Othin

Movable abilities like Lockpicking... If it works that way, it could be part of an alternate form of Reclassing, or something with a similar effect. If there are constraints rather than complete free movement, it could work incredibly well, although I'm not getting my hopes up just yet.

-33% of turns taken in Ch6, -25% of turns taken for the entire rest of the game. Including the time while that stuff's on Sigurd as he waits to pass it down. Personally, I never had any problems with Celice surviving Ch6 on my Sigurd/Celice solo. Can't remember what rings I used though, if any. I know he had Elite, Leg, I think Speed and Arm, and a couple of swords; probably not the Defense Ring. Might have just gotten lucky, though.

Oh yeah, every point of range has its uses, I'm just questioning how often that use will come up, how much value it's worth.

Most of us that are proposing changes are, I think, saying that we would want the changes to be in a future FE game (such as FE13), which is how I understand the point of this thread. The existing mechanics are being brought up because some people are pointing to aspects of them to say that there's no need for anything new, while others are pointing to other aspects to say there is a need. It could be a moot point since we've already seen screenshots demonstrating that FE13 is using the FE12 system for thrown weapons, but in discussions like this, it's my understanding that plausibility is a boring factor better ignored. Flying enemies as targets for the effective bonus can be good, but it's situational; the effectiveness of the bows hinges on times when the flying enemies are present and difficult to defeat otherwise, which can be difficult to work out well to be relevant without being dominating, especially between multiple difficulty levels. As for increased range, that's another idea I've liked, but it seems to me that it makes less of a difference the more you have. 2 range adds a lot of flexibility on top of 1 range, but how much flexibility does 3 range add on top of that? And then 4 range, how often do you need to shoot from three spaces behind your front line, or through three walls, or otherwise at an enemy that far away? It seems like it gets excessive and further away from relevance.

To answer your request for an explanation: We are discussing the merits of proposed changes to thrown weapon mechanics.

Well then.

10 Skl, 10 Spd, 20 Res. No question about it. Mekkah, not sure what you mean about 9 Move being more than Oifaye. Oifaye is a Paladin, FE4 Paladins have 9 Move. Do you just mean that he has the same Move but without the terrain penalties? Lack of Canto sounds about as significant, especially with Ch6 having not much in the way of terrain in the main path, which is about as long as Celice should stay on foot.

I stand corrected. Although it's still rather late, and a weapon of only minor consequence in the first place. In FE11, Hand Axes has +3 Mt compared to Iron Bows. That extra 2 Mt of difference was just FE12 undoing what FE10 did to further exacerbate the problem by making Hand Axes even more overpowered than they already were. In FE11, Hand Axes had as much Mt as Steel Bows. You can't possibly think they were only as overpowered than as they were in the GBA games. 2 Mt was undoing what the recent games had done to increase the problem. Only the remaining 2 Mt actually addressed the problem that had been present in the earlier games. Edit: Checking again, in FE9, Javelins and Hand Axes had -1 Mt compared to Iron Lances and Iron Axes. In FE10, Javelins had equal Mt to Iron Lances and Hand Axes had +1 Mt compared to Iron Axes. In FE11, Javelins and Hand Axes had +1 Mt compared to Iron Lances and Iron Axes. This is not some fundamental style change; this is the developers tacking on extra points of Mt onto already overpowered weapons for no reason.

I might be missing something, but I can't find any information on Longbows being available outside of sidequests or online shops in either game. Granted, sidequests aren't so much of an issue in FE12, but Serenes only lists it for 20x. That seems kinda late.

And -1 against sword users. 1 Mt can make a difference, but it's easy enough to identify those times to choose a different strategy. A note to all: In FE7, Hand Axes have +1 Mt compared to Iron Bows, -25 Hit, and +7 Wt; in FE12, they have -1 Mt and -30 Hit. Can we stop making such a big deal out of a relative nerf of 2 Mt and 5 Hit? (2 Mt and 10 Hit compared to Steel Bows.)

Let's say we have Mr. Hypothetical Fighter with a 2-range Hand Axe, and Mr. Hypothetical Archer with identical stats and an Iron Bow. The Hand Axe has +1 Mt, but the Iron Bow has like +25 Hit. So unless the +1 Mt makes the difference between killing and not killing (unlikely), I'm going with Mr. Hypothetical Archer. Now, in reality, Mr. Hypothetical Fighter and Mr. Hypothetical Archer will have different stats, and that's okay. But if Mr. Hypothetical Fighter has ridiculously better stats, that's a different problem that needs to be addressed on its own. FE12's system, if it's that way, isn't any better: if the archer has worse stats and lacks 1-2 range, and his only option is an Iron Bow which just has +1 Mt to make up for it, then I'm still going with Mr. Hypothetical Fighter even under the FE12 system. As for my own point, there's a world of difference between comparing Iron Bows to Hand Axes and comparing Iron Bows + Steel Bows to Hand Axes, especially when we're arguing over a single point of Mt. Notably, in FE7, a Steel Bow beats a Hand Axe in Mt, Hit, and Wt, so with the Hand Axe's range removed, the Steel Bow is the clear winner. I'm not suggesting Spears and Tomahawks be used to compare, although when those are available, they tend to be limited enough as to not fully compete with even Silver Bows.

