Are swords really bad in Three Houses?

[Shadow Mir]

16 hours ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Fair enough. I've played FE10 (Radiant Dawn), FE11 (Shadow Dragon), and FE13 (Awakening) enough to be able to talk about them. I've also played FE9 and FE12, but I don't own the physical copies, so less game time, and thus can't speak so much for those. But you might be misunderstanding my earlier comment - I was trying to say that of these games, 3H gives swords the worst deal. Again, swords aren't bad per se, they're just worse relatively speaking (other people have already given good reasons as to why).

@AxelVDP's point about the early game is a good one, and a point in favour of swords. In my experience spamming Smash and Tempest Lance gets bigger damage for similar accuracy, but that can be a bit costly depending on how you play. 

Bold: You do realize that's what I was (and still am) calling bullshit on? I already stated why swords stunk in SD, so I fail to see how 3H "gave swords a worse deal" than SD did.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Shadow Mir

[haarhaarhaar]

56 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

Bold: You do realize that's what I was (and still am) calling bullshit on? I already stated why swords stunk in SD, so I fail to see how 3H "gave swords a worse deal" than SD did.

Oh I see. Yeah, okay, so SD has a limited class change feature (and mounted units are as usual OP), which means you won't be running many sword users. But Marth is locked to swords (and normally you want a good Marth for the endgame). Also, Ogma and Navarre can do a decent amount of heavy lifting, and Navarre's Killing Edge is the most reliable crit you'll get for a good while. Marth's Rapier/Falchion keeps him competitive throughout the game, and while other sword infantry end up petering out, there is still a place for them for solid chunks of the game, especially in the early to mid sections.

Pretty much everything works well in Awakening, as I remember (I'm no expert on optimal strategies for Lunatic+ to be fair). 

As for RD, there are lots of great swords. as well as forced Ike/Elincia, Astra is significantly better, and you have good candidates for Trueblade (Edward springs to mind, but Mia is solid, and Zihark works if you try hard enough).

In comparison, 3H doesn't force swords, and gives every other weapon something unique that it does best/better than swords. So there's no compelling reason to use swords beyond personal preference.

[SSbardock84]

It honestly seemed like I was always ditching swords for the most part by the end of the game. Depended on the character. Felix I usually ended up using more magic than swords. While Byleth has always pretty much used swords until the end. I don't think I really used that many sword units beyond that, which is surprising for me. In my current Azure Moon playthrough on (whatever difficulty is the hardest, I haven't played in a while, so I don't remember) I'm giving a lot more focus to Dimitri with a sword and it's going well. For some reason I feel like swords were more difficult to use against the beasts/final bosses. But I can't remember entirely. I still don't remember having difficulty with Byleth on it though. They always do well with a sword for me.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

I wouldn't say it's so much that Swords are bad, as the classes and arts surrounding them are bad.

If we look at sword-specialist classes: Myrmidon gives Speed+2, which can be useful, and Swap, which is probably the weakest repositional. Mercenary gives Vantage, which can be situationally good (for Wrath/Vantage builds). Thief gives usual thief utility, so that's occasionally useful (also, certifying Thief gives 11 Dex and Spd, which can help some units out). Lords get a welcome boost to Authority growth, but have a very poor mastery. Swordmaster is just okay offensively, has poor movement, and they seriously nerfed Astra this time around. Hero can be useful for Wrath/Vantage builds, but again it has low movement. Assassin is the one sword class with tolerable move (6, free forests), high speed and okay damage, but the mastery isn't worth it. Mortal Savant has no real standout stats, and has not-great movement (6, but usual forest costs). Trickster has some interesting utility (lockpick, foul play, half-count spells), but no Swordfaire means poor damage output.

What about the Arts? Wrath Strike is okay; it's a cheap, slight damage boost when you won't double, or can't take a counter. Grounder is pretty abyssmal; you'll generally do more damage to enemy fliers by just using a bow. Hexblade and Soulblade can be good on sword builds of magic specialists, like Dorothea or Lysithea. Windsweep is good for guaranteed Cancel, while Ruptured/Sublime Heaven are good, but mainly on the merits of Sword-of-the-Creator. Finesse Blade can provide a welcome boost on high-Dex units. There are plenty of others, but none I would really consider worth mentioning here.

