dimitri Dimitri : Dark Bishop

[drattakbowser]

Let's talk about Dimitri dark bishop class. It's ok for him ?

[Shadow Mir]

Nope, nope, nope. He only has two spells, and second, he has a weakness in Reason.

[------]

Crappy class even on natural mages. If you wanna try magic Dimitri just for the hell of it, go with Dark Knight. Otherwise, just stick to Paladin/Wyvern Lord.

[Shadow Mir]

2 hours ago, RainbowMoon said:

Crappy class even on natural mages. If you wanna try magic Dimitri just for the hell of it, go with Dark Knight. Otherwise, just stick to Paladin/Wyvern Lord.

For classes that are gated behind items that only have one source, I'd expect them to be better than they actually are... The male exclusivity doesn't help, either.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

I watched the video claiming Dark Bishop to be Dimitri's best class. There's about a 99% chance (in 2 RN) that the video was a joke.

3 hours ago, RainbowMoon said:

Crappy class even on natural mages. If you wanna try magic Dimitri just for the hell of it, go with Dark Knight. Otherwise, just stick to Paladin/Wyvern Lord.

Dimitri is one of the few cases where I'd advocate Holy Knight over Dark Knight. Dimitri actually has more Faith charges (12 Nosferatu plus 3 Aura) than Reason (8 Thunder plus 4 Thoron), so he gets more out of White Tomefaire than Black. Plus, it's just easier for him to get into - reaching B+ in a neutral area (Faith) is less hassle than B+ in a bane area (Reason). Neither class is good for Dimitri, but Holy Knight is a slightly less bad fit.

[Barren]

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

I watched the video claiming Dark Bishop to be Dimitri's best class. There's about a 99% chance (in 2 RN) that the video was a joke.

Dimitri is one of the few cases where I'd advocate Holy Knight over Dark Knight. Dimitri actually has more Faith charges (12 Nosferatu plus 3 Aura) than Reason (8 Thunder plus 4 Thoron), so he gets more out of White Tomefaire than Black. Plus, it's just easier for him to get into - reaching B+ in a neutral area (Faith) is less hassle than B+ in a bane area (Reason). Neither class is good for Dimitri, but Holy Knight is a slightly less bad fit.

Holy Knight Dimitri would be a meme at that point. “HEAL EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!”

[Armchair General]

4 hours ago, Shadow Mir said:

Nope, nope, nope. He only has two spells, and second, he has a weakness in Reason.

Ironically, his ancestor was a Dark Knight.

 

At least Claude's fits the bill as an archer, in a way.

[Dark Holy Elf]

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

Dimitri is one of the few cases where I'd advocate Holy Knight over Dark Knight. Dimitri actually has more Faith charges (12 Nosferatu plus 3 Aura) than Reason (8 Thunder plus 4 Thoron), so he gets more out of White Tomefaire than Black. Plus, it's just easier for him to get into - reaching B+ in a neutral area (Faith) is less hassle than B+ in a bane area (Reason). Neither class is good for Dimitri, but Holy Knight is a slightly less bad fit.

Mm. The problem is that Aura is at A, which makes the build dramatically more expensive if you go for it (1320 exp compared to the other spells which are all gained by 300). Much easier to just get to C reason/C faith for the 50% certification rate in either, and at that point I think the choice is definitely to get Black Tomefaire - it boosts the same number of spell uses at that point, but the fact that four of those are Thoron and its lovely expanded range makes me favour Dark Knight.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

8 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Mm. The problem is that Aura is at A, which makes the build dramatically more expensive if you go for it (1320 exp compared to the other spells which are all gained by 300). Much easier to just get to C reason/C faith for the 50% certification rate in either, and at that point I think the choice is definitely to get Black Tomefaire - it boosts the same number of spell uses at that point, but the fact that four of those are Thoron and its lovely expanded range makes me favour Dark Knight.

That's fair - Aura is hard to access. Still, it's something to work for (whereas in Reason, Dimitri gets... nothing... beyond C rank). Plus, its critical boost could synergize well with Battalion Wrath, while the Avoid boost from Faith prowess pairs with that from Dimitri's own personal skill. That said, the damage boost to Thoron, from Dark Knight, would certainly be a welcome one. Neither class is particularly good for Dimitri, of course.

