lenticular

In terms of meaningful differentiation between units, yeah, there isn't actually all that much in the game. But the comparison between Hilda and Raphael is a pretty good one. They're kinda similar units in a lot of ways, except that Hilda is pretty much just better. So why bother using Raphael at all? Well, maybe because you want a War Master or a Grappler. That's probably the biggest single thing that he has over Hilda, so having her be locked out of those classes helps to keep Raphael relevant. Of course, you then get situations like Hapi and Linhardt, where they're very similar units except that Hapi is just a little bit better and she also has access to the relevant gender-locked class (in their case, Gremory). That sort of thing isn't doing anyone any favours. But in theory at least, if not in practice, I do think that gender locks could be used to help balance and differentiate units. I've looked into Switch homebrew stuff before, but decided that I don't want to take the risk of either bricking my Switch or getting it blocked by Nintendo. Especially since most of my games are bought from the eshop, so losing the Switch would mean losing them as well.

Only tangentially related, but am I the only one who really doesn't mind gender restrictions on classes? In theory, I actually kinda like it as another way to meaningfully differentiate between units, although in practice the implementation is kinda bad so it doesn't really work all that well. But beyond that, it's just not something that's ever been a big deal to me. There are enough different class options that I never really feel the absence of the restricted ones. Sure, it would be nice to be able to make Hilda into a War Master (or whatever) but when I can also make her a Wyvern Lord, Falcon Knight, Great Knight, Dancer, Paladin, etc. then I'm not really sad about it. I can see why it does bother some people, mind. It's just not something I personally care about.

The bolded part just isn't true. Modern Fire Emblem sells significantly more copies internatinally than in Japan. According to Nintendo's own data, Awakening had sold 0.5M in Japan and 1.4M internationally; Fates had sold 0.5M in Japan and 1.1M internationally; Three Houses sold 0.58M in Japan and 2.29M internationally. (source 1, source 2). (While the absolute sales figures have likely increased a little since those reports, I don't see any reason to suspect that the ratio of Japanese to internatioinal sales has shifted meaningfully.) Indeed, the 2017 document specifically states that "[Fire Emblem] has become especially popular overseas since the titles on the Nintendo 3DS." Japanese nerds are no longer the primary audience for Fire Emblem, and Nintendo knows it.

Doing this without relying on Dimitri's crest should also be possible, though considerably more difficult/less practical. I'm going to have Edelgard use Lightning Axe with the Axe of Zoltan+, which is 20 base might, tripled to 60 might against armour units. Edelgard has a max magic stat of 72, but this can be incresed to the hard cap of 99 through various bonuses (+5 from saint statue, +3 from cooking, +5 from being a gremory, +8 from defiant magic, +3 from transmute, +4 from rally magic). Her max res is 47 but that can similarly be boosted up by bonuses to 74 (all the same bonuses plus defiant res). This gives Lightning Axe a might of 4 + floor (0.3 x 74) = 26. This already gives us a might of 99 + 60 + 26 = 185, and then we can stack all sorts of bonuses on top of that. Ordelia Sorcery Co. gives +8, Fiendish Blow gives +6, Axefaire gives +5, linked attack with Hubert gives +3, linked attack with Byleth (with an S support from NG+) gives +5, Sacred Power gives +3, crest activation gives +5. That's a total of +35, for a total might of 220. Crimson Flower, Chapter 16 (the next one after getting the Axe of Zoltan) has Fortress Knights who have 7 res. This can be lowered to 1 by hitting them with Seal Res before making the attack. This would give a total damage of 219 if I've done my calculations right. And still over 200 if I've made a small calculation error or if you don't optimise quite as much.