There are a few standout Swords, though, that do interesting stuff. Sword-of-the-Creator is pretty great for its 1~2 range, high availability, and free renewal in chapter 10 - admittedly, it kind of encourages Byleth to go into a Swordfaire class. Levin Sword is the most accessible magic weapon (C rank, all routes), and can offer 1~3 range in its enhanced form. Rapier is hard to obtain, but it has decent Mt, low Wt,  high Hit and durability, and a Crit boost - on top of the usual cavalry/armor effectiveness. Thunderbrand has the highest power of any Brave weapon, and is available from mid-part I on BL/GD. And swords include the highest-crit options in the game: Cursed Ashiya Sword and Wo Dao, which have 50/40 Crit, respectively, in their enhanced forms. On the right build and unit, these Swords can all definitely be worth using.

[Shadow Mir]

On 8/21/2020 at 12:49 PM, haarhaarhaar said:

Oh I see. Yeah, okay, so SD has a limited class change feature (and mounted units are as usual OP), which means you won't be running many sword users. But Marth is locked to swords (and normally you want a good Marth for the endgame). Also, Ogma and Navarre can do a decent amount of heavy lifting, and Navarre's Killing Edge is the most reliable crit you'll get for a good while. Marth's Rapier/Falchion keeps him competitive throughout the game, and while other sword infantry end up petering out, there is still a place for them for solid chunks of the game, especially in the early to mid sections.

Pretty much everything works well in Awakening, as I remember (I'm no expert on optimal strategies for Lunatic+ to be fair). 

As for RD, there are lots of great swords. as well as forced Ike/Elincia, Astra is significantly better, and you have good candidates for Trueblade (Edward springs to mind, but Mia is solid, and Zihark works if you try hard enough).

In comparison, 3H doesn't force swords, and gives every other weapon something unique that it does best/better than swords. So there's no compelling reason to use swords beyond personal preference.

That's bull. In SD, swords face WTD All. The. God. Damn. Time. This sucks for them, as their weapon rank bonuses, which would help (swords get increased might), just get negated. Also, SD Marth sucks royally compared to his other incarnations (and what his Rapier can do, Caeda's Wing Spear can do better - and without being on the ass end of the weapon triangle), and Navarre isn't very good either. Long story short, in SD, swords can't do anything that lances or axes can't do better. RD is better for swords, but not only are wind edges weaker than javelins and hand axes, they're even less accurate. AND they aren't forgeable. That being said, Tempest Blades are a good weapon for blessing, having might equal to Alondite, albeit not being as accurate. Also, Trueblades are overrated to holy hell and back - and Astra in that game sucks nearly as much as in 3H. Crit dependent class + skill that disables crits = kiss 5 weapon uses goodbye. Not that I find crits to be something to rely on, especially in RD, where enemy luck is sky-high. And Edward sucks. His being in the Dawn Brigade is bad enough, but the fact that Zihark comes later on in part 1, and likely before Edward can get going, is a death knell for his viability. Going back to 3H, I struggle to find a use for axes there, because there are few, if any, worthwhile ones, whereas there are some good swords, and axes also drew the short straw combat art wise.

Edited August 22, 2020 by Shadow Mir

[haarhaarhaar]

42 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

That's bull. In SD, swords face WTD All. The. God. Damn. Time. This sucks for them, as their weapon rank bonuses, which would help (swords get increased might), just get negated. Also, SD Marth sucks royally compared to his other incarnations (and what his Rapier can do, Caeda's Wing Spear can do better - and without being on the ass end of the weapon triangle), and Navarre isn't very good either. Long story short, in SD, swords can't do anything that lances or axes can't do better. RD is better for swords, but not only are wind edges weaker than javelins and hand axes, they're even less accurate. AND they aren't forgeable. That being said, Tempest Blades are a good weapon for blessing, having might equal to Alondite, albeit not being as accurate. Also, Trueblades are overrated to holy hell and back - and Astra in that game sucks nearly as much as in 3H. Crit dependent class + skill that disables crits = kiss 5 weapon uses goodbye. Not that I find crits to be something to rely on, especially in RD, where enemy luck is sky-high. And Edward sucks. His being in the Dawn Brigade is bad enough, but the fact that Zihark comes later on in part 1, and likely before Edward can get going, is a death knell for his viability. Going back to 3H, I struggle to find a use for axes there, because there are few, if any, worthwhile ones, whereas there are some good swords, and axes also drew the short straw combat art wise.

