Dunal

And? We're sacrificing a single skill scroll to have an extra useful unit on the team who happens to be decent. I find it hard to believe that this is such a huge detriment if we're rating Leo on him being a competent unit vs. opportunity cost. Yes, we may be clearing a bit faster perhaps with piling everything into Nolan and hope he doesn't die along the way? (although Nolan isn't soloing without considering other units like Volug and Zihark. And if Nolan is one-shotting on enemy phase then he is likely to be killed). Rating units based on 'optimal or perfect strategies/knowledge' isn't really a good basis to measure units on. Otherwise units like Rolf would be 1/10 because using other units are 'better'. This is true, but the whole point of rating a unit is understanding how good they are when used to a moderate degree. That's kinda the whole point of rating -- to evaluate how effective a unit is in completing the game in terms of efficiency, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's 100% optimal. Otherwise we might as well completely disregard units who aren't 100% efficient. Renning would be a 0/10 because under an optimal strategy he wouldn't be deployed. But that's not how it works. Leo is rated based on "how much value can I make out of this unit" and "if used, what do I sacrifice". For Leo, it's really not a whole lot to make him decent for a portion of the game. Fairly low opportunity cost to essentially have a credible unit. And even despite that, I'd still rate a 5. So it's not like I'm advocating that he's as good as Nolan or something.

I'm not sure what your point is here. We're not exactly giving Leo a huge amount of resources here, to the point where you're getting a good unit out of said minimal resources. Getting him to level 10 is not difficult no matter how to go about it. It really isn't. You can take 6 turns a map and that's still half way into level 7 with 0 kills. Then you can provide any combination of providing a few kills, a bit of BEXP or deployment on 1-E to gain a further 60-80 EXP or so. Using a master seal is the cost of giving it to a level 20 unit so they can skip 21. This is notable, but not a big deal. He gets exclusive access to Lughnasash and Bravebow. That is zero resource allocation as a result. You do not need to purchase a crossbow and thereforesave gold. Giving him beastfoe is the only real opportunity cost. So... you're sacrifing one skill for an entirely extra usable unit. A worthwhile trade. Not sure how getting ORKOed is relevant. Leo kills something a turn which is useful. Nolan chokes a point without risk of being killed (which is what 1RKOing on enemy phase can end up causing). The way you worded that statement as well kind of makes it seem I'm trying to say Leo is as good as Nolan or should be rated as such. But... that's not really the point here. It's to do with the fact that Leo is actually pretty good without too much investment and not really taking anything away from the player. Even if Leo were to not save turns by being used, the fact that he does cost any either is points in his favor, because it implies that his usage is a possible strategy that is viable with no detriment. Unlike Edward who would likely to cost turns to be usable in part 3. It's also worth pointing out that Beastfoe!Leo is a very safe strategy that isn't prone to bad RNG, compared to the alternative.

But what you're not taking into account is what I said before; having a great unit and a deadweight unit is not as good than having a good unit and another good unit. Leo doesn't need much to become essentially another useful unit. It's similar to the whole "give the most resources to Jill" thing. Because it benefits you the most. You give Leo certain resources to benefit you the most. When it comes to Nolan with a crossbow, range is only useful to counterattack ranged enemies of which there are none in 3-6 or 3-13 anyway. However, Nolan is good at Tanking and dealing decent damage at melee. If he's one-shotting enemies it just leaves him open to attack. And makign him a ranged unit with a crossbow is wasting what he should be used for-- when you can just do the same for Leo and have another useful unit. Training him to 10 isn't exactly difficult. He's gaining 8-10 EXP per hit and let's say he attacks 8 times per map (except prologue). That's 70 EXP per map (double that for 1-4) until 1-7 up until where he stops being forced/free deployment. So by default he's level 8 or 9 with getting 0 kills. And if you spare him a kill per map then job's done, perhaps with 50 BEXP as well or something. You have a filler slot or two in 1-E as well. So there's that if he needs a bit more.

I stand corrected -- for some reason I was under the impression they were bargains only. Like the Taksh in 3-12. Regardless, maximising your full team as a whole makes the set-up more appropriate for Leo. Nolan's just fine without it when there's the opportunity to make someone else go from zero to hero..