Honestly, with video games, I value "how I feel about this" a lot more than "how this actually is". The entire reason that I play video games in the first place is for how they make me feel. In terms of objective cold, hard reality, all I'm actually doing is staring at a screen and twiddling my thumbs for hours at a time. The only way this can ever possibly be justified as a good use of my time is for what's going on in my brain. If I feel joy, triumph, fulfilment, satisfaction or any other positive emotion, then that's good. That's the reason why I play. Conversely, if I feel frustrated, disappointed or hollow while or after I play a video game, then what's the point? Why am I even playing? I'd argue that it's more important for a game mechanic to feel meaningful than to actually be meaningful, because the feeling is the whole point. Games throw up smoke and mirrors all the time to favour emotion over objective truth. Case in point is the hit percentages in modern Fire Emblem games. It's one of gaming's worst kept secrets that if a Fire Emblem game says you have 90% chance to hit, then you'll actually hit far more often than that. The majority of people have a bad intuitive feel for probabilities, and get frustrated by perceived unfairness if the nyumbers are actually fair, so Intelligent Systems have rigged the numbers in the player's favour because that feels better to more players. Perception trumps reality. So I do think that it's a very meaningful criticism to say that something feels unimportant or meaningless. Is it a criticism that I necessarily agree with? No, not really. I quite like the balance of supports in Three Houses. For me, personally, it's just about significant enough that I notice and care to have it, but also not significant enough to be gamebreakingly overpowered (like double-earth supports in Tellius) or absolutely required for important game mechanics (like the children system of Fates). But that's my tastes and preferences. If Alastor wants more substantial gameplay bonuses from a support system, then I can absolutely see why Three Houses would leave him flat. I don't think this is a useful analogy. Video games and movies are very different media. A movie is typically going to be somewhere between about 90 minutes to two hours long, with the expectation that you will typically watch the entire thing from start to finish (maybe skipping the end credits), and that you will probably watch the whole thing in a single sitting. The expectation is that everyone who watches the movie should have pretty much the same experience. None of that is typically the case for video games. The general expectation in video games -- especially modern video games, especially modern video games my major developers and publishers -- is that very few people will experience literally everything that a game has to offer, and that people will tailor their own play experience to have more of the things that they like and less of the things that they don't like. Which isn't to say that I think that something should be above criticism just because it is skippable. It shouldn't be. But being skippable should be a part of the context of that criticism and discussion. I think, as well, that there's a difference between "this just inherently isn't for me" and "this is something I would have enjoyed had it been implemented differently/better". Using Fates as an example, I was never going to be interested in all the online/social parts of My Castle. They could have been groundbreakingly phenomenal and I still wouldn't have cared about them because I just don't enjoy that sort of thing. My only care was how easily I could skip them (very) and how much I would lose out on by doing so (more than I would have liked, but not too too much). On the other hand, I potentially would have been interested in the story of Fates had it been different/better. In that case, I don't care that the story is entirely skippable; I care that there isn't a story that I enjoy. In that context, I entirely understand the criticism that the support conversations are bland, uninteresting, badly written, poorly acted, or whatever. I don't share that opinion, mind. I really enjoyed them. But art is subjective, so I understand the motivation behind the criticism. That's very much an "I wanted to enjoy them but I didn't" kind of problem. What I find it much harder to get my head around is the criticism that there are too many. Because that one comes across much more as a "just not for me" kind of problem. If you're just inherently not interested in watching that volume of support conversations, then... don't? Watch a few of them, as many as you want to, and skip the rest. Watch the ones with your favourite character, or watch all the C supports and then only continue with the ones that you found interesting, or just pick a handful of support chains at random and only watch them. What am I missing here?

Not really. Her support with Annette has her say that she's somewhat interested in it but has never found it a high enough priority to be worth investing her time and money into. Which I think makes it entirely natural to admire someone who has spent the time to develop that particular skillset. (Source: personal experience.) Not going to comment on the Genealogy stuff, since I've never played it, but Three Houses quite clearly depicts a world where nobles and rulers are still expected to go into battle themselves. Which is a system that has plenty of precedent throughout real-world human history as well, including medieval Europe which is a primary inspiration for Fire Emblem. Maybe you could say that it would be a better political system if the rulers weren't also fighters, but that isn't the system that's in place in the world that's presented. I'm also not sure it actually would be a better system. If there's a cadet branch of the ruling noble family that also happens to have all of the military might -- and all of the potential popularity that can come with successful military campaigns -- then it wouldn't take much to lead to instability, coups, and overthrown rulers. I'd add that Warrior is also potentially relevant into endgame, given that War Master is gender-locked. Admitedly, Warrior isn't a good class, and any female axe user is better off being put on a wyvern, but if we were only counting good classes then there'd be several others that we'd have to kick out as well. There isn't a straight "does the same thing but better" upgrade for female characters in the same way that Wyvern Lord is just better Wyvern Rider and War Master is just better Warrior (for males).