Wing Spear's great (as is Caeda) no doubt, but Rapier is more available, especially earlier on before Marth starts to struggle. I agree that Marth isn't great generally, although again I can't speak for SD Marth being better or worse than every other iteration of Marth. All I'm saying is, you have to use him, and he has to use swords. Weapon triangle stuff is important (I can't remember exactly how bad it was, but it was most pronounced in the lategame for sure) but like I said before, there is a solid chunk of the game (early to mid) where sword users help out. I always found Navarre useful, especially for the first few chapters when/after he joins, and Ogma is good for a combination of bulk and accuracy you don't otherwise have for a while. 

Wind Edges aren't as good as their physical counterparts is a good point. And the general lack of ranged options is a problem for swords, in Part I especially. I think you're probably right about Astra too, in that it isn't 'significantly' better than 3H like I had said (from personal experience it often triggered at clutch moments, so my memory of it is really good). Trueblades are still good though, and Edward comes with a good starting set of skills. Zihark does have better bases when he joins than whatever Ed will have, so I can understand wanting to use Zihark as a result, but Zihark is harder to train up, and Ed ends up better by endgame (at least that's what I've found). And it's still true that you have forced Ike/Elincia, alongside a bunch of great available swords, working in favour of the weapon generally.

As for axes in 3H, people have already said this, but axes have great might, and their other problems need fixing, but can be fixed more readily than swords' comparative lack of might. So yeah, they're better off than swords overall.

Honestly, I've never thought swords have been 'that' bad, but my worst impression of them has been in 3H. In other games, weapons couldn't often infringe on each other's niches, and they also weren't detachable from the characters that used them, which meant you always needed swords and sword users at some point. 3H's customisability, on the other hand, means this is no longer the case. The physical weapons are in direct competition for almost every build, and the weaknesses of axes/lances can be made up for more readily than the weaknesses of swords, while the strengths of swords are fewer and not as pronounced. The big reason I think 3H gave swords a raw deal is because of all the FE games I've played, this game makes it the easiest to ignore them. 

[Dark Holy Elf]

19 hours ago, Shadow Mir said:

Going back to 3H, I struggle to find a use for axes there, because there are few, if any, worthwhile ones, whereas there are some good swords, and axes also drew the short straw combat art wise.

Axes have the strongest mt of their weapon rank generally, so lots of them are worthwhile: the Silver Axe has the highest might of any weapon outside a few relics, the Brave Axe is the strongest brave weapon (its enhanced version even matches Thunderbrand for might and has more accuracy in practice), iron and steel axes are strong by the standards of earlygame/low-cost options. Training Axe+, as already mentioned, is basically a slightly lighter Iron Sword+ for when maximizing AS is a priority.

I don't agree with your comment on combat arts, either: comparing the universally available ones, Smash has the second highest +hit of any universal art after Curved Shot (equal to Grounder but it's gained earlier and has more +crit), while Helm Splitter has the second highest +mt of the universal arts after Tempest Lance, and once you account for the higher might of axes it ends up the strongest of all. This is better than swords' Wrath Strike/Grounder, or gauntlets' CAs which give up the second hit for their effects, at least in my opinion. I'll grant that lances are better at this still, though, and possibly bows too although the lack of high-might option on bows is frustrating sometimes.

If you were talking about character-specific arts like Windsweep then sure, but I consider that a pretty low priority since it only applies to a very small number of characters. For the large majority of characters, the decision as to whether to train swords or axes is independent of the quality of a combat art they don't have access to.

[Shadow Mir]

On 8/22/2020 at 3:30 PM, haarhaarhaar said:

Wing Spear's great (as is Caeda) no doubt, but Rapier is more available, especially earlier on before Marth starts to struggle. I agree that Marth isn't great generally, although again I can't speak for SD Marth being better or worse than every other iteration of Marth. All I'm saying is, you have to use him, and he has to use swords. Weapon triangle stuff is important (I can't remember exactly how bad it was, but it was most pronounced in the lategame for sure) but like I said before, there is a solid chunk of the game (early to mid) where sword users help out. I always found Navarre useful, especially for the first few chapters when/after he joins, and Ogma is good for a combination of bulk and accuracy you don't otherwise have for a while. 