[Barren]

Plus not to mention that Aura has only 3 uses with a base 20 crit. While it’s cool to score crits with Aura along with White Tomefaire, it’s not practical. Even with Battalion Wrath you’re only going to get little success. Even if he was a bishop with  2x of white magic that isn’t enough.

[EdeaCreamer]

I'm not sure why the charge limit on basic attack magic is so restrictive.  Siege tomes and staff effects, that I get, but not just blasty stuff.

 

[Cysx]

On 7/4/2021 at 6:06 AM, EdeaCreamer said:

I'm not sure why the charge limit on basic attack magic is so restrictive.  Siege tomes and staff effects, that I get, but not just blasty stuff.

 

Probably because they cost no money.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

On 7/4/2021 at 12:06 AM, EdeaCreamer said:

I'm not sure why the charge limit on basic attack magic is so restrictive.  Siege tomes and staff effects, that I get, but not just blasty stuff.

 

It's variable in a weird way. Like, compare Bolganone and Sagittae. Bolganone has a 1 Might advantage, but is 5 Hit behind, with the same Weight. Yet Bolganone has just half (5) as many uses as Sagittae (10). Likewise, Thunder and Wind: Thunder has 2 more Might, sure, but 20 less hit, 5 less crit, and 2 more Weight. Oh, and 4 fewer uses.

I have to imagine that few-use spells, like Aura (3) or Agnea's Arrow (2), are balanced assuming the unit is in a "uses x2" class. Such as Bishop or Gremory. Reaching A in a magic type, and being rewarded with a high-Might (but low-use, low-Hit, and high-Weight) often feels quite underwhelming. Aura and Abraxas, at least, should have received more charges (since most Faith spells are non-offensive).

[Dark Holy Elf]

I think the high-rank spells suffer a bit from a problem which often plagues them in Fire Emblems: they get worse in too many ways at once. Sure, they get more might, but in exchange...

• you get them later
• they often (not always) have less hit
• they're heavier (often much heavier)
• they have fewer uses

Considering that these are supposed to be a reward for extra investment in a skill (often large amounts! A is 1320 exp, A+ is 1770, compared to the C rank tomes you can have by chapter 3), that often feels a bit underwhelming. Sometimes the extra power is just that worth it (and certainly I'm happier with the units who get Agnea's Arrow/Ragnarok/Hades than the ones stuck with the weaker Fimbulvetr), but it definitely feels situational, and feels like a bum deal compared to weapons which keep getting better without these drawbacks (silver weapons have plentiful uses, for instance, and aren't that much worse than iron in non-might ways, while having way more might).

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

12 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I think the high-rank spells suffer a bit from a problem which often plagues them in Fire Emblems: they get worse in too many ways at once. Sure, they get more might, but in exchange...

• you get them later
• they often (not always) have less hit
• they're heavier (often much heavier)
• they have fewer uses

Considering that these are supposed to be a reward for extra investment in a skill (often large amounts! A is 1320 exp, A+ is 1770, compared to the C rank tomes you can have by chapter 3), that often feels a bit underwhelming. Sometimes the extra power is just that worth it (and certainly I'm happier with the units who get Agnea's Arrow/Ragnarok/Hades than the ones stuck with the weaker Fimbulvetr), but it definitely feels situational, and feels like a bum deal compared to weapons which keep getting better without these drawbacks (silver weapons have plentiful uses, for instance, and aren't that much worse than iron in non-might ways, while having way more might).

Fimbulvetr, I only see as useful on dedicated critical builds, which aren't especially easy to pull off with mages in this game (only a handful get Black Magic Crit +10, and none among them learn Fimbulvetr). That said, my favorite among the "A rank" non-Siege spells has to be Excalibur. 11 Might sits behind the rest, but 100 Hit, 15 Crit, and flier effectiveness are all solid - not to mention, a relatively generous 4 charges.