My guess is that yes, they knew exactly what they were doing with battalion vantage and battalion wrath. Consider that there are 8 characters who learn two "battalion blah" skills. Of these, two get saddled with the abysmal battalion renewal. Of the other six, three get the pairing of battalion desperation and battalion wrath, two have battalion desperation and battalion vantage, and only one gets the combo of battalion vantage with battalion wrath. And that one is a deliberately-overpowered Lord character. That's pretty much how I'd split things if I knew that BR was garbage and that BV/BW in combination were ridiculous. I think that part of their function is to be a bit of an equaliser between characters and serve as bad luck protection. It matters a little bit less if (for example) Ingrid gets bad strength level-ups when a decent chunk of your might is coming from your weapon, abilities, and battalion. Of course, you'd still rather that she get good level-ups, and she's still not going to be doing as much damage as Dimitri regardless, but the difference isn't as stark as the raw differences in strength stats might imply. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me that "don't touch the relic" might be passed down but "...because this will happen if you do" might easily be lost. Especially since there's a religious element involved here and the potential for ritual, tradition, orthopraxy, etc. "This is the way we do things, because this is the way they have always been done." Of course, if that was the intent then it would have been nice to have a line or two of dialogue confirming it, but I don't think that this is a huge plot hole. The sooner that in-universe tutorials stop being a thing, the happier I will be. You seem to be looking at the wrong table. Those are about the numbers for unleveled battalions, but max-level battalions have much higher numbers. Strength goes up to +10, hit to +40, def to +10, avoid to +20, etc.

I'd hardly call the safeguards that they have "elaborate" or "strenuous". Instead, I'd say that they're fairly basic and probably didn't take all that much time and effort to implement. More than zero effort, obviously, but it doesn't come across to me as a concerted effort to prevent save scumming at all costs. As for why not make your proposed change instead, I'd say that that would fundamentally change the mechanic. The risk/reward element of it would be gone, which would be especially relevant for seals that aren't infinitely purchasable -- Dark Seals (not that there's much reason to use them in the first place, but that's a separate issue), Abyssian Seals, and Master Seals prior to chapter 15. If you didn't consume your seal when you failed an exam then there would no longer be a question of whether I try my luck now or wait until later when it is guaranteed (or at least more likely). Instead you'd end up with a system where the best play is to attempt the exam every week until you finally get lucky. This doesn't sound like fun to me. Fundamentally, I see it as a much bigger over-reaction to fundamentally change a mechanic in a way that affects non-save-scumming players than it is to add some code that will only ever be noticed by players who are save scumming. Regardless of how much time or effort either change would have taken to implement, I would much prefer they went with the change that preserved the artistic integrity of the game. (None of which is to say that I think that the exam system is some artistic masterpiece that is fundamental to the entirety of the game experience. It clearly isn't. But I'd still rather get the version of it that was intended than a version that sounds less fun to me but which was better at preventing save scummers.) That's a fair point. I'll admit that I'm not really super familiar with Awakening, so I was basing that particular comment on what I've seen others say about the game rather than my own experience of it.

I'm still not seeing it. I don't see why there should be any compulsion to remove perfectly decent mechanics just because it's possible to save scum them. To me, having the basic half-arsed safeguard comes across more as "look, we didn't intend for you to be doing this, but if you really want to then we aren't going to try too hard to stop you". Which seems reasonable to me.

I find this such a weird question. Personally, I don't enjoy save scumming, so I don't do it. On the other hand, if people do enjoy save scumming then they can do it. The question seems to suppose that there are people who dislike save scumming but are going to do it anyway? Am I reading that right? I do get that some people feel compelled to use this sort of exploit if they know it exists (even if it's not a mindset that I really comprehend) but I'm not sure I really agree that it's the developers' responsibility to protect those players from themselves. Personally, I kinda like the chance based system. I can either risk my resources for a chance at an early promotion now, or wait until later for the guaranteed pass. It's not groundbreaking or exciting and I wouldn't be sad if it were patched out tomorrow, but I think it's a neat little system. So, here are things that I personally enjoy about the Three Houses support system: There's no limit on how many support conversations I can see in a single run. No more having to pick and choose which ones I want to see. (Byleth S supports excepted, and I don't really care about them.) No conflict between story and gameplay considerations (eg, "I really want to see Ike's support conversations with Ranulf, but the avoid bonuses of supporting him with Oscar are too good to pass up"). If I want one support because I like the conversations but another for gameplay reasons, I can get both. No over-powered options (like the double-earth supports of Tellius). Likewise no "trap" options (like some bad choices of fathers in Awakening). Nothing that you need to look up how it works (or have played the game multiple times and know it inside out) to make informed decisions about. You don't need to have two people glued to each other any more, which is a system I've never enjoyed. I've always found it both inflexible and contrived. No important systems (eg children, reclassing) are locked behind supports, so I get to engage with it as much or as little as I feel like. In short, I basically like all the things that you hate about it. Though I will say that I'm not really a fan of how paired endings work. But then, I also don't really like paired endings in any Fire Emblem game, so it's not really a big loss for me.

