What classes does the game need the most right now?

[SullyMcGully]

Honestly I'd be completely fine with this whole "Master classes are side-grades" deal if it weren't for one thing: Movement. Like, it's generally agreed that Catherine fits best as a Swordmaster. However, in this game Swordmasters only have 5 MOV meaning she'll be falling behind my other units. If only there weren't that MOV disadvantage, I'd be fine with considering Master Classes and Advanced Classes as being more-or-less on the same level. 

Basically, most of your traditional Fire Emblem classes are already in this game. They just have various issues that make being in them feel awkward. This is definitely not the most intuitive class system we've seen in FE history.

[Wolfen09]

14 hours ago, EdgeOfDreams said:

• An Authority-focused class that isn't limited to Lords. Give them more Gambit uses per battle or the ability to switch battalions mid-battle.
• A better melee/magic infantry hybrid than Mortal Savant. Give them something that makes mixed physical + magical stats worth having.
• A jack-of-all-trades class that requires something like C Rank in a bunch of different skills. Give them stronger weapon-triangle effects or something like that to encourage switching between different weapons or between weapons and spells frequently.

I like where the authority thing is headed here, but maybe instead of a full list of battalion swaps, maybe give them the ability to equip 2 battalions, and access to some better battalionesque skills (in all honesty I never use battalion vantage or renewal or any of those skills when I have better ones for my characters)

[Timlugia]

Like I said before, it’s just weird not having manakete in this game. We have wholly 4 dragons in this game as main cast, more mentioned in the background, yet the only one that transforms is non-recruitable.

 

i understand they probably haven’t figure out in balancing issues. But maybe they can put it in NG+ like crest stones.

[Skell_]

I just want to talk about great knights.

Their requirements are insanely steep and unrewarding for any cavalry class. Going from the wiki, there are actual downsides to going GK.

- Lose terrain resistance

- Focus on axes which no other cavalry class can train easily, slowing down your progress

- Armor is a dead skill besides weight -3

- Nothing GK does is unique to just GK

Compared to any other hybrid cavalry class

- Holy knight keeps terrain resistance

- Access to dark magic as dark knight

- Only need a B+ in respective magical field

Magic is still a dead skill until you hit those hybrid classes but once you do, you can actually use it. Armor is nice but does not change your play style like magic access does.

For armor units, GK has other issues. Mainly, you have to be a Fortress Knight, and Fortress Knight. You don't want to use them. They're super slow and getting them all the way up to 30 can be a pain as more and more things can burst them down. Armor just peaks early-game.

We just need an Okay Knight class. A mounted armor unit that's advanced rather than master. Just give it one movement more than infantry and it would be far from broken. Great Knight just requires so much prep-work for little payoff. Just drop both armor or riding to C and make the other B+.

Poor great knight, I love them every game they're in but they always are the ugly duckling of the bunch.

[Shadow Mir]

A Master tier armored class (maybe Baron or General), because it sucks that Great Knight requires training two movement types up for an outcome that probably isn't worth the hassle. It's especially bad for units that have a weakness in one of Heavy Armor or Riding. As is, Gilbert is the only one who has a reasonable chance of getting to it.

[eclipse]

So, bows.

Several characters use them.  They get a bevy of cool combat skills.  And there's only one master class that utilizes them (because not everyone can be Claude). . .and no, I'm not putting everyone's butt on a horse just to get that class.  Give 'em an option that doesn't require riding.  Heck, I'd take an armored bow class with Close Counter just because it's funny. . .what do you mean, "speaking from experience"?

[Warhydra]

16 hours ago, Skell_ said:

Armor is a dead skill besides weight -3

Rank A+ gives Weight -5 actually. 

16 hours ago, Skell_ said:

Magic is still a dead skill until you hit those hybrid classes but once you do, you can actually use it. Armor is nice but does not change your play style like magic access does.

Yea, you can at least use magic weapons before you get to the classes that let you cast spells.

Great Knight should really have kept that weight -5, the class feels bland right now. 

Edited August 17, 2019 by Warhydra

[paladin21]

10 hours ago, Warhydra said:

Rank A+ gives Weight -5 actually. 

Yea, you can at least use magic weapons before you get to the classes that let you cast spells.

Great Knight should really have kept that weight -5, the class feels bland right now. 

I don't think many master classes are above advanced classes. They were just set to add new roles the game. However, the flyers are overpowered. They should have lower stats (modifiers shouldn't sum more than cavalry units) and be advanced classes (demoting the wyvern knight as well), then, for the flying master classes, have the flying magic casters (again, with lower sum of stats).

I agree that the GK is screwed in this game. He shouldn't have lance faire, and get a different skill instead (maybe weight-3, not as much as the fortress, but still something), or trade both faire skills for an exclusive sword-lance-axe faire, which gives damage +3 to those weapons weapons.

And the advanced infantry should get more movement than the intermediate to be on par with master.

What I mean is that master classes are about versatility, while advanced are focused on specialities. However, they are very unbalanced, with some master classes being ridiculously overpowered. For instance, bow knights, dark knights, gremories and war masters are promotions of advanced classes (sniper, warlock and warrior). There's no use for the advanced class when the master one is available.

On the other hand, holy knights are inferior to bishops, since most characters get one single damage dealing spell (Nosferatu), being the other ones healing and support, thus being more useful the bishop white x2 than the white faire. With most characters sporting physic, having extra movement and canto isn't a big deal.

Instead giving us many new classes, I'd rather have the ones in the game rebalanced (bow knight getting range+1 and sniper range+2, making Lysithea's advanced class useful for her, since reason shouldn't give two magic types at the same time).