There isn't a crossbow in 3-6 and and Handaxe (for 2 range) isn't exactly going to be killing tigers nor cats with beastfoe. Leon kills both effortless with either Bravebow and Lughnasadh. Then comes 3-13 which yes, Nolan can be given a crossbow+beastfoe. But it's still better to give to Leo since Nolan will perform fine without it, while Leo won't do much without it. So having two 7-8/10 units on this map is better than a 9/10 unit and a 3/10 one. Same argument stands for 3-6 as well. This is all possible just by leveling Leo to 10 in part 1. Which in that part, does 10+ damage with the Steelbow at base which is okay. He's forced in many maps and has the benefit of being useful when underfed. Unlike say, Edward. So he's pretty much an Ilyana with 3 extra maps of forced contribution. I mean, this is also why I'd rate Edward at least above average for those first 2-3 maps. He's still not great or anything but as it stands, a rating of 5 is appropriate.

Yet... aren't these ratings based on HM? I'm confused. As others have mentioned Edward needs quite a bit of investment (around the same as Aran) to remain solid. And his "potential" is no better than other units or Swordmasters in general. Everyone in this game cap-rams their stats anyway so eh... Wrath is nice but always seems to be more practical on ranged units. There's a lot of cool things you can do with it early on though and therefore Edward's performance for a few maps is solid enough (for that alone I'd rate him at least a 6 or so). It's just that in hard mode, his evasion is shakier than it should be. And cannot make much use of BEXP to 'fill out' certain stats that he might want. As its extremely limited. He also doesn't have the broken Earth affinity to make him the super dodge tank that Zihark, Volug or Nolan can be. Leo deserves more credit because chip damage becomes more valuable in hard mode to bring enemies in kill territory (so they cannot damage you). And his performance in 1-5 and 1-6-1 is pretty solid due to ledges and pegasi. Then part 3 comes along and he literally becomes one of the best units you have for a couple maps. And then can become a decent filler unit in 4-5 as well if need be (same can be said for anyone with a crossbow I suppose). That does deserve a higher score than you gave him. I'd say a 5 is about right, IMO. Other ratings seem solid enough. You may be overstating Laura's potential as well though. Her caps are so bad. Needs to be 20/7 just to double Tigers because of it. "I'm right and others are wrong about this, except you". You might not have not meant it that way... but there's a lot of good arguments against his performance. I know that you disagree that there isn't 'favouritism' involved but it's hard not to see it that way when you have to force yourself to play HM notably slower to raise/use him throughout part 1 (his squishiness often means you have to play conservatively with him and/or he needs to chug a vulnerary every other turn or force Laura to heal him constantly). The healing thing is kinda a big deal when it comes to playing efficiently, regardless of what he's killing/isn't killing. His evasion on HM is not very good. He's far better in NM due to dodging axe users, being able to utilize BEXP, and generally just enemies being in kill-range more often. And higher EXP amounts for him to reach his potential faster. But this discussion has already been done to death so I'll leave it here.

El versions are much lower ranged (fixed 1-3) and have lower accuracy to boot. So they are simply worse versions and are no longer tied to the Senate. They exist to give status staves a lot more counterplay and to also allow me to make status staves more common for the player without making them too powerful. In retrospect their names should be switched, to make the 'superior' staves named appropriate. As for cards, it may be possible. Not something I've personally looked into. They still have the same skills, yes. Dragons are the same too -- but are just named differently. Mercy is still removable.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. Gambit!Heather is a more unique identity so I'd likely stick with that. Might retract my previous thoughts over going 'all out' on it. An off-healer might be an option. It depends on how the healing meta works out in the end; and how many staff users in part 4 is best for the game. Barring in mind that Micaiah is a top-tier combat unit now, so she doesn't really want to be relegated to healing. Saints and Mist are the only SS staff users, so one of those is almost mandatory. Then you have Elincia/Sigrun/Pelleas/Astrid as tier 2 healers (Recover/Physic/Fortify/Status) access. Then everyone else able to use staves are capped at C rank as off-healers (Mend is the best thing they can use). Micaiah is kinda between by capping at B. So she can Physic but not use status staves or Fortify. Having an extra tier 2 healer might not be bad. It really depends how good variety is. If it ends up so that two tier-2 healers are needed, then Heather might become one for variety's sake.