Even with no seminars and no saint statues, my units were still at about A+ by the end of the game in their primary weapon on average, and some people had hit S rank. Now, this was only on Hard and weapon skill gain is slower on Maddening, so maybe it would be a bit of a problem there, but I doubt it. It would definitely be harder to do elaborate or high-effort builds, but I can't imagine any problem at all picking up solid but simple builds. The early game was the hardest part for me as well (although still pretty simple since I was on Hard). I definitely noticed being that much slower than usual to pick up Physic, especially (even more so since I was doing AM and Mercedes weirdly starts with lower Faith skill than Linhardt or Marianne). One thing that I meant to say but forgot is that if you are resting almost every week, then the Sword of the Creator is incredibly good. It was more or less fully recharging between every battle, so I just used it as if it had infinite durability, which was a lot of fun. And also a lesson to me on just how much more I should use it and all the other relics, given how much spare umbral steel (and money) I wind up with at the end of most games. The only run where the easiest way to do it is to make Dimitri a Fortress Knight or a Bishop. If you don't mind drifting slightly off topic, can I ask what rule you used for bonus exp in PoR? And did you allow free deployment when needed for recruitment? I am definitely interested in doing that run, and may as well copy a ruleset someone else has already made. (Also, as an aside, I am currently replaying Radiant Dawn and I'm trying to imagine what the run would look like there, and I think I'm going to break out in cold sweats or give myself nightmares.)

I've done a similar run which was pretty much as close to no-monastery as I could get, albeit I only did it on hard (hard, classic, no NG+, no DLC, no online). I barred explore except when it was forced, and even then did the absolute bare minimum that was required before ending the exploration session early. I also barred seminars. I allowed paralogues and setting of study goals, but otherwise it was all just rest and auto-instruct (or, more usually, skipping straight to the end of the month). Like you, I didn't find it that much harder than a regular run. No dancer was a bit of a drag but not a big deal. The only saint statue bonus that I felt the absense of was the one for class xp; the other bonuses weren't a big deal. Missing the shop quests also wasn't too bad. The battalion guild is unlocked by a mandatory quest that can't be skipped; the blacksmith unlocks in part 2 anyway and isn't that important in part 1; the biggest loss was being limited on how many master seals I could get. That sounds very fun and I am tempted to try something similar for myself at some point. I'd probably just use NG+ to recruit everyone, though, because getting all the skill requirements on Byleth doesn't sound like the sort of thing that I'd enjoy. I always find these sorts of run fascinating, though. They seem like they shouldn't be viable at all, except that because of the way that exp scaling works, you end up falling into an equilibrium that isn't all that much lower than where you'd normally be. I've done "bad builds only" before, though not as rigorously enforced as "all banes". I don't remember much of that run, just that Flayn as a Fortress Knight was very fun to use, Caspar as a Bishop was not, and Linhardt as an Archer looked like a merry man thanks to his green colour scheme. Thank you! A few ideas that are in my head at the moment. May or may not be terrible. Merchant bros: Use Ignatz and Raphael only (except the prologue, obviously). This is probably going to be the next run I try. I don't think there is any other pair of characters who a. have a strong storyline connection and b. have such a collectively weak reputation. Possibly Annette + Gilbert or Hanneman + Manuela, but they both have availability issues that would make a duo run far less satisfying. Chess pieces team: Your team is your houseleader and Byleth in their unique classes (king and queen), two fortress knights (rooks), two paladins (knights), two bishops (guess), and eight commoners (pawns). No other restrictions. Low manpower: You are not allowed to use the replenish option at the battalion guild. Once a battalion is fully depleted and retreats from battle, it's gone forever. This is probably not all that difficult ("no battalions" would obviously be harder but is also probably very doable) but I figure it might be interesting to turn battalions inot a limited resource that has to be carefully managed. The boar prince: play as Blue Lions. At the start of every player phase, you must immediately move Dimitri to attack the enemy that is closest to him. If nobody is in range, instead move him his full movement speed towards the closest enemy. You control everyone else who has to keep up with him to keep him alive. Battalion Vantage/Battalion Wrath are banned since they would make this too easy. Beautiful and unique snowflakes: All aspects of all builds must be unique. Nobody may duplicate another unit's class, abilities, combat arts, or off-hand item. Class duplication is obviously allowed early on when there aren't enough classes to go around, but is strictly prohibited by endgame. For abilities, each ability can be used on only one unit. So, only one unit with Death Blow, only one with Hit +20, only one with Magic +2, etc. Optionally, it might be more fun to allow everyone to equip their prowess skill of choice, since those are fairly integral to game balance, but leave all other skills unique. Keeping combat arts and off-hand items unique shouldn't be too much of a challenge, I wouldn't think. Although combat arts might be a bit rough in the early game. Unique weapons might also be viable, though I'm not sure how much that would restrict available weapon swaps. The goal here is to discourage over-reliance on dominant strategies and force usage of some more niche options.