As for uses, one way they could've amended this would be providing a way to "recharge" spell uses mid-map. Say, bringing back "Hammerne" as a support spell. Or a rare, limited-use consumable "Leppa Berry", to draw an analogue from the world of Pokemon. Then again, getting up to 4 Warp uses per map (or 8, assuming a 3-use consumable) could be seen as pretty absurd. Only let it work for offensive spells, perhaps?

[Armchair General]

16 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I think the high-rank spells suffer a bit from a problem which often plagues them in Fire Emblems: they get worse in too many ways at once. Sure, they get more might, but in exchange...

• you get them later
• they often (not always) have less hit
• they're heavier (often much heavier)
• they have fewer uses

Considering that these are supposed to be a reward for extra investment in a skill (often large amounts! A is 1320 exp, A+ is 1770, compared to the C rank tomes you can have by chapter 3), that often feels a bit underwhelming. Sometimes the extra power is just that worth it (and certainly I'm happier with the units who get Agnea's Arrow/Ragnarok/Hades than the ones stuck with the weaker Fimbulvetr), but it definitely feels situational, and feels like a bum deal compared to weapons which keep getting better without these drawbacks (silver weapons have plentiful uses, for instance, and aren't that much worse than iron in non-might ways, while having way more might).

But does it really matter if you're playing with a full army? The most that 3H throws at you is a little bit over 40 enemies and a mage can nuke roughly an quarter of them.

[Dark Holy Elf]

@Armchair General That's a fair point, of course. I agree that uses aren't a big concern on average (past the earlygame), though sometimes stats line up such that I run out of uses of a specific spell I need, e.g. if a mage (particularly one without uses x2, i.e. the mobile ones) just happens to be able to one-shot specific enemy types with an A-rank spell but not anything lesser. Actually, thinking on it, maybe it's good that this limit on the high-end spells exists, because it does make a legitimate advantage for sticking in the lower-move mage classes (seen more obviously with siege tome use, of course).

@Shanty Pete's 1st Mate That power threshold for OHKOs coming up is why I'm definitely not as high on Excalibur as I am on the higher-power spells. With only 2 more mt than Thoron it isn't really great at one-shotting enemy types I like to have my mages one-shot (archers and swordies, for instance, sometimes axe-users depending on point in the game). It does one-shot fliers, but I already have archers for that. The hit is mostly overkill though it can occasionally make it the best choice to one-shot grappler enemies from range midgame, but if it's failing to one-shot then you'd just be using Wind/Fire/Sagittae for accurate chip instead (granted, Excalibur still beats two of those by a bit).

[Armchair General]

Come to think of it, the only problem that I had with Lorenz is that I used him to the point that he was almost out of spells during that siege at Enbarr. Although, I was using him to thin out the enemy cat, early on.

 

Other than that, it's primarily an issue on some of the longer fights (which are kind of rare) unless you've paired your mage up with someone else.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

2 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

That power threshold for OHKOs coming up is why I'm definitely not as high on Excalibur as I am on the higher-power spells. With only 2 more mt than Thoron it isn't really great at one-shotting enemy types I like to have my mages one-shot (archers and swordies, for instance, sometimes axe-users depending on point in the game). It does one-shot fliers, but I already have archers for that. The hit is mostly overkill though it can occasionally make it the best choice to one-shot grappler enemies from range midgame, but if it's failing to one-shot then you'd just be using Wind/Fire/Sagittae for accurate chip instead (granted, Excalibur still beats two of those by a bit).

I see what you're saying, and I'll say that I think this varies situationally. If Ragnarok secures a kill that Excalibur would miss out, then Ragnarok is better. However, if either of them would get the kill, and Ragnarok has imperfect accuracy, then I'll favor Excalibur. Likewise, if neither of them kills, but either one sets up the kill, I'll favor Excalibur (granted, as you said, a lower-rank spell may setup the kill just as well). And of course, the might disadvantage is negated in overwhelming fashion against threatening (and often dodgy) fliers.