[Humanoid]

How about instead limiting the number of mounted units that can be deployed by making mounts a finite resource? It occurred to me while trying to shuffle my too-few flying battalions between my fliers that if wyverns and pegasi were treated as the rare beasts that they are and making them a piece of "equipment", you could allow mounted units to keep their power advantage (which is realistic enough) without the gamebreaking strategy of having your entire army be mounted.

[Warhydra]

5 minutes ago, paladin21 said:

I don't think many master classes are above advanced classes. They were just set to add new roles the game. However, the flyers are overpowered. They should have lower stats (modifiers shouldn't sum more than cavalry units) and be advanced classes (demoting the wyvern knight as well), then, for the flying master classes, have the flying magic casters (again, with lower sum of stats).

I agree that the GK is screwed in this game. He shouldn't have lance faire, and get a different skill instead (maybe weight-3, not as much as the fortress, but still something), or trade both faire skills for an exclusive sword-lance-axe faire, which gives damage +3 to those weapons weapons.

And the advanced infantry should get more movement than the intermediate to be on par with master.

What I mean is that master classes are about versatility, while advanced are focused on specialities. However, they are very unbalanced, with some master classes being ridiculously overpowered. For instance, bow knights, dark knights, gremories and war masters are promotions of advanced classes (sniper, warlock and warrior). There's no use for the advanced class when the master one is available.

On the other hand, holy knights are inferior to bishops, since most characters get one single damage dealing spell (Nosferatu), being the other ones healing and support, thus being more useful the bishop white x2 than the white faire. With most characters sporting physic, having extra movement and canto isn't a big deal.

Instead giving us many new classes, I'd rather have the ones in the game rebalanced (bow knight getting range+1 and sniper range+2, making Lysithea's advanced class useful for her, since reason shouldn't give two magic types at the same time).

Since Master classes take more investment than Advanced, I would rather have them be an improvements 

That said, we definitely could use more mastery rank infantry classes, especially the sword wielding variety, why do we have 3 different sword wielders in advance only to have 1 in master? Hero and/or assassin could easily be bump up to Master (increase requirement of Axe/Bow and improve their stats to match obviously). Mortal servents need a stat improvement to make its shtick more viable to most characters.  

 

[timon]

1 minute ago, Humanoid said:

How about instead limiting the number of mounted units that can be deployed by making mounts a finite resource? It occurred to me while trying to shuffle my too-few flying battalions between my fliers that if wyverns and pegasi were treated as the rare beasts that they are and making them a piece of "equipment", you could allow mounted units to keep their power advantage (which is realistic enough) without the gamebreaking strategy of having your entire army be mounted.

That's actually an amazing idea, you could buy mounts like we do with Brave Weapons, which are limited in number. It would also give the option to have higher tier mounts and lower tier mounts, especially seen as now we have Riding/Flying ranks. I'd extend this to armours as well.

And by doing that we'd remove completely the fact that some classes are mounted/armoured and some aren't, just as we do with weapons you can raise your Riding skill and slap a horse on your Halberdier (we still need those) and you get a Paladin. It would simplify greatly the class tree, every class is infantry and then the player decides which unit gets to fly/ride/armour.

It does need some tweaking, not only must it be limited in number, but the boost they provide should still be compensated with some debuff (thinking of Dex, hitting things while on an animal must be more difficult).

[Flere210]

If fe was not lowman town i'd suggest to have cavalry units count as 2 units because that's what a lot of strategy games does.

[paladin21]

2 hours ago, Warhydra said:

Since Master classes take more investment than Advanced, I would rather have them be an improvements 

That said, we definitely could use more mastery rank infantry classes, especially the sword wielding variety, why do we have 3 different sword wielders in advance only to have 1 in master? Hero and/or assassin could easily be bump up to Master (increase requirement of Axe/Bow and improve their stats to match obviously). Mortal servents need a stat improvement to make its shtick more viable to most characters.  

 

The thing I see with mastery classes is that they sort of combine two different advanced classes (or promote a flyer), so the resulting class gains versatility.

The mortal savant has good base stats all around that makes any dedicated mage have defense (looking at you, Lysithea). It could be seen as the promotion of all three sword advanced classes, since it gives all of them magic. And that's huge. Bringing another physic user into the map just in case, and one that can fight in the front lines, that's huge. As for the skills it takes from them:

• Vantage, you got it as a merc.
• Locktouch, Ashe says hello from the corner.
• "Invisibility", well, this one can be missed for glass cannons.
• Swordcritical, you're using magic as well.

While training swords on the background, just passing by that class made my dancer Dorothea (another said specialist with no melee capacity) have some actual strength (she didn't even have double digits) and get a boost in defense. She can now withstand a hour or two from beasts. It was almost instadeath before.

2 hours ago, timon said:

That's actually an amazing idea, you could buy mounts like we do with Brave Weapons, which are limited in number. It would also give the option to have higher tier mounts and lower tier mounts, especially seen as now we have Riding/Flying ranks. I'd extend this to armours as well.

And by doing that we'd remove completely the fact that some classes are mounted/armoured and some aren't, just as we do with weapons you can raise your Riding skill and slap a horse on your Halberdier (we still need those) and you get a Paladin. It would simplify greatly the class tree, every class is infantry and then the player decides which unit gets to fly/ride/armour.

It does need some tweaking, not only must it be limited in number, but the boost they provide should still be compensated with some debuff (thinking of Dex, hitting things while on an animal must be more difficult).

Mounted classes should exist, but they'd give you bonuses when you fight on your ride, just like the advanced classes give you a free faire skill.