To me, the most meaningful answer to the question in the topic title is “if you want there to be”. It seems unlikely to me that there’s any sort of grand plan for a unifying cosmology of all of Fire Emblem, which means that there’s plenty of place for personal interpretation. If you want to imagine some overarching multiversal theory that links everything together, then there’s no reason you shouldn’t; if I want to think of all the games as being completely unconnected (obvious continuities excepted) then there’s no reason I shouldn’t. If you want to be a hundred percent canon-compliant — though I don’t think that FE canon is self-consistent enough to be entirely worth complying with — then there is some trace of multiverse stuff in some of the games (e.g. Awakening, Fates) but not in others. I can’t see anything in games like Sacred Stones or Path of Radiance, for instance, that makes me think they were intended to fall in the same continuity as what went before them. But if you want there to be parallel universes in Fire Emblem, if that would increase your enjoyment of them, then there definitely are parallel universe in Fire Emblem. At least for you.

That's a fair point. I didn't fully think through the implications of being locked to CF. I'm officially changing my pick to Mercedes. I don't think it's necessarily by route but more by which units you're using. Usually, that is going to predictably depend on route, but not always. For instance, if you were doing Azure Moon but were also recruiting Marianne, Balthus and Seteth, then that would very much raise Hilda's stock. For most runs, though, I'd agree with Hilda for VW and Dorothea for the other three routes. That could change a bit based on party comp, though, and there's also a chance that Constance could end up as the best choice some of the time.

The Prince of All Cosmos (Katamari series) Using a katamari to fight would give a completely unique feel to the character. Who wouldn't want to roll up their opponent as a final smash? The game is unlike anything else currently represented in Smash. The cousins would make for excellent alts. Amazing soundtrack potential due to the quirky, eclectic, award-winning soundtrack. Most recent appearance (Katamari Damacy Reroll, 2018) was on Switch. Oodles of stage potential since it can work on any scale from inside a shop to literally the entire cosmos or anywhere in between.

