lenticular

I'd be interested to hear why you rate Deadeye. I've always found it eclipsed by long-range magic builds. Given various combinations of Death/Thoron, Caduceus Staff/Thyrsus, Valkyrie, and S rank reason, it's trivially easy to match Deadeye's range, and fairly easy to surpass it. Magic builds also don't have the same hit penalties at long range, making them more reliable. What's Deadeye's appeal to you? Being able to pick it up earlier? Or something else?

Personally, I just don't value crit builds because I find them unreliable. If you have an attack which is 100% chance to hit and 70% chance to crit and it will only kill if it crits, then that's comparable to an attack with 70% chance to hit that will kill even without a crit. Actually, I'm not certain of this, but I believe that hit chance uses the two random number system whereas crit chance actually uses the displayed percentage? If that's true, then the 70% crit build has pretty much the same chance of getting the kill as a non-crit build with 61% displayed hit. That's not good. And yes, the crit build will do chip damage even if it fails to crit, and that can certainly matter, but I'd rather bring a different build that can do more consistent high damage. Because I value reliability, that also means I value hit chance, but that doesn't necessarily make me value dex. The contribution that dex has to hit chance just isn't as big as other factors like weapons and combat arts. For bows, compare an iron bow+ and a silver bow+. The silver bow+ has 6 points more might but 20 points less hit. Other weapon types are less extreme, but the gain in might is always less than the loss in hit. You are always going to wind up better off with high strength, low dex, and an iron weapon than you will with low strength, high dex, and a silver weapon.

As a point against Sacred Stones, by modern standards, most of the characters don't get much time to shine, and the supports are -- again, by modern standards -- a pain to unlock. Unless you're going out of your way to get supports, it's likely you'll only see a handful of them, and that will leave a lot of characters feeling incredibly flat. If she's looking for good characterisation, she'll have to put in work in order to get it (outside of the handful of main characters like the lords, Seth, L'Arachel, etc.). I also don't think Shadow Dragon would be a good choice at all, which a couple of people have recommended. Nothing against it as a whole, but it does not seem to me like a good choice for someone who's specifically looking for good story and characters. My own personal choice would be Path of Radiance, if you have access to it, but that's a biased choice based on personal preference rather than any sort of deep considered reasoning.

On the one hand: Byleth is my least favourite character in Three Houses, and I would prefer to see spotlight given to literally any other character in the game. On the other hand: I mostly don't care about spin offs anyway. I've never played Heroes, Warriors or Cypher, and I didn't like Smash Ultimate. So it doesn't really matter to me which characters are given more appearances. On the gripping hand: If spin offs, merchandise, etc. more routinely included characters that I cared about, then I'd be more likely to start caring about them.

From a design perspective, I think it's reasonable for them to design the game with the assumption that the player will have been training Micaiah. Sure, it isn't mandatory, but she's the centre of the game's narative and is a forced deploy in every chapter up to that point and she gets a strong personal weapon in chapter 2. I think it will be fairly obvious to most people that you're meant to train her, and if people do realise that and then decide not to, I'm not sure I can see that as a fault in design. Of course, even within that basic framework, there's going to be a ton of variation in exactly how much training people have given her. And for that matter, a ton of variation in how well her level ups turned out. Normally it isn't too much of a problem if one of your units turns out terribly, because you can lean on other units instead. But for a level with only one deployment? I'm not sure how it's possible to make that balanced/fun/interesting for all possible Micaiahs. I wonder if it would have been possible to have it be something of a risk/reward situation in the same way as Ike's fight with the Black Knight in Path of Radiance? Make it so the Black Knight can rescue Micaiah, but set things up so that he has to be carrying something else, and if he picks up Micaiah then he has to drop the whatever it is and it's lost to the player forever. Basically, let the player decide whether to risk it or not. Ironman players would probably choose not to risk it most of the time, completionist players could reset as many times as they want to find the perfect strategy, and everyone is at least content? I also wouldn't mind if it had been a fairly brainless level. Becuse, honestly, to me, this level is already entirely worth it. I'm generally a story-over-mechanics kind of person. Obviously, in the ideal circumstances, I want both to be amazing, but if I have to choose between them, I'd take story as first preference. And in terms of story, this level delivers, no question. To me, this is a great and memorable level that significantly improves the game. So I don't think it's necessary to aim for a strategically engaging version of the level. If it could be improved mechanically up to "not actively hostile to some playstyles" then I think that's enough. Grea for some people and mediocre for others is a way bigger win than great for some people and horrible for others.