RES boosts healing in this game. 1/2 of RES is converted to bonus healing. Which is nice because it helps make RES more important and makes it so that say, Lilina isn't a better healer than Eren/Klarine or something. It does increase staff range. But within that context it would make far more sense for Light Magic. It's far from thematic to have Sages having a boost to staff range rather than Bishops. On that note, I think it would be cool if Eren's personal skill was staff range related. Maybe she can use healing staves with 1-2 range (but with 33% less effectiveness at 2 range?). Or maybe that could be a level 5-10 Bishop skill or something. Then Klarine can possibly get a personal skill that allows her to canto after using staves (I'm personally really fond of this idea in particular). This secures them as the premier healers even after they promote. It's always really lame when the pre-promotes or other magi just end up becoming healers as good as the dedicated healers you've had for the first 15-20 maps of the game... Staff rank aside which usually isn't even a big deal especially for pre-promotes. On a similar note, Cecilia should be far more combat oriented than healer. She is the 'Mage General' after all (you wouldn't think that means "healbot")

They're assigned to units/classes that can't really abuse them too well (or simply make up for weaknesses, like in the case of Calill or Aran). Dodge tanking isn't even viable or reliable any more. Enemies have a lot more base HIT, certain weapons have a lot of hit (greatsword/poleax/greatlance) that are fairly common in part 4. Biorhythm as well (-30 AVO at worst). And of course Earth affinity being nerfed. Oh and authority star changes. CH4-1 will be plenty difficult regardless of vision. There's a lot of flying enemies or high move enemies in general. Feral Laguz will also make an appearance. This means that enemies will often still be outside of your vision. I forgot to mention that Focus now only increases Vision to 6 at maximum as a cap. Cats have the highest vision at 7. And even with all of that said, it's still only Calill (who would rather go beast-hunting with Tibarn's group), Jill/Haar (would rather go to desert map or 4-5 and not the in-door 4-4) and the three marksman (likely one of each will go to each group). As well as Lethe and Lyre. Oh, and Heather (6 vision). So.. that's on average 3 units; a Marksman, a cat and Heather. Maybe Calill. Well obviously, I'd balance her accordingly. That goes without saying. I'd need to test it thoroughly as well. That said, if I gave her staves I'd go all out on it. So would likely nerf other things and may even let her cap out at S (so one of only 7 units who can Fortify). That would mean you'd bring her as a dedicated healer (rather than someone like Mist/Elincia/Astrid) if you're also bringing Volke. That would be viable. Sure. Probably Lancer or Holy Lancer, as they were named in the PAL/JP versions of the game. Leaning on the latter since the former is a kinda basic.

Let's not pretend for a second that Biorhythm is all that meaningful. And for every time it's lowering avoid it's also increasing avoid. It's not exactly something strictly against the player. In the circumstance that it's increasing the players avoid, it benefits Meg more than say, Aran. And in the circumstance that it's lowering avoid -- it's negating Aran's small chance to avoid while Meg is still dodging 1 in 3 attacks without supports. Correction: Meg is killing with the Brave only with the energy drop or a +ATK support. Tigers... have 6 luck. She has a 33% crit rate against them. And if anything, not guaranteeing a kill is a point in her favour considering the apparent importance of not letting enemies flood you. I don't think this is relevant to Zihark since with Earth/Earth he only has 20% true hit rates against him. No amount of 'biorhythm' or attacks taken will leave him to die unless you're extremely unlucky. He on average dies in roughly 10 attacks. That's kinda why he's high tier. Early/mid game is more difficult than late game. That's why Meg usability in late part 1 or part 3 matters a lot more. It's not like Fiona is that much better than Meg late game either. Part 3 & 4's map design can often penalize cavalry just as hard as armors. And stat-wise.. Meg is argubaly at least on-par. +7 HP/DEF, +5 RES and +3 STR. Fiona has 3 SPD which definitely matters but it's arguable as to which is better as it depends on circumstance. And that's disregarding the fact that Meg will always have a level lead over Fiona. Fiona does have earth support and free Imbue. That overall makes her better but not really to a substantial degree at all.

How is this specific to Meg? How is this specific to Meg? She's not exactly any less tanky than others who can 'one-round'. If it really matters, she can kill someone on Player phase w/ killing/brave and then someone can trade with her to make her equip a steel or something (yay Fiona is useful). But the same can be said for other units so...?