My take on the question is more along the lines of "who best showcases the unique abilities of this class?" That is to say, who, when put in this class, makes it come across in the best light? It would be easy to put Edelgard or Dimitri into Swordmaster, for instance, and you'd have a great unit. But nobody is going to look at that and say "wow, Swordmaster is great!" They're going to say "wow, Edelgard and Dimitri are great". Rather, I'm looking for the people who really make each class shine. Assassin: Most of the people who I'd actually put into Assassin are ones who do well based on just being really strong overall units. Sure, Felix, Petra, Byleth and the Lords can make for good Assassins, but that's not about to convince anyone that Assassin is a good class. Instead, I'm going to go in a bit of a weird direction and say that Lysithea (with Soulblade) can really show off what you can do with Stealth. Bishop: Hapi, narrowly over Linhardt. Both of them get Physic and Warp, which are the two white magic spells that I most want to get double uses of. Linhardt has a slightly easier time getting into the class due to his strength in Faith, whereas Hapi has a better Reason list, which means she has a bit more versatility to also contribute offensively when needed. Dark Bishop: Meme answer: Raphael. Have him master it for Lifetaker to use next game in NG+. Actual answer: Hubert. Everyone else who might consider it would prefer Warlock for Black Tomefaire and Black Uses x2. Fortress Knight: Raphael. I prefer Raphael over Balthus here because of his better HP, dex and luck, and I don't care about Balthus's better speed because both of them are going to be incredibly slow in this class. I also prefer him over Dedue because of availability. A Fortress Knight is going to have trouble keeping up and staying relevant as is, and losing several chapters worth of experience and training on Dedue just makes the struggle even worse. Grappler: I'm actually tempted to say Raphael again. If you're staying in Grappler and not moving onto War Master, it's because you're making extensive use of Fierce Iron Fist, and if you're doing that then bad speed really isn't much of a concern. Other units (Felix especially) are better in a vacuum, but nobody shows off the power of FIF quite like someone who is never usually getting to double/quad. Hero: I agree with Dark Holy Elf here. Alois is the best choice here because most units who could benefit from Vantage could just have mastered Mercenary instead. Theoretically there might be some build that really wants the extra skill slot from not having to equip Vantage, but I can't think of any that aren't way too high effort for too little reward. Paladin: Pick your favourite combat art. If you like Vengeance, then you have Bernadetta, if you like Frozen Lance then you have Marianne, and if you like Swift Strikes then there's Ferdinand. I think that Swift Strikes is my favourite (especially ince it gets double benefit from Lancefaire) so I'm going to say Ferdinand here (who I choose narrowly over Sylvain because I like his personal and his crest better). Sniper: Probably a controversial choice, but I'm going to say Hubert. The big attraction of staying in Sniper rather than moving onto Bow Knight is getting to keep Hunter's Volley and use it as a delete button. And if you want a delete button then Magic Bow Hunter's Volley is one of the best that there is. For a recruitable option, I narrowly favour Mercedes over Hanneman since the better availability gives more chance to get the build set up optimally. Swordmaster: Catherine, for sure. If you want to show Swordmaster in its best light, show it early on when everyone else is in intermediate classes at best and it's undoubtedly the best class in your army (unless you grabbed Shamir too). Another advantage of the class is that only having a single skill requirement means you're more likely to be able to hit S or even S+ rank and Catherine is also the best-placed unit to try to do that. Honourable mention to Ignatz for being the best person to use if you really want to take advantage of Sword Crit +10 and build a pure crit build. Warlock: Hanneman. He's the only male unit who learns a siege spell, which makes him uniquely appreciative of Black Magic Uses x2 but also unable to get it from Gremory instead. As a late recruit, he also appreciates the simplicity and ease of access of a one-skill class. Warrior: This is a hard class to ever justify outside of either Cindered Shadows or just passing through to pick up Wrath. In theory, it would be good for units with a strength in axes, a weakness in flying and either being female or having a weakness in brawling. Sadly for Warrior, there aren't any units who match those criteria, so almost anyone who might want to be a Warrior would rather be a War Master or a Wyvern Lord instead. I'll say that the best choice here is Hilda. She doesn't have War Master as an option, and while she'd generally be better on a Wyvern, maybe you don't have enough flying battalions to go around, or maybe you want to go hard on monotraining axes to try to get to S+. Dark Flier: Flayn. She has a black magic list that really benefits from Black Tomefaire and doesn't really suffer from not having Black Magic Uses x2, a white magic list that really benefits from high mobility, Trickster: Bleh. I'm finiding this class even more viciously mediocre and harder to justify than the likes of Warrior and Dark Bishop. I guess the best choice would be someone who uses magic and thinks that getting Stealth and Lucky Seven is a good trade-off for being half uses and not getting any other bonuses like faire, range or fiendish blow. Let's say Lysithea or Constance who are closest to being glass-cannon mages who don't need faire but would want stealth? I don't really believe it either. Valkyrie: Lysithea. Obviously, she has a great magic stat and a great spell list, so she's a strong contender to be best in any magic class, but this one also synergises really well with what she can do. The extra range is really nice for her since she naturally lacks any 1-3 range options. She also makes great