I do think Accuracy can be a considerable issue for Mages. You're unlikely to send a Mage through Archer for Hit +20 (outside of weird high-effort builds, or "Magic Bow Sniper" attempts), and spells get no "combat art" equivalents that boost Hit rate. Their Hit rates can be increased via Uncanny Blow and/or Bowbreaker, but as Advanced class masteries, these take a while to get. I've found Mage Ignatz to have something of a niche on this front - even armed with the rather-innacurate Blizzard spell, he's hitting reliably, thanks to his personal ability. Battalions and the Accuracy ring can mend this somewhat, but that's true of physical units too. Bottom-line, most units who get a high-accuracy spell, like Wind or Excalibur, will appreciate the reliability it brings. Whether that accuracy makes up for lesser Might is situational.

[Dark Holy Elf]

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

I see what you're saying, and I'll say that I think this varies situationally. If Ragnarok secures a kill that Excalibur would miss out, then Ragnarok is better. However, if either of them would get the kill, and Ragnarok has imperfect accuracy, then I'll favor Excalibur. Likewise, if neither of them kills, but either one sets up the kill, I'll favor Excalibur (granted, as you said, a lower-rank spell may setup the kill just as well). And of course, the might disadvantage is negated in overwhelming fashion against threatening (and often dodgy) fliers.

I do think Accuracy can be a considerable issue for Mages. You're unlikely to send a Mage through Archer for Hit +20 (outside of weird high-effort builds, or "Magic Bow Sniper" attempts), and spells get no "combat art" equivalents that boost Hit rate. Their Hit rates can be increased via Uncanny Blow and/or Bowbreaker, but as Advanced class masteries, these take a while to get. I've found Mage Ignatz to have something of a niche on this front - even armed with the rather-innacurate Blizzard spell, he's hitting reliably, thanks to his personal ability. Battalions and the Accuracy ring can mend this somewhat, but that's true of physical units too. Bottom-line, most units who get a high-accuracy spell, like Wind or Excalibur, will appreciate the reliability it brings. Whether that accuracy makes up for lesser Might is situational.

I get where you're coming from, but I think I just fundamentally disagree on the value of higher hit here?

To take simply Ragnarok vs Excalibur... let's suppose that, for sake of argument, Ragnarok does 45 damage and Excalibur does 41 (the exact numbers don't matter, just the gap). Let's assume our next strongest spell is Bolganone (middle in both power and hit for its rank, 38 damage) and our D rank spell is Fire (similar argument, 33 damage).

• If you need to kill something with 33 HP or less, you're probably just using Fire, so the distinction is moot. You're almost certainly finishing something off that someone else attacked, so you probably even have linked attacks, and I highly doubt Excalibur's hit bonus over Fire will matter here.
• If you need to kill something with 37 to 38 HP, you're probably just using Bolganone, but you might use Excalibur for hit in some cases.
• If you need to kill something with 39-41 HP, Excalibur is better... but only if the hit matters.
• If you need to kill something with 42-45 HP, Ragnarok is clearly better, no real contest.
• If you need to hurt something with 46+ HP, you're probably back to chipping with another spell and not using either once again.
• If you need to kill a flier then Excalibur is better. As mentioned I don't value this that much because I have another unit type who specializes in flier destruction (you probably know my biases by now, i.e. archers are the only physical infantry worth using!), but I can see feeling differently.

Since the 42-45 range weighs so heavily (at least to me), I think the question lies in how much you value that extra hit, especially in that 39-41 range. I tend not to think it's that great, because I find mages pretty accurate for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, Dark Flier aside (where I'll readily concede hit matters more), mages have access to battalions which generally grant large amounts of hit (at least by the point in the game we'd be debating A rank spells). Macuil is +30, Edmund Troops is +40, Ordelia is +20, Gloucester Knights is +15, Timotheos is +10. Secondly, Reason Prowess itself grants a larger boost than most other prowess skills. Ragnarok with maxed Prowess is 100 hit, which is on the high end of silver+ weapons with their prowess skills (which range from 90 to 100) and also higher than brave+ (90-95). And thirdly, enemy magic evade is usually lower than their physical evade by anywhere from 5 to 10 points or so... and on top of that, doesn't get boosts from terrain, so mage accuracy tends to be quite reliable regardless of target. My experience is a few token dodgy bosses and mini-bosses give them some pause, and so does the grappler line due to Tomebreaker, but that's about it.