Problem is, this Marth is more on the level of Roy or Eliwood - and we all know how great they are(n't). Also, I think you're overhyping the Rapier. Even if I ignored the Wing Spear, it still is crap compared to a forged Ridersbane or a forged Hammer. Anyway, accuracy is not much of a problem in SD due to the nerfed evade formula. This means that even against axe users, which swordies have the advantage over, they're more likely to get hit than not. Also, iirc, axes are phased out almost entirely after chapter 4, as far as the enemy lineup goes. As a result, I'd argue Ogma is better off spending time as a fighter or pirate to work on axe rank, while Navarre is shit out of luck, considering that SD is pretty much the absolute worst FE game to be a sword-locked unit in, because their weaknesses are evident while their strengths are virtually useless (ironic, considering that the game it was a remake of favored swords, while axes stunk), and any other class murders his speed (fun fact: Navarre has a big fat goose egg for personal speed base).

On 8/22/2020 at 3:30 PM, haarhaarhaar said:

Wind Edges aren't as good as their physical counterparts is a good point. And the general lack of ranged options is a problem for swords, in Part I especially. I think you're probably right about Astra too, in that it isn't 'significantly' better than 3H like I had said (from personal experience it often triggered at clutch moments, so my memory of it is really good). Trueblades are still good though, and Edward comes with a good starting set of skills. Zihark does have better bases when he joins than whatever Ed will have, so I can understand wanting to use Zihark as a result, but Zihark is harder to train up, and Ed ends up better by endgame (at least that's what I've found). And it's still true that you have forced Ike/Elincia, alongside a bunch of great available swords, working in favour of the weapon generally.

I don't see how Zihark is harder to get going when Edward is 2HKOed for a long, long time, and part 3 is not very kind to him. Also, Edward's starting skill is... Wrath. Which is much harder to set up compared to Path of Radiance, and even if you get there, it's likely to dig his grave as opposed to helping him (because when you're at a point where you're OHKOed, which you will be because of the 30% threshold needed, the absolute worst thing you can do is make space for more enemies to attack you, to say nothing of how hard it is to have him use it because he's likely to take too little damage to get into Wrath range, but still enough that he can't take another hit without dying if he isn't healed). Long story short, Edward is the exact unit that Dawn Brigade does NOT need, AKA a frail melee unit.

On 8/22/2020 at 3:30 PM, haarhaarhaar said:

As for axes in 3H, people have already said this, but axes have great might, and their other problems need fixing, but can be fixed more readily than swords' comparative lack of might. So yeah, they're better off than swords overall.

Honestly, I've never thought swords have been 'that' bad, but my worst impression of them has been in 3H. In other games, weapons couldn't often infringe on each other's niches, and they also weren't detachable from the characters that used them, which meant you always needed swords and sword users at some point. 3H's customisability, on the other hand, means this is no longer the case. The physical weapons are in direct competition for almost every build, and the weaknesses of axes/lances can be made up for more readily than the weaknesses of swords, while the strengths of swords are fewer and not as pronounced. The big reason I think 3H gave swords a raw deal is because of all the FE games I've played, this game makes it the easiest to ignore them. 

And I think you're undercutting swords as far as this game goes, while simultaneously downplaying how bad swords are in SD. Even if weapons couldn't infringe on each other's niches in the past, swords have bupkis going for them in SD because their main niche (being accurate) is meaningless due to the nerfs to evade, and in the harder difficulties, they really feel the sting of being range locked.

Edited August 23, 2020 by Shadow Mir

[haarhaarhaar]

12 hours ago, Shadow Mir said:

And I think you're undercutting swords as far as this game goes, while simultaneously downplaying how bad swords are in SD. Even if weapons couldn't infringe on each other's niches in the past, swords have bupkis going for them in SD because their main niche (being accurate) is meaningless due to the nerfs to evade, and in the harder difficulties, they really feel the sting of being range locked.