use of Canto, both for hit-and-run attacks and for warping and then getting out of dodge. She is very squishy and likes being able to be in places where the enemy isn't. Hapi is also a great choice here, but I think Lysithea just shades it. War Cleric: I've been avoiding Byleth and the Lords for this list, but in this case, I'm going to say (female) Byleth. The only real competitors here are Catherine and Constance and neither one of them uses the class to its full benefit. Catherine doesn't really benefit from magic access or pneuma gale, since her magic is bad. Constance doesn't really benefit from Brawl Avoid +20 since she's far too fragile to keep anywhere where she might take a hit. Byleth manages to get some use out of everything the class has to offer, so I'm going to call her the best here. War Monk: Felix. Has just about enough magic to be able to feel that the magic abilities of the class aren't completely wasted, and his high speed works nicely with Brawl Avoid +20. In addition to all his usual Felix things that make him great in nay physical class. Bow Knight: Leonie. She has great stats, her weapon strengths exactly align with the class requirements, Point Black Volley means she doesn't miss Hunter's Volley as much, her peronsal ability is easier to activate when she has extra range to play with. She;s pretty much a perfect fit for the class. Dark Knight: There are four things that would make you want to want to choose Dark Knight over Dark Flier. One is a lack of magic flying battalions, but that applies equally to all units. The other three are being male, using dark magic, and having a weakness in flying. Hubert has all three of those things, so he's the perfect natural fit here. Recruitable alternative: Lorenz, who has an easy time getting into the class due to strengths in all three requirements. Falcon Knight: It depends on why you're using Falcon Knight rather than Wyvern Lord. If it's because you want the extra speed from Falcon Knight, then Petra is your best choice since she's the fastest option available. If it's because you want to make the most out of great lance combat arts, then either Marianne or Bernadetta depending on personal preference. My choice, though, is to split the difference and go with Ingrid, who is almost as fast as Petra, and who definitely prefers to use a lance rather than an axe (especially if the lance is Lúin). Great Knight: Another bad class. The best mobility on any axefaire class that can use grounded battalions is about the best you cna say for it. There's an argument for Annette, but having to get two movement skills, one of which is a weakness and the other is neutral makes it too much of a chore to be worth it. Edelgard would also be a fine choice, since she has a strength in armour and neutral in riding, and Axefaire and Canto work great with Raging Storm, but if I had Great Knight Edelgard then I'd spend every second of it wishing I'd put her on a wyvern instead. Ferdinand has a relatively easy time getting into the class, but would probably just end up using it as a worse version of Paladin. I think I'll say Gilbert, though, since it's generally the easiest way to give him some extra mobility. Gremory: Lysithea. She has the most spells that really benefit from double uses, and especially the most dark magic spells that benefit from double uses and can't get that anywhere else. Holy Knight: Anna. Who would want to use Holy Knight rather than Dark Knight? Either someone who really wants to make use of White Tomefaire or someone who has a hard time getting into Dark Knight due to a weakness in Reason. Nobody really cares about White Tomefaire, so we're looking at Anna and Manuela, both of whom might conceivably want to have magic and a horse but not want to have to struggle through their weakness in Reason. Of the two, Anna has an easier time getting into the class, and with Rescue and Pass also has more of a reason to want to be on a horse in the first place. Mortal Savant: The best use for this class is for a magically oriented character who attacks mostly with Soulblade or Hexblade, but then augments it with good utility magic. I usually end up using more white magic than black magic whenever I use this class, so I'm looking for spells like Warp, Rescue, Physic and Silence here. Siege tomes are also fantastic, since they offer something that you just can't replicate with a sword. Manuela would be great (Hexblade, Warp, Silence, Bolting) except that late recruitment and a weakness in Reason make it difficult to get into the class in the first place, and her magic stat isn't the greatest. Constance, Dorothea and Marianne are all good choices, but I'll go for Marianne because I find myself using Physic and Silence more than Rescue, Meteor or Bolting. War Master: Not going to lie, I'm really running out of steam for this list by now. Let's say Alois here. One-Two Punch is nice, and it's also an easy certify for him, which is very much appreciated for such a late-joining character. Wyvern Lord: This is one of the few classes where I'll actually pick a lord and say Edelgard. The class just works too well with Raging Storm. Dimitri as a paladin is a little bit better than Dimitri as a Great Lord. Edelgard as a Wyvern Lord is just so far above and beyond Edelgard as an Emperor that it isn't even funny. As a recruitable runner up, I'm going to say Hilda, narrowly over Petra. Hilda doesn't have the strength in flying, but she does have her relic axe which I can never remember how to spell, and also doesn't really have that many other good options. Dancer: Whoever out of Dorothea and Hilda has supports with more of your party. Getting free linked attack boosts with everyone is the best thing that Dancers can do that isn't dancing. Of the two, Dorothea has the ability to throw out an emergency Physic if it's ever needed, whereas Hilda has an easier time getting to Movement +1, so there's not much to call between them. And if I haven't made at least three daft mistakes somewhere in here then it's a minor miracle, but I've already spent too much time on this and don't feel like proof-reading, so it'll have to do.