Is it ever explained why spirit charmers and branded end up with marks that are basically indistinguishable even to experts? Or is it left as something we're supposed to accept as being a coincidence that doesn't need any explanation? I can imagine a few plausible explanations (maybe spirits take exceptional interest in branded and it's that that causes the brand rather than the mixed heritage itself; or maybe the laguz races have some inate connection with spirits that beorc generally don't) but I don't recall anything like that actually being in the game. If it is supposed to be just a coincidence then it's a really weird one that two completely different things would both manifest physically in exactly the same way.

I find the reduced movement hurts me more than it helps me. There are enough bird laguz (I think 5 of them?) to be a real problem. Certainly more of them than I have units with good desert movement (Jill, Marcia and Volke. And maybe Sothe if you've put enough bonus xp into him to make him not be a complete liability who needs accompanying everywhere to keep alive). Maybe I'd like the level more if it only had cats and tigers? That way it would feel possible to really use the desert terrain to my advantage. As for terrain, I don't care what it so long as it's something. Could be cactuses, dunes, ruins, roads, rocks, bones, oases, anything. If there's something other than just a big open space, I'm happy.

I don't completely hate the idea of it, but I think that Feral Frontier is basically the same idea as Prisoner Release a few chapters earlier, except not as interesting or well implemented. I don't love Prisoner Release either, but I respect it a lot more. I think that what I hate about Feral Frontier is how the map itself isn't designed for interesting movement and positioning. It's desert, so most units have restricted movement, and then on top of that, it's also a very open map with very few terrain features. Overall, it feels like you don't have very many options to try to avoid the enemies. Compare that with Prisoner Release where you have full movement -- especially on your fast-moving cavalry units -- and the map itself has corners, different routes to the end, rooms you can hide in, etc. For me at least, trying to avoid combat in Prisoner Release is interesting in a way that it really isn't in Feral Frontier. It also helps a lot that the other objectives are readily apparent and not RNG-based. It's possible to form a strategy around opening a door or talking to a prisoner on a specific turn and then being able to quickly move on. The only way to be able to make that sort of plan for Feral Frontier is if you exclusively use your thieves to pick up the items. Given that it's a big map and that you only have two thieves (and in a lot of cases, one of them will still be level 1), that sounds like it would be long and tedious.

Not going to respond to things individually, but there have been some interesting and well-made arguments in here. I'm still not 100% sold on Marianne's frozen lance, but I've decided it is something that I want to try for myself, since the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and what have you. It'll probably be a while before I start my next play through, mind, but you've collectively convinced me to give it a shot, at least.

I ended up changing my answers multiple times, as I tried to decide exactly how to interpret the question. I ended up going with those characters that I feel are hardest to reach their full potential on. There are some characters who are relatively weak, but who are fairly straightforward to use, like Ashe or Raphael. They can leave me feeling they aren't contributing as much, but I don't think I've ever felt that that's because I've made mistakes in how I use them. Instead, I picked Bernadetta, Annette, and Marianne. All three of them have an interesting set of tools and no single clear optimal build. Having more tools also means they have more choices to make in battle as well. Is it better to attack or to rally? Is it safe to try to use Vengeance here or is it too risky? Stuff like that.