You're neglecting the fact that Meg has 20 more AVO than Aran which is the difference between ~75% hit for Aran (83% true hit) and ~55% for Meg (58% true hit). Meg's dodging an extra hit per phase. The gap widens more when supports are applied. Extra evasion becomes more powerful the lower your previous evasion was. This does matter a lot when Meg can actually kill things with the Brave/Killer sword. While Aran cannot kill anything in 1 round. Meg's mid/late game isn't an issue at all. As much as people like to overstate her growths/cap issue -- statistically it's not really that much of a big deal (someone like Nolan needs to be 20/10 to reach Meg's "awful" speed cap in tier 2). She is more reliant on BEXP fill out other stats a bit though -- but her caps does make this easier to take advantage of. Still, she has a bad start and her movement (and affinity) does her no favours. So that's why she's no more than a 3 or 3.5. But she's not quite as bad/awful as people like to say. And she certainly should not be grouped with Fiona/Lyre (which is what you're implying by completely disregarding the positive aspects about her). I mean despite the above, Aran is still quite a bit better because he has a lot less opportunity cost. And uses stat boosters like Dracoshield better than almost anyone (should you decide to use him). And forged Javelins etc etc... I don't think anyone is denying she is? (Although I'd put her 5th worst above Astrid and Gareth). Main point is that she isn't flat out terrible and shouldn't be grouped with the certain couple units below her.

Nosferatu/Resire now scales with STR, so it's less powerful. Micaiah's STR is fairly decent I suppose, but the tome is most suited to Oliver or Tormod. Order!Snipers have insane STR/SKL/SPD to weaken you down, but cannot kill you. Unless you have Nihil. Then they can kill you~ Berserker felt more fitting considering they are known for their high CRIT. And yes, colossus is gone. But considering Boyd's SKL is so bad, it would hardly proc anyway. And the insane crit bonus makes up for his non-existent natural crit. And yes, Nolan's crit will be insane considering his already great SKL. But it's made up for his mediocre STR and lower SPD. Heather's T3 class name could change, sure. Something referring to her magical prowess could also be a possibility. I'm open to the concept of giving her staves as well (in which case she'd be an Awakening Trickster).

Her base HP is the only thing that's a little low. Everything else is objectively more or the same than a generic LV3 armor. Not that that's relevant -- an above average level 3 unit in 1-4 is bad and it's why Meg is bad. But that's not really the point I was trying to make, nor a contested point that even matters. (But going by her bases, if Meg joined in 1-1 she'd basically be Nolan but with less HP and 6 levels lower). It does mean though that she gets increased EXP gain, and more levels to grow relative to others. Which is counteracted by weird growths, granted (albeit better promo gains than others). She doesn't start performing objectively well until 1-E at the very earliest. Which is still far more than what can be said for someone like Fiona. By that logic, her having no "redeeming aspects" would mean that she's similar as Fiona (who barely has anything going for her). But she isn't. I get the impression you're judging aspects of a unit rather binary. No, Meg's bases are not good, but they're not so terrible that she's not usable. The bottom line is that Meg's opportunity cost is very high -- and that does her no favors. She isn't getting any higher than a 3. Yet, compared to Fiona or Lyre, her opportunity cost a whole lot lower than them, to the point where on a grading scale, 2.5-3 is completely accurate if they're, say a 1. "Redeeming qualities" are few and far between (good early weaponry, not awful availability, high AVO, high RES, good lategame etc...) compared to her bad aspects (so many to list) but to say they don't exist is a bit silly. And supports? If you're playing hard mode then forget using more than 3-4 tier 1 units. So someone's gotta make do and support her regardless (again, you have to judge a unit based on the circumstance you are using them over others and rate them based on how good that is -- that's how a tier list works?). Heaven affinity isn't doing them any favours but at least they benefit off their own affinity and so does Meg. If Zihark supports with her, he's still getting AVO from his own earth support. (Guaranteed 100% hit rates isn't completely useless either. At least with weaponry like Storm Sword, Tempest Blade, Steel Blades etc... Or Nolan/Jill in general can appreciate it to some degree, especially with hand axes).