Evolving the Golden Dagger and having it turn into something that its previous wielder would never be able to use was a particular highlight of the system for me.

"My favourite forging system is the one from Sacred Stones." But no. Seriously, it's not so much that I don't like customisation as that I don't like min-maxing. Stacking flaws or maluses into dump stats in order to get the one stat that I actually care about through the roof has always been deeply unsatisfying to me. Like, if I'm making a lance for a general with awful speed, then I don't care about weight because everything is doubling me anyway. So I put as many points into added weight as I'm allowed and get a weapon with great might and hit at no cost. That's the sort of thing that I don't enjoy.

If I had to pick one system, I think I'd go with the Tellius system. Being limited to one forge per chapter gave it some amount of strategical thinking. Do I want to make a forge for a unit who's lagging behind and needs to catch up, or do I make one for my best unit to make them even better? The randomness of the coin system in Radiant Dawn also added to that since maybe if you got a particularly lucky forge you might want to try to preserve the weapon instead of carrying on with your initial plan for it (acquiring coins in the first place was a pain, though). I also liked that you could only forge weapons you were buying from new, partly because it prevented imbalance like forged wing spears and partly because it just made more sense from a storytelling and verisimilitude perspective. Finally, I liked being able to pick the colour of my new weapon. Yeah, it was daft as hell, but I want my pink battleaxes back. Shadow Dragon and Awakening (and presumably New Mystery too though I've never played that) had a system that was comparable to the Tellius sytem but not as good. Fates is my personal least favourite system because I have no interest in touching any of the online/social features of My Castle which means that any systems that interacted with them were no fun for me. The Shadows of Valentia incarnation really suffered from not giving the player enough information, especially when "evolving" into a different weapon type; it was difficult to know whether this was worth it without looking everything up outside of the game. The system in Three Houses is largely inconsequential, with most upgrades being small enough that you won't really notice them but also cheap enough that you don't notice the cost either so there are very few actual interesting decisions to make around it. My prefered solution would just be to disallow worsening any attribute entirely. I don't think you really lose anything of value by doing so and it lowers the chance of fat-finger errors and of "add weight to earn wexp faster" style misinformation. The balancing of bonuses and maluses like you describe could potentially work, btu that sort of system usually leads to min-maxing in a way that I just don't find very fun.

Yeah, but they were all taking transfusions directly from Rhea, no? My assumption is that you can get the crest of Seiros via transfusion directly from Seiros but not from some random human who happens to carry it.

If that were possible, then there probably wouldn't have been any need for the experiments that were done on Edelgard, her sinblings, Lysithea, etc. I assume that it only owrked on Jeralt (and the first Hresvelg emperor, etc.) because it was coming directly from Rhea/Seiros and hadn't been "diluted" by intervening human blood. Pretty much everything in the game that covers the timeline of the distant past comes from extremely unreliable sources, mind. And it would be very much in character for Rhea to exaggerate the timescales involved to try to portray a heroic age with larger than life characters who lived for centuries.

Not in between paralogues/auxiliary battles, though.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to read too much into the writing on the magic symbol. We just don't know enough (read: anything) about the symbol and its origin to be able to use it as evidence for grand sweeping statements about character morality. My take on Sothis is that she is definitely numinous. I can easily imagine her as a kami, for instance, or a member of a polytheistic pantheon. And we do know from some of Petra's comments that Brigid's religion is still much more along those lines, so it's not much of a stretch to imagine that Fódlan's religion prior to the Church of Seiros might have looked similar as well. To refer to Sothis as a goddess is entirely reasonable; to refer to her as the goddess is considerably less so; to credit her as a creator figure is outright propaganda. But I find this fascinating because of real-world parallels in how monotheism can arise by the elevation of a single deity to be the supreme deity and then to start denying the existence of all other divinity.

Some of these just seem as if you're setting yourself up for annoyance. It's certainly possible to have characters work through weapon skill weaknesses and to have them pick up mastery skills from master classes, but doing so requires altogether more grinding/busywork/engaging with the monastery than I'd have thought you'd be looking for. This is especially the case for (put behind a spoiler since I don't know if you know the various Azure Moon specific things nor if you care about potential spoilers): Seminars in this game annoy me. Partly the fact that they're completely rubbish, but mostly that the game won't let you choose who attends without doing some aggressively annoying micromanagement of goals.

Hypothetically speaking, if I wanted to use Defiant Defense, I wouldn't have it as something I kept active at all times, but as a fallback for when I fell to low health. I can imagine circumstances where that might allow the tank to survive an extra hit or two compared to what they would without it. It's still pretty terrible and not at all worth the effort of getting it, but maybe that's enough to make it a 1/10 rather than a 0/10? Defiant Res, on the other hand, is even harder to justify. Maybe against all the mages in the final chapter of AM? But that's a real stretch. Seal skills also have the downside that if for some reason you do decide that you need them, they can mostly be replicated with either a bow combat art or a dark magic spell. Which, admitedly, you have to think ahead and be sure to recruit the right person for that but if I knew in advance that I was going to want to debuff an enemy's res for some reason (I have no idea why) and my options were "master Dark Knight" or "recruit Hanneman" then I know which I'm going to do.