I'm not arguing against swords having disadvantages in other games too (and these disadvantages affect swords in the whole series, I gather). I only said that 3H makes it worse than other games because it makes it very easy not to use swords at all. In other games, you're forced to find and make use of swords' strengths in a way in which you aren't in 3H; in my opinion it's not good for a game tool when the game allows it to be made obsolete. But now I'm really repeating myself, so I'm gonna leave this debate here. It's still true that my personal experience of swords in all these games has been better than 3H, but in the end that's just a subjective opinion. Which just means we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this, I think.

[Shadow Mir]

8 hours ago, haarhaarhaar said:

I'm not arguing against swords having disadvantages in other games too (and these disadvantages affect swords in the whole series, I gather). I only said that 3H makes it worse than other games because it makes it very easy not to use swords at all. In other games, you're forced to find and make use of swords' strengths in a way in which you aren't in 3H; in my opinion it's not good for a game tool when the game allows it to be made obsolete. But now I'm really repeating myself, so I'm gonna leave this debate here. It's still true that my personal experience of swords in all these games has been better than 3H, but in the end that's just a subjective opinion. Which just means we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this, I think.

And I think that point is BS, plain and simple, because objectively speaking, swords have had it worse in other games, namely Blazing Blade, Path of Radiance, Shadow Dragon, and maybe Sacred Stones. Unless you seriously think that facing WTD all the time doesn't suck royally. I agree that swords may have their disadvantages, but in the context of this game, one of the more prominent complaints I've seen levied against swords - lack of ranged options - isn't even that big a problem because the ranged axes and lances suck. In that respect, I think 3H is ten billion times better for swords than what you're telling me it is.

[Dark Holy Elf]

When someone asks you to agree to disagree, further argument with them is probably useless.

That said I think you're overly focused on the hyperbolic claim "WTD all the time". I don't remember Shadow Dragon enemy composition very well any more so I'm not gonna talk about that, but none of the other games have even close to all enemies being lance-users; they may be a plurality but that's okay, because there are still plenty of axes for your sword-users to fight, which ensures even the weakest weapon on the triangle still has a niche.

[Shadow Mir]

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

When someone asks you to agree to disagree, further argument with them is probably useless.

That said I think you're overly focused on the hyperbolic claim "WTD all the time". I don't remember Shadow Dragon enemy composition very well any more so I'm not gonna talk about that, but none of the other games have even close to all enemies being lance-users; they may be a plurality but that's okay, because there are still plenty of axes for your sword-users to fight, which ensures even the weakest weapon on the triangle still has a niche.

I think the arguments he gave me are just plain weak. In any instance, if lances are a plurality, swords are hindered most of the time unless you have triangle-reversing weapons, which Blazing Blade and Sacred Stones admittedly do (however, there is the fact that they're expensive and have few uses to consider). However, in those games, enemies tend to be weak and easy to kill, which means that the other issue with swords rears its ugly head. At any rate, if the enemy weapon ratio trends toward favouring one weapon type, that devalues the weapon type that's weak to that weapon. Look at this, for example:

https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/Cog_of_Destiny

Only seven enemies out of 93 (one of which is Vaida) use axes. And two of those are Swordslayers. That's hardly worth calling "plenty of axes". That being said, swords aren't the worst weapon type in Blazing Blade (bows have that on lockdown), but it sure as hell ain't looking good for them. Going back to Shadow Dragon, axes pretty much disappear after Pyrathi. After that, they're either neutral or disadvantaged, and far more often than not, it's the latter. Which is why I am of the mind that the weapon triangle didn't need to be added to Shadow Dragon, but I digress.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Shadow Mir

[Dark Holy Elf]

35 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

I think the arguments he gave me are just plain weak. In any instance, if lances are a plurality, swords are hindered most of the time unless you have triangle-reversing weapons, which Blazing Blade and Sacred Stones admittedly do (however, there is the fact that they're expensive and have few uses to consider).

Lancereavers are storebought well before Cog of Destiny (which, incidentally, is probably a poor choice to cite since it's turned into a completely different map on the hardest difficulty, where IIRC the few physical weapons remaining are in fact axes aside from the boss's Light Brand). Money's not an issue by that point in the game (the Ocean Seal from the desert sells for 25k alone). Here's The Dread Isle, which is before storebought reavers and features 8 enemies with axes and only 3 with lances. If you want, feel free to go through all the pre-reaver maps and find the total. I imagine lances are the most common but not by nearly as much as you're implying.