Not sure what point you're trying to make. I'm only listing her good/redeeming aspects. Just because a unit is bad doesn't mean they cannot have those. Not everything is black or white either. Yes, she does have competition for say, The Brave Sword. But it's definitely a point in her favor that it exists than it not existing (Unlike say, Aran who doesn't have a Brave Lance). Same could be said for Edward (competing with Zihark). With an earth support Meg has 85 AVO (which is one of the highest AVOs out of all the DB aside from earth/earth possibilities) which means Tigers have 37% true hit against her. That's fairly respectable. And her 20 SPD at 20/1 means she's doubling them. And with the "not so good" Killing Edge, a very high chance of 1RKOing. Her base level is low enough that's it's noticeably faster and she benefits the most from it to escape her base speed. And the fact that she exists at this time as opposed to units joining later on. It's a point in Aran's favor as well for the same reasons as her. Again, I never said it's a huge benefit but is one nonetheless. I'm justify her as a 3, not a 6. In any case, she's no where near as bad as Fiona or Lyre. You can actually use Meg without it being a huge detriment. It's just not that efficient. Her movement is an obvious problem as well. That's a primary reason why she's quite a bit lower than Aran, base speed aside.

Giving it some thought; if Meg actually joined in 1-P or 1-1 (let's say she swapped places with Nolan), she'd probably be high tier. Base Nolan at 1-4 would be around where Aran sits now. That's how crucial availability is for these scrubs. Can't deny Meg's bases are great for her level (at least if she were to join where her base speed wouldn't get her doubled; and then she actually has time to grow it). Hilariously enough, if base Fiona joined in 1-1 she'd still be mediocre. That's how bad she is. Real talk, I'd rate Meg a 3 -- if only for the fact that the choke-point haven that is 1-4 can greatly help her grow since her base level is so low (she can whack on something 5 times and gain a level on Hard). If turn counts be damned for this one map only... she is salvageable (not exactly a great argument though, but it's definitely a point in her favor rather than her joining a map far less suited for her, like say 1-5). Beyond that she isn't particularly amazing, at least in part 1, but usable enough. Access to Killer/Brave sword is definitely notable and she's no worse a tank than other units going into part 3+. She has a lot more AVO than say, Aran. And then statistically she's the best Marshall in the lategame w/ BEXP investment... for whatever that is worth. Aran's better though. 5-5.5. Leaning on 5. Same as Edward would get if he didn't have 1-P or 1-1 contribution.

Some lategame stuff for those intrigued: TIER 3 INNATE SKILLS DISCIPLES OF ORDER INNATE SKILLS This is what's currently being tested but is subject to change. Feel free to provide your thoughts. For those wondering, Tier 3 classes have been stripped back. As in, the changes made are intended to scale things down a notch to make sure mastery skills or 1HKOing occur less often. By default, the proc chance of skills have gone down a bit overall as well.

Elwind should be 2-3 range as well. I feel that consistency for each magic type is very important. From a player standpoint, if a type of magic has varying ranges then it becomes non-intuitive. A player should be able to immediately look at the colour of tome and think "this has X range". Consistency is also important to properly separate each type and give them their own niche, as well as easier balancing for units who can only use 1-2 types of magic. So on a similar note, Divine should not have 3-range either. Elthunder should not have 2 range (didn't notice this one before actually -- is this an error? I'm guessing it is). Dark magic may be fine though; it tends to have unique properties based on tome and will likely not show up as often. (Although you might want to colour code 1 range dark tomes as black and 1-2 tomes as purple/grey or something)

