to Alastor’s criticism of supports requiring no player input is that the game requires player input to not get the supports you don’t want.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

2 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Would it be a legitimate defense of a movie with tons of pointless, repetitive filler scenes that you can just skip to the next scene on the DVD? Does anything you don't physically have to watch become immune to criticism?

That doesn't seem like an especially fair analogy. A movie is an inherently "watch it" medium. Portions that are tedious and unenjoyable in the "watching" experience are necessarily weaknesses to the movie as a whole.

A video game, on the other hand, is a "play it" medium. Player agency is a major part of the experience. Elements that some people may enjoy (say, combat animations) may come across as time-wasters to others. So the option to skip them is provided to enhance the player's options, in recognition of different tastes.

That said, I would say that, if the supports are viewed as poorly written or overlong - no, those traits aren't immune to criticism. But neither is it fair to say that the mechanical boosts are inherently locked behind such (skippable) narrative content.

[lenticular]

3 hours ago, ZeManaphy said:

Just because it feels like they have no effect doesn’t mean that they in function have zero effect.

Honestly, with video games, I value "how I feel about this" a lot more than "how this actually is". The entire reason that I play video games in the first place is for how they make me feel. In terms of objective cold, hard reality, all I'm actually doing is staring at a screen and twiddling my thumbs for hours at a time. The only way this can ever possibly be justified as a good use of my time is for what's going on in my brain. If I feel joy, triumph, fulfilment, satisfaction or any other positive emotion, then that's good. That's the reason why I play. Conversely, if I feel frustrated, disappointed or hollow while or after I play a video game, then what's the point? Why am I even playing?

I'd argue that it's more important for a game mechanic to feel meaningful than to actually be meaningful, because the feeling is the whole point. Games throw up smoke and mirrors all the time to favour emotion over objective truth. Case in point is the hit percentages in modern Fire Emblem games. It's one of gaming's worst kept secrets that if a Fire Emblem game says you have 90% chance to hit, then you'll actually hit far more often than that. The majority of people have a bad intuitive feel for probabilities, and get frustrated by perceived unfairness if the nyumbers are actually fair, so Intelligent Systems have rigged the numbers in the player's favour because that feels better to more players. Perception trumps reality.

So I do think that it's a very meaningful criticism to say that something feels unimportant or meaningless. Is it a criticism that I necessarily agree with? No, not really. I quite like the balance of supports in Three Houses. For me, personally, it's just about significant enough that I notice and care to have it, but also not significant enough to be gamebreakingly overpowered (like double-earth supports in Tellius) or absolutely required for important game mechanics (like the children system of Fates). But that's my tastes and preferences. If Alastor wants more substantial gameplay bonuses from a support system, then I can absolutely see why Three Houses would leave him flat.

4 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Would it be a legitimate defense of a movie with tons of pointless, repetitive filler scenes that you can just skip to the next scene on the DVD? Does anything you don't physically have to watch become immune to criticism?

I don't think this is a useful analogy. Video games and movies are very different media. A movie is typically going to be somewhere between about 90 minutes to two hours long, with the expectation that you will typically watch the entire thing from start to finish (maybe skipping the end credits), and that you will probably watch the whole thing in a single sitting. The expectation is that everyone who watches the movie should have pretty much the same experience. None of that is typically the case for video games. The general expectation in video games -- especially modern video games, especially modern video games my major developers and publishers -- is that very few people will experience literally everything that a game has to offer, and that people will tailor their own play experience to have more of the things that they like and less of the things that they don't like.

Which isn't to say that I think that something should be above criticism just because it is skippable. It shouldn't be. But being skippable should be a part of the context of that criticism and discussion.

I think, as well, that there's a difference between "this just inherently isn't for me" and "this is something I would have enjoyed had it been implemented differently/better". Using Fates as an example, I was never going to be interested in all the online/social parts of My Castle. They could have been groundbreakingly phenomenal and I still wouldn't have cared about them because I just don't enjoy that sort of thing. My only care was how easily I could skip them (very) and how much I would lose out on by doing so (more than I would have liked, but not too too much). On the other hand, I potentially would have been interested in the story of Fates had it been different/better. In that case, I don't care that the story is entirely skippable; I care that there isn't a story that I enjoy.

In that context, I entirely understand the criticism that the support conversations are bland, uninteresting, badly written, poorly acted, or whatever. I don't share that opinion, mind. I really enjoyed them. But art is subjective, so I understand the motivation behind the criticism. That's very much an "I wanted to enjoy them but I didn't" kind of problem. What I find it much harder to get my head around is the criticism that there are too many. Because that one comes across much more as a "just not for me" kind of problem. If you're just inherently not interested in watching that volume of support conversations, then... don't? Watch a few of them, as many as you want to, and skip the rest. Watch the ones with your favourite character, or watch all the C supports and then only continue with the ones that you found interesting, or just pick a handful of support chains at random and only watch them. What am I missing here?