Units with E rank in bows can use Steel Bows after they use Iron Bows enough to attain a D rank. In the DS FE games, that's only 15 battles with a bow. More than reasonable when, compared to a Hand Axe, the only loss for a bow would be 1 Mt, which doesn't even matter most of the time. And as I said, Hand Axes are not the only thrown weapons. I said this not to compare to the stronger alternatives, but to the weaker Javelins, which in the GBA games have precisely the same Mt as Iron Bows. Now, if you're going to insist that the comparison be limited to Mt vs. Iron Bows, let's look at how they compare in FE12. Javelins have 3 Mt, Hand Axes have 4 Mt, Iron Bows have 5 Mt. Still pitifully slanted against Iron Bows, when Javelins and Hand Axes have 1-2 range compared to 2 range. If you're going to argue that bows can stand up against thrown weapons in FE12, it's either because of bows' substantial accuracy advantage or because of their potential to reach higher ranks; both are advantages they would retain with the system Snowy and I have been proposing. Under that system, Javelins/Hand Axes would have the same range and virtually the same Mt as Iron Bows, but Iron Bows would retain their better accuracy and lower cost making them generally a better option when you can choose between the two; Iron Bows would also have the potential for soon making better ranged weapons available. So where's the problem? Also, as for your "retarded idea", only Javelins has 20 Wt in FE3; Hand Axes had 9. However, extending the excessive Wt to both Javelins and Hand Axes would be a perfectly legitimate alternative method of balancing thrown weapons by, instead of taking away their melee, taking away their capability to double and their users' capability to dodge. In other words, pretty much what FE4 did, which in that area worked rather well. I would call that a perfectly good idea.

You are in no position to be insulting anyone's intelligence right now. Unless they have other capabilities, such as FE4 enemies' ability to switch weapons when attacked. Or if the Tactics rank exists.

You've done nothing to support that conclusion except point out that Hand Axes have more Mt than Iron Bows. Iron Bows are not the only bows, Hand Axes are not the only thrown weapons, and Mt is not the only stat.

Again, it can be any situation where the number of enemy archers alive in an area is more than the number of melee enemies in an area. This can be any situation where two or more enemy archers are in a group and they outlive most of the other enemies. And in a game where Javelins and Hand Axes lose their ability to counter range 1-2, enemy Archers will be more more difficult to counter and deal with on the enemy phase, so they will more likely outlive the other enemies and put you in this situation, even if the situation isn't so common in the existing games. I have found this to be the case in Berwick Saga, and it is also appearing to be the case so far in my no Javelin/Hand Axe playthrough of FE8. Another thing I have found is that in those situations, enemy Archers make more threatening enemies due to their longevity, and therefore have a reason to have better distribution than they do in other existing games. As I said, I haven't played much of FE12. From the sound of it, on Lunatic, the lack of power makes the weapons almost useless. On other modes, do the weapons remain effective while still having their usability changed substantially by the lack of power? It sounds like a difficult balance to make between the two extremes, and I would not want to rely on the hope of that balance in future games as opposed to more creative ways of addressing the matter. Perhaps. If so, who cares? Strategies change as mechanics change. That's a good thing. Fliers aren't exactly low on good strategies they can use.

False. It's dependent on the majority of nearby enemies being archers, which can happen any time there are multiple enemy archers in close proximity to each other. In some situations, you get a tactical advantage; in others, you don't. In most, you get the option of avoiding taking a counter on the player phase, exactly what you described as such a huge boon in the archer chapters. In all of this, we must again recall the previous issue that counterattacks are ridiculously overpowered. That must be addressed somehow, and however it is addressed would decrease the relevance of enemy phase counterattacks when using any type of thrown weapon.

It appears we use different strategies. But I think we already knew that. I'm not talking about a strict definition of evidence. Do you have a convincing argument as to why having the option of 1-2 range is better than not? That's all I'm asking for. You ignore the possibility of how much Hand Axes and Javelins may contribute to those mechanical issues. These matters are never entirely separate.