But anyway, it doesn't matter if there are more lances. You don't just send your units against random enemies. Your sword users perform better against axes, so you send them preferentially against axe-users, and so on for other weapon types. In FE7, if we could give every unit any one weapon type of our choosing, it would be much better to have a mix of swords, lances, and axes than it would be to have a team of entirely axe-users, even if the enemy was majority lances.

If lances are the most common this does add fuel to the argument that swords are the weakest non-bow weapon in Blazing Sword (which I'd generally agree with on paper, with a caveat that the sword-locked units are better units than the axe-locked units on your side, on average), but there's still a clear point to using swords. I don't think it's unfair to say their niche is narrower in Three Houses, since they can't get WTA until you reach B rank and even then that eats a skill slot.

[Fabulously Olivier]

I think the case for swords is roughly the same as it was. They are very useful on a small minority of characters (in this case, Byleth and your dancer) but will make up a relative minority of your army. That's not unusual, per say. Lance paladins are pretty much always the core of one's team in a typical FE game, and the sheer flexibility of 3H's system means that more of your army will be fliers than ever before. Not to mention that bows are truly useful for the first time ever.

 

The only real problem I see is the lack of meaningful promotion for Swordmaster, Assassin, and Hero. Let's not even entertain the notion of going Mortal Savant.

[Barren]

Not counting Mortal Savant the only other master class that gives you any additional experience using a sword is Falcon Knight. And having sword avoid + defiant avoid for example can make a lucky girl a damn good dodge tank. Especially with C.A.S with its high crit rate

[Kruggov]

8 hours ago, Barren said:

Not counting Mortal Savant the only other master class that gives you any additional experience using a sword is Falcon Knight. And having sword avoid + defiant avoid for example can make a lucky girl a damn good dodge tank. Especially with C.A.S with its high crit rate

Falcon Knights lack Swordfaire, so their damage with swords suffers.
Swords really are cucked at Master level, only having "-10% Spd Growth" Mortal Savant with Swordfaire.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

8 hours ago, Kruggov said:

Falcon Knights lack Swordfaire, so their damage with swords suffers.
Swords really are cucked at Master level, only having "-10% Spd Growth" Mortal Savant with Swordfaire.

More significantly, the class has lower mobility (due to forest penalties) and a worse speed modifier than Assassin. Swordies who don't care about magic access should just stay in Assassin. In theory, Mortal Savant has a niche for mages who want mobility and damage, but are weak in Riding (Dorothea, namely, but possibly Flayn and Yuri as well). There's no ideal master class for sword-specialists.

[Barren]

11 hours ago, Kruggov said:

Falcon Knights lack Swordfaire, so their damage with swords suffers.
Swords really are cucked at Master level, only having "-10% Spd Growth" Mortal Savant with Swordfaire.

That's true yea. Plus their strength modifier isn't as high as Wyvern Lord. It really does seem like Assassins are the way to go by process of elimination

[Dark Holy Elf]

It's usually best to think of master classes as sidegrades rather than upgrades (except Wyvern Rider -> Wyvern Lord). Every Master class requires the unit give up something meaningful to reclass into:

Sniper -> Bow Knight loses Hunter's Volley

Grappler -> War Master loses Fierce Iron Fist and terrain-ignoring

Assassin -> Mortal Savant loses some speed and terrain-ignoring (and Stealth)

Paladin -> Great Knight loses speed and move

Fortress Knight -> Great Knight loses defence in a class which is all about that

Warlock/Bishop -> Gremory loses either Black Tomefaire or Heal+10, i.e. raw power off their primary function

Warlock/Bishop -> Dark Knight/Holy Knight both loses some Magic and Uses x2.

Now to be clear I'm calling these "sidegrades" rather than "downgrades" and some are definitely more tempting than others (though usually, it's an open question as to whether the switch is worth it). But the fact that there is a question is a major contrast to the progression of Basic -> Intermediate -> Advanced which are largely a series of straight upgrades in stats, move, and innate abilities.

[Fennel]

6 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

It's usually best to think of master classes as sidegrades rather than upgrades

Very true.  I read somewhere that during development, Master Classes were actually called Combined Classes and they were not meant to be upgrades from advanced classes, but a sort of hybrid or combination.  One wouldn’t get into definitely, only if it made sense.  For example, if a certain swordmaster has reason talent and had good mag growth, mortal savage may make sense...  or warlock with str...?  Magic swrds?