Sure, I'm not saying that you can't make her into a great unit with amazing damage output by having her focus on Frozen Lance. But it's a very specific way to build her and you have to give up a lot to get to it. If you're putting her into a Lancefaire class then that means you're giving up her healing and spell utility (notably physic and silence). Swordfaire classes have the same problem, of course (unless you're putting her into Moral Savant and I'm not going to advocate for that), but you can use either combat art perfectly well in a non-faire class. You're also relying on giving her a relic lance, when most team compositions will have several other characters competing for them. I'm also not trying to say that Blutgang is good for magic combat arts. My thought is that if she's using swords anyway, then that means she has several ranks of Sword Prowess by the time she picks up Blutgang, which can only be a good thing. It not only allows for Beast Fang, but can be used with other combat arts as well. Blutgang + Grounder is a 16 might, 100 hit magic attack that's effective against fliers. And this is a relic that theres usually very little competition for. I don't disagree that if you're building for pure damge output, then you can do more with Frozen Lance than Soulblade. But honestly, I think there are better builds for Marianne. You can make a ridiculously high damage output build for Mercedes by putting her into Sniper, giving her a Magic Bow+ and using Hunter's Volley, or one for Constance by making her a War Cleric and using Aura Knuckles, but that doesn't mean their budding talents are top tier. Neither should we be judging Marianne's based solely on what it does when you completely build around it, but rather in what it adds to her overall kit compared to the other tools she already has. I do think it's still useful well past the early game. I'm just not sure I think it remains better past that point, or at least not significantly better. I suppose that if you're investing in it for the early game boost it gives then that is an incentive in and of itself to stick with it. As in, even if swords is the optimal long-term choice, it might not stay optimal once you're somewhat invested in lances? I don't know. It's definitely good, but I'm still not convinced it belongs in the top tier. I'm probably needlessly splitting hairs, though.

One idea I've been toying with for a while is what I am thinking of as a Boar Prince run. Play as the Blue Lions. At the start of each of your turns, before doing anything else, you must have Dimitri attack whatever enemy is closest to him. If there are no enemies within his range, you must move him his maximum movement towards the closest enemy. You get to choose what attack he does (what weapon, whether he uses a combat art, etc.) and which unit he goes after if two are equally as close, but otherwise you treat him as an NPC, and have everyone else trying to keep up with him and keep him alive. Optionally, you may also want to ban batallion wrath/vantage, since it would probably make things fairly trivial after you get them both. I've never tried this so don't know how hard or how interesting it would be.

I've never run a lance build for Marianne, so I might be missing something, but I'm curious what the attraction is for lances over swords for her? She starts out with a strength in swords, she gets soulblade which is probably slightly better for her than frozen lance given her res base and growth, and swords give her access to both levin swords and Blutgang later on, whereas for lances she will always be dependent on frozen lance (Arrow of Indra excepted, since that has awful availability). For lances, the only real long term benefit seems to be if you're looking to go into a class that requires lance skill for certification and/or gives lancefaire. Are you rating Frozen Lance purely as an early game tool that then gets dropped very quickly, or am I missing something?

I actually quite like the Axe of Ukonvasara as well, specifically for Fortress Knights (yes, I am aware that many people hate Fortress Knights). Its might is great, its high weight is completely irrelevant on Fortress Knights since they already have no speed to speak of, and the regen can be handy to mitigate chip damage. I'm not sure I like it enough to nominate it for this list but I definitely do make use of it.