Even a standard midgame build mage build like, say, Mercedes/Lorenz with Ragnarok and Gloucester Knights (or Lysithea/Hubert with Dark Spikes, for another 80-hit example) is going to be achieving hit rates of 135+ before considering linked attacks. Which is enough for near-100 hit (>98 real) on every enemy in Chapter 10-11 except the assassin bosses for instance. If you replaced Ragnarok with Excalibur they'd lose out on a fair number of OHKOs, although the specifics vary by exactly where the magic stats are of course.

Anecdotally, it's worth pointing out that Lysithea is widely regarded the strongest pure offensive mage in the game, and she does not have a single spell more accurate than Ragnarok (excepting her Mage phase when she has Fire).

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

2 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Anecdotally, it's worth pointing out that Lysithea is widely regarded the strongest pure offensive mage in the game, and she does not have a single spell more accurate than Ragnarok (excepting her Mage phase when she has Fire).

Ironically, Lysithea is part of what's inspiring me to push for high-Hit spells. I'm not a fan of seeing, say, consistent sub-70 Hit rates on spells that actually deliver the kill. With the best Magic stat in the game, but lackluster Luck, I'd argue that she'd make great use of a higher-Hit option. The Hit can be mended with the right battalion, yes, but so can the damage.

2 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Since the 42-45 range weighs so heavily (at least to me), I think the question lies in how much you value that extra hit, especially in that 39-41 range. I tend not to think it's that great, because I find mages pretty accurate for a variety of reasons.

The difference is, so long as Bolganone has less-than-perfect Hit, I would firmly favor Excalibur in the 37-38 range (unless I anticipate running out of charges). The sure thing beats the high likelihood, every time. So for me, Excalibur is winning in 37-41, a slightly wider range than Ragnarok's 42-45. And even in 39-41, the extra charge means I can kill four foes in that range, rather than three. Make no mistake - there are damage benchmarks that Excalibur misses out on, ensuring higher-Might spells their own niche. Still, I find more to like than dislike with Excalibur.

3 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Firstly, Dark Flier aside (where I'll readily concede hit matters more), mages have access to battalions which generally grant large amounts of hit (at least by the point in the game we'd be debating A rank spells). Macuil is +30, Edmund Troops is +40, Ordelia is +20, Gloucester Knights is +15, Timotheos is +10.

To be sure, these are all good ones! Still, Macuil Evil Repelling Co. requiring A-Authority can be a tough reach for units without a boon, while Edmund Troops and Ordelia Sorcery Co. are gated behind post-skip paralogues. So they're not necessarily available right when the A-rank spells start coming in for dedicated mages. I will nominate Essar Research Group (+5 damage, +30 Hit) onto the pile, but that shares the "you need to buy something beyond the base game" weirdness with the Timotheos battalion. Great mage resources, all of them, but I hate feeling constrained to a particular battalion.

3 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

If you need to kill a flier then Excalibur is better. As mentioned I don't value this that much because I have another unit type who specializes in flier destruction (you probably know my biases by now, i.e. archers are the only physical infantry worth using!), but I can see feeling differently.

I'd agree overall that Bows are "better" than Excalibur against fliers, although that's largely due to the former's ubiquity, versus the latter's obscurity. Still, suppose I have three enemy fliers to take down, using two archers and one mage. Of course I want it to be the mage with Excalibur in this case. And where Bows lose hit rate from further away (which can be mended, somewhat, by Curved Shot), Excalibur retains consistent accuracy from more than 2 tiles away (whether via Thyrsus, Caduceus, or the Valkyrie class). Not to mention, getting another tool that cleaves through the shield of opposing winged beasts is always nice. Your options may be plentiful, but enemy fliers are abundant enough as a threat that I say there's no such thing as too much Anti-Flier Aktion.

Think that covers every-

3 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I get where you're coming from, but I think I just fundamentally disagree on the value of higher hit here?

...Huh, we could've just settled on that. Anyway, I've apparently come full circle. I either die arguing against "the Bolt Axe is just too inaccurate to be useful!", or I live long enough to see myself become the resident "Lysithea is a bad unit because she can't hit anything!" bad-take haver.