Depends on the situation. Most archers aren't characters I'd want to be taking hits no matter what; I may be in error, but I recall often finding them to be rather frail, which is a logical weakness. With the character being constant, perhaps a better comparison would be, how often do you have a Warrior use a bow instead of a (melee) axe to maximize enemy phase damage? And that's completely dependent on the enemy class distribution, but I don't think I've found it to be overly rare. You make a claim, I ask you to back it up. That's a perfectly reasonable request. But I'll play along. In most of the FE series, characters are incredibly destructive with their counterattacks; I would say too much so. Earlier, there was a brief discussion about the matter and how those counterattacks could use some scaling back. Perhaps you'll agree with the logic this gentleman used in coming to that conclusion: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28145&st=1580&p=1797271entry1797271

Your point is that you want a meaningful choice. Choosing between countering some enemies or others is a meaningful choice. Choosing between countering some enemies and all, not so much. You say we should have an option to counter both range 1 and range 2 enemies at once with one character. How about some evidence showing that the series is better off with all those counterattacks?

I am always willing to re-evaluate my conclusions based on notable new evidence. You say that on Lunatic, Javelins and Hand Axes have no use outside of two chapters and on specific units. Having not played much of FE12 myself and even less of Lunatic, I'll take your word for that unless anyone has evidence to the contrary. So it sounds like you were right; they are indeed not overpowering in that mode, but what you describe is precisely what I would describe as "nearly worthless". You say thrown weapons can be effective on the lower difficulty levels. But how effective? If characters don't mind the loss in damage at all for the most part, the weapons remain overpowering as in other games. If they mind it too much, the weapons become near useless as in Lunatic. If, on any of those modes, they strike that balance between those two extremes, then I will agree that that particular mode has done a good job of balancing the weapons. But it seems to me that reaching such a balance in this way is not easy, and I am currently inclined to not count on that balance in further games. Weakening something without eating a counter is a good niche to have. But it is also a niche that can be attained by locking the weapons to range 2 or removing their ability to double attack, rather than simply lowering the weapons' Mt, which may or may not work as intended. You do? Hey, I want the option of using a weapon that not only can match the range of all the enemies, but that lets my characters dodge and kill all the enemies. After all, who wants to choose between subpar solutions; real strategy is having a solution that works for everything, right? Looks like we'd better start writing those letters to Santa.

So you're saying FE12 Lunatic solves the problem by nearly eliminating thrown weapons as a viable option. That sounds little better than eliminating them entirely, and absolutely worse than weakening them by different means.

Decreasing Mt and Hit works when you don't already have more Mt and Hit than you need. I haven't played enough of the DS FEs to know how much the difference actually changes how you play, but it seems to me that in most of the rest of the series, it doesn't/wouldn't make any real difference. A change in Mt matters when it changes the number of hits it takes to kill an enemy. A change in Hit matters when it makes the difference between hitting or missing. Changing Mt or Hit when it won't change either of those things often does not address any problems. And yes, it sounds to me like the existence of forging in the DS FEs makes such decreases to the stats of weapons fixed quite easily.

Under a system this simple, there's a right way and a wrong way to do things. There's little more to think about, because the "wrong" way doesn't have enough options to be worth serious consideration next to the "right" way. That can work fine in games with substantial real-time elements, where you can't take the right action at the right time just because you want to. But with a game that's purely strategy-based, such as FE, it's not enough to think about. A purely strategy-based game where the strategy is all this simple is, quite simply, a bad game. Having some weapons fail to double attack isn't even complex in the slightest. As you noted, it's already been done with Eclipse, a far more complex weapon, and there are other far more complex things that have been added to the series, such as capturing and skills. More likely, you've come to expect almost the exact same thing from every FE game, so any changes that would deviate from that formula and make you think about something a bit different seems insane. In reality, it isn't: those are in fact the changes that healthy series thrive on.

I'm sure there are some throwing axes and spears that are capable of being used effectively in melee rather than just when thrown, but I'm also sure there are some that just don't work well if you just try to swing or stab it at someone. A given fantasy setting could include one type, the other, both, or neither, whichever seems like it would work better.

In that situation, Wil will kill faster, but he'll also get killed faster. I wouldn't call that automatically a win in overall capabilities. If four squares isn't enough, that means getting attacked a lot of times in a row, which is sometimes okay, and sometimes isn't. You're making the mistake of assuming that this is all an argument. It isn't. In my original post, the only argument I made with you was the first sentence. The rest, such as the remarks about 1-2 range, is related information I wish to bring up to people here in general. It has little or nothing to do with you.