For me, the biggest change has been my appreciation of the story and world-building. I started out thinking it was servicable enough but nothing more than that, but have grown to appreciate it a lot over the past year. I appreciate a lot of the literary and mythological allusions now that I didn't know about when I first played, and I really enjoy them, especially how deeply the lore around Sothis echoes the Ancient Egyptian character of the same name. I also think that there's a lot of interesting story elements that are only really apparent on second and subsequent plays through the game. I really liked comparing themes, arcs and characerisations across different routes (eg, the many similarities between Rhea and Edelgard), and I like how we are told completely different things in different routes, and it's presented as fact in both of them. Having to question everything and really engage with the lore and still not be able to know any sort of objective truth is something that I really liked. Of course, the downside to this is that it does take multiple plays to get the most out of the story. Given how long the game is and how much content is repeaed across routes, I think there's a big downside to that sort of storytelling. It worked well for me because there was enough that I liked about the game that I had motivation to play it multiple times, but if I'd quit after my first run, I'd have been left with a much worse impression of the story. I don't tend to value replayability all that highly in games -- I'm completely happy with a game I play once, have a lot of fun with, and then never touch again -- so it doesn't bother me much that some of the monastery activities and reused maps don't stand up well to repeated play. It does become much more of an issue when replay is baked into the design and required to see the full story. In short: I liked how they did storytelling across multiple routes, disliked how they did gameplay across multiple routes, and am generally hoping that next game has only a single route. Beyond all that, I think my opinion is largely the same now as it was a year ago. Some stuff I like, some stuff I don't like, a few characters I like a little bit more or a little bit less, some stuff that worked well for me but which I understand why other people dislike, but few big changes. I think it helps that I didn't pay much attention to pre-launch hype, so my initial experience of the game wasn't really coloured by any weight of expectation.

What I really want to know is how Volug and Nailah know what a pet dog is. It's conceivably possible that it's something that came up in conversation with Rafael at some point, when he was telling them about Beorc society back on his side of the desert, but given how casually and jokingly they talk about it, it does seem that they're familiar with the concept. Which... do the wolf laguz in Hatari keep pet dogs? Because that seems really weird to me. Do they shift into wolf form to better communicate with their pets? Do they run in packs together? Does this seem super weird to anyone else, or just me?

I'm not sure I agree with this. I'd generally prefer to use my mythril on some of the sacred weapons. While I'd rather have one fully repaired Gradivus than one fully repaired Inexhaustible, for the mythril cost of forging/repairing Gradivus once, I can repair a sacred weapon three times over and have one mythril left over. This might be a matter of taste and play-style, though. I do generally tend to prefer consistent and reliable options to more powerful tools that I have to use sparingly. I've always got the impression that people tend to rate Smash highly, at least on Maddening. I know I do. Agreed. I love Silence. Except when I think that a silenced enemy can't do anything and then it turns out to have a batallion that I didn't check for and then it gambits me to death, which has happened way more often than I'd care to admit. I've never used this one myself. I really should try it out next time I do a play-through. I will nominate Grounder, the sword combat art. The big question with this is why would you bother with a combat art that's strong against flying enemies when you only have three available slots and you probably want all your sword units to be carrying a bow anyway? For me, the answer is that I don't bring it for the effectiveness against flying; I bring it for its accuracy. At +20 hit, the only sword combat arts that can equal or better it are Subdue, Windsweep, and Foudroyant Strike, which are all far less readily available. While accuracy on swords isn't usable a big problem, there are some occasions where you absolutely need to be able to hit reliably and getting an extra 10% hit compared to wrath strike can be a big deal. This is especially true in the early game, and since you pick up Grounder at sword rank C, you have it early enough to really make a difference. My honourable mentions are Stealth, the Spear of Assal, and Recover, but I'm not really sure how underrated they all are, so I'm not going to bother writing up a defense of them unless people genuinely think they're useless.

That generally just means that there's no specific sentence or prison term and that you're in there until the general decides to let you out, or in this case, until he decides to throw you in the labour camps, or whatever. I presume it's a comment on the lack of a fair trial or any sort of due process, rather than anything else. The IRL equivalent phrase would be "at her majesty's pleasure" or "at the governor's pleasure" or similar. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_Her_Majesty's_pleasure)

I'm an idiot. I was forgetting to factor in the +5 from falcon knight. Yeah, you're totally right here. Yeah, I'm not saying it can't be effective, more that it's not something I like to use. I know that I always forget to check for enemy battalions and so get surprised when they do pull out gambits, so I play accordingly.

What sort of level are you expecting to end up by end game? Because getting much above low 40s seems ambitious to me, even factoring in darting blow. Admitedly, I generally skip Speed +2 and go for Reposition instead and that might be hurting me. I'm ot really a fan of dodge-tanking in maddening, because of its susceptibility to gambits. That's probably more of a play-style thing than anything else.