I think swords have always been a high risk/ reward.  It’s a gambling game playing with swords, relying on multi hit crits.  It’s tough to build a good sword fighter.  Perhaps so by design?  Specially as difficulty is increased.

 Personally, I prefer a horde army of death blow bow knights + hit.  Who cares about flying when you barely have to move to attack with their ridiculous range.  The enemy can die in the shade of our arrows.

 Easy mode. 😛

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

16 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

It's usually best to think of master classes as sidegrades rather than upgrades (except Wyvern Rider -> Wyvern Lord). Every Master class requires the unit give up something meaningful to reclass into:

Agreed, with the caveat that Falcon Knight is also a straight upgrade - but on an Intermediate class, in Pegasus Knight. And that War Master is a straight upgrade over Warrior, but that's because 3H Warrior is a bad class. I wonder, would Warrior be worth it if "War Master's Strike" were instead "Warrior's Strike"?

[Barren]

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

Agreed, with the caveat that Falcon Knight is also a straight upgrade - but on an Intermediate class, in Pegasus Knight. And that War Master is a straight upgrade over Warrior, but that's because 3H Warrior is a bad class. I wonder, would Warrior be worth it if "War Master's Strike" were instead "Warrior's Strike"?

Makes you wonder what the developers were thinking when designing these classes. I would have loved to have been in that conversation and see where they are coming from. Maybe similar to swordmaster, they felt that the class can be a good choice because of a innate sword/axe crit +10 so you could use them as crit-stackers.

But Warmaster is a straight upgrade from Warrior or even Grappler like you said because they have a critical hit +20 class ability. But it's a male only class so I'm guessing that wanted to give girls with a axe boon an option to be a warrior (Hilda's canon class). But everyone knows she's way better as a Falcon Knight or Wyvern Lord anyways. 

[Shadow Mir]

On 8/24/2020 at 6:34 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

Lancereavers are storebought well before Cog of Destiny (which, incidentally, is probably a poor choice to cite since it's turned into a completely different map on the hardest difficulty, where IIRC the few physical weapons remaining are in fact axes aside from the boss's Light Brand). Money's not an issue by that point in the game (the Ocean Seal from the desert sells for 25k alone). Here's The Dread Isle, which is before storebought reavers and features 8 enemies with axes and only 3 with lances. If you want, feel free to go through all the pre-reaver maps and find the total. I imagine lances are the most common but not by nearly as much as you're implying.

I agree Cog wasn't the best example, but the site I checked didn't have the HHM enemy lineup; you gotta admit, though, the drastic shakeup the enemy lineup goes through on that mode just makes things worse for swords, since they can't counter nearly all of the enemies (short of the Light Brand, which is rare, hits resistance, and uses half the user's strength at range, meaning it won't help kill anything promoted, and likely won't do too much damage even to unpromoted mooks). That being said, axes are the most common weapon type in the early parts of most FE games, so yeah (admittedly, this is probably on purpose, seeing as most lords use swords).

On 8/24/2020 at 6:34 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

But anyway, it doesn't matter if there are more lances. You don't just send your units against random enemies. Your sword users perform better against axes, so you send them preferentially against axe-users, and so on for other weapon types. In FE7, if we could give every unit any one weapon type of our choosing, it would be much better to have a mix of swords, lances, and axes than it would be to have a team of entirely axe-users, even if the enemy was majority lances.

I guess. The thing is, that only really helps if the enemy composition of sword/lances/axes is even. If one of the three shows up far more than the other two, that devalues the weapon that ends up on the losing end against that weapon type. I mean, if I'm supposed to send my sword users against axe units, doesn't that mean that if there are less axes than swords or lances, they'll be more likely to fall behind?

On 8/29/2020 at 1:31 AM, Rioma said:

I think swords have always been a high risk/ reward.  It’s a gambling game playing with swords, relying on multi hit crits.  It’s tough to build a good sword fighter.  Perhaps so by design?  Specially as difficulty is increased.

Personally, I find good axe users hard to come by. Especially when talking about classes that specialize in axes.