Looks better now. But yeah... I feel you'll going to be making some more changes after running some tests. 2 or 3 MT is apparently worth 1 less range... When magi are dealing 15-20+ damage in the late game you'll find that there'll be very little reason to not just use the higher range tome. Someone like Lilina will just want to max Wind because she already has high MAG to negate the (minor) damage loss, if not everyone else. Triple her effective range for only 4 damage loss? Unless you're locking magic types further (so someone like Lilina can only use Thunder now) and balancing the units accordingly (which can help negate some magic types being better than others). Divine doesn't need 3 range. Judging by the other stats it has, it seems a bit random without compensating anything. Keep this niche to Wind. Otherwise, buff all 1 range tomes by 2 MT. Nerf all 3 range tomes by a further 1 MT. Then go from there. The MT gap is still far too close (especially in the mid/late game where damage values are a lot higher by default). The standard wind tome shouldn't have 1 range. Having the luxury of 3 range should provide a definite weakness. This is more-so for enemies than yourself. Enemies being able to attack you at 3 range and then countering you at 1 range... Probably isn't very fun unless it's a really high level tome. Of course, this is all coming from someone who's already tested this at length. For clarity, I actually had to end up locking the standard wind tome to 3 rng (no counter attacking at 1 or 2 range) because the early game mages would be obnoxious otherwise. Thunder/Elthunder etc.. had to have a lot more MT than otherwise predicted, because I found myself and testers just using other types all the time instead (or not using Ilyana). Elthunder had to have 13-14 MT before it felt 'decent'. And even then, it cannot counterattack ranged enemies, making it often inferior anyway in a lot of cases. That all said, It is/was still worth doing regardless for the sole purpose of having 1-range magical enemies -- which is amazing for enemy diversity/counterplay. Same with Dark magic. I like a lot of the bonus effects/debuffs etc... that you've planned though. That's all good. MT based on range is the main thing that does need tweaking however. Fix that, and you've got a really solid setup.

Not sure how people can say Azama is a "bad character". An asshole? Definitely. Badly written? ...No? One of the better written characters, if anything. 'Worst' character indicates they're written badly, are inconsistent with their motives and actions or forces other characters to break their character to make interactions work. Peri is a prime example of this. Camilla as well (concept of her character is certainly interesting-- execution... not so much).

When it comes to LCK, it tends to be extremely noticeable/detrimental when you have a severe lack of it. But having an extremely high amount of LCK is not really noteworthy, because crit rates tend to be low enough that those with just average LCK can get by. As such, you don't need anything more than average LCK, so those with high LCK are w/e. Increasing the rate of crits solves this issue as well -- units with stat spreads favouring LCK would now have something notably good about them. While those with avg LCK can still run the risk of being crit. And then, if you nerf the effectiveness of crits, this doesn't become frustrating; just something you need to consistently play around outside of high LCK units. SKL can then contribute to providing more CRT, therefore being better as well. So as a result, you don't even need to tinker with HIT/AVO rates. Then when it comes to RES, just add more enemy magi; with some reworking to magic itself to give them more counterplay. RES can also affect staff healing, but MAG still affects staff range. Or alternatively, the higher RES you have, the more healing you could receive, including from items. To that effect, you'd rename RES to SPI (Spirit).

Mean to clarify? Killer weapons are acceptable but being rewarded for having high SKL (or using weaker weapons) is not? You can nerf crit to x2 damage or even x1.5 damage. And having them proc more makes LCK better as well. (And also makes skills like FE5!Wrath really interesting/cool as opposed to just broken -- albeit it would make more sense to flip it for player phase rather than enemy phase). Besides, we already have passive/activated skills for the "extremely unpredictable godsend" element. So crits have all the more reason to be made different. I actually think crits being lower % (and more devastating) is actually worse for the game. Because the times they happen will either be completely superficial (because you wouldn't plan for it to happen) or completely screw you over (enemies randomly one-shotting you). In both scenarios they don't really accomplish anything meaningful. Unless you happen to have a killer weapon or its FE5 (or FE6 with some classes).

At least In FE10 RDX, longbows lose a flat 30 HIT per extra range (they are 3-5) and wind magic loses damage (based on tome). So they work differently (magic would lose potency as the caster is further away; while bows would be harder to hit with logically). As for SKL, you could split it into DEX (dexterity, which is melee accuracy) and TEC (technique, which is long range accuracy and magic). TEC would also affect skill procs primarily. DEX would also affect things like stealing, finding items, and movement penalties. Javelins and Handaxes would use DEX for 1 range and TEC for long range. This is a cool way to nerf them since the units needs to have high amounts of both stats rather than just one. EDIT: Also, another good way to buff SKL is included in FEXNA -- overloaded hit. When you have 100% HIT on an enemy, any additional HIT is then converted to crit.

That's true. But then again, avoid only really matters much if you have a lot of it to begin with (therefore being able to dodge tank). Speaking of dodge tanking -- it's why fatigue/biorhythm would be really good. Consistently being able to dodgetank is basically when you've 'won' the game/map. I suppose enemies just need to have good/better hit overall to avoid these scenarios in the first place.