Compare to chess. Chess has six different types of piece. (Go would be an even more extreme example, with only one type of piece.) The interesting part of chess is not in having a ton of different rules and pieces and such. It's in the interesting ways that a small number of rules interact with each other. When I lose at chess, it's never because I've forgotten how the bishop moves or overlooked some obscure mechanic. It's because my strategy wasn't sound or I overlooked some tactical possibility. I find this a much more satisfying and less objectionable reason to lose than "I didn't want to spend ten minutes double checking every enemy unit's abilities because that's boring". Three Houses is my favourite primarily because of its characters and worldbuilding. This should absolutely not be taken to mean that I find it a flawless game or agree with all the design decisions made for it.

For me, it depends on difficulty level, with Ingrid having a huge drop off from hard to maddening. Her two greatest assets are her speed and her versatility. 60% speed growth is good enough that she will routinely be doubling pretty much everything on hard (or normal). In terms of versatility, she's easy to build into pretty much any class you want, except for the male-only ones. She has no skill weaknesses, is moderately ok in both strength and magic, has a decent enough spell list (notably thoron and physic), and decent enough combat arts. Basically, she's a good all-rounder with her one exceptional feature being her speed. I find her a really fun unit to use in hard. Put her into maddening, and it's a different story, though. Maddening emphasises specialists over generalists, and also really devalues speed, by making it impossible to keep up with the enemy stat scaling. For the wider topic, I rank Cyril incredibly low in SS because of his late joining. Since you only get him in chapter 12, he's much harder to train up, he's left with commoner growths up until you do get him, and you don't even get the benefit of his super early PBV. He's really hard to justify using for any reason beyond "I like him" or "I felt like it".

New and different classes would definitely be nice from the perspective of characterisation, world building and story, but I'd be very wary of how adding too much new stuff would impact the game mechanically. The more "stuff" that gets added, the harder it is to memorise and internalise what it all does. Ideally, for a turn-based tactics/strategy game, I want to spend as little time as possible trying to remember all the different rules and mechanics and as much time as possible thinking about the consequences of the mechanics and how to apply them in interesting ways. Having recycled classes means I don't need to constantly re-learn that pegasus knights are weak to archers, or whatever. It also means there's less chance of some annoying gotcha where I lose a unit not because of poor tactics but because I overlooked some obscure ability that a particular enemy unit has.

I only know for sure of the conversations with Bastian, but my knowledge is spotty and comes from a single recent play through and a lot of vague memories, so who knows? Yeah, I have a lot of the same problems. I'm better at stopping myself these days than I used to be, but I still find myself slipping back into the same patterns of behaviour sometimes, even though I know damn well that I'm happier if I don't. Back when they made Radiant Dawn, I wonder if they intended for people to play through Path of Radiance with the transfers in mind, or if they figured everyone would use their existing save files and it would be a nice little bonus but not something people would care about too much.

I've never felt any desire to play the trial maps, and mostly forget they exist. If you particularly feel like playing them, then it might be interesting to hear what they're actually like, but I'd honestly be more interested to dive straight into Radiant Dawn. It could easily be an excuse of the "I'd love to but I'm washing my hair that night" variety. She does have priors on fobbing men off with inane excuses when said men won't take no for an answer, from her supports with Bastian. I'm not sure I'm willing to give the writing team quite that much credit here, but it feels plausible to me, at least. We do also get Shiharam in the same game, who is of a similar-but-not-identical archetype and who I think works rather well as a chracter. He does talk about wanting to give up his fancy title and go back to being a mercenary. If the change of outfit is tied to that, then that's actually a really neat touch. Overall, how did you find that playing with transfers in mind affected your experience of PoR on its own? Did having something specific to work towards make the game more fun, or was this outweighed by the extra limitations it put on you (like not getting much use out of Ragnel) or the extra grinding it encouraged?