Discussion about the worst classes!

[Rakath]

I have a general dislike of Fighter/Warrior classes. Speed isn't good enough to dodge thinks like a Pirate/Berserker, Defense isn't good enough to soak up several levels of hurt like a Knight/General. They have power but the harshest case of a glass jaw.

[Rehab]

At least they have good HP. I think that with all that HP, they have around average toughness, and they might serve better against magic units than some other melee classes could, since almost no melee class has very good resistance, and they'd be able to take more damage whil taking roughly the same amount from every attack as other brawlers would. They can be a pain to heal, though.

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

You are repeating yourself. You are also ignoring that Snipers can be sturdy enough to take a few hits, and fast enough to doge. It's not the end of their world if they get hit.

Like I said, they'll still get ganged up even if they evade. Its not like they can counter in melee anyways.

You said earlier that assasins are not very good because they have to rely on the rng to get a critical kill. Do sages not have to rely on the rng to be able to doge things? Yes, they are fast, but more than 2 hits from a melee unit of about equal level, and they will almost certainly be seeing spots.

Not only that, they have the worst Str cap of 20. Assassins, 25 percent chance of activating Silencer and Critical hits, which means there's a 75 percent chance of just normal attacks. Which means they relying a lot on luck there's a 75 percent chance of getting screwed over by not killing the enemy.

Also, was that last thing you said about Sages or Sinpers? It seems like it wold apply to, iddaknow, both of them. It seems like if you decide to either use snipers or sages, it would be trade-off between either being able to one-round a lot of things and being in a deep hole if they happen to get hit for sages, and generally taking longer to kill some things, and require different, perhaps inopportune spacing, but being able to take some hits for snipers. Seems to me like both are viable choices and can work well, since both classes tend to have, as you said, fairly good stats, and neither have exceptional chances of operating to the best of their ability without support.

...What are you talking about? I said no such thing about this at all. Sages are good in both Melee and Range whereas Snipers are only good at Range. Which is bad. They can't even counter unless its range.

[Rehab]

The biggest thing I'm trying to get across is that Sages are not very sturdy. Against somebody they can't immediately kill or don't get the first hit against, Sages have to rely on dodging in order to not get their shit fucked up, while Snipers usually have less such pressure on them, because they are just plain better at taking hits when they have to. And if Snipers will still get ganged up on even if they can evade, what's to stop the same thing from happening to Sages?

I'm not trying to bring up the Assasin thing at all. What I was saying when I referenced them is that, while it's more mathematically feasible for a Sage to dodge than for an Assasin to critical, if they don't dodge, they are quite often, truly screwed. That is not as big a deal for Snipers, because, again they just plain take most hits better.

While Sages can counterattack in melee range, they can also be beaten to death in melee range. My point is that neither of these classes should be in melee range unless necessary, because they both have reasons why they can get screwed while in that range. I am not saying Sages are the worst class. I am saying that they have a similar fear of melee range to the one archers have (while it isn't exactly the same), and I find it odd that you excuse this weakness that mages have and then turn stage left and beat archers over the head with a very similar weakness.

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

Okay, you talk as if this is a Sage VS Sniper debate. First of all why would you compare them? Clearly these classes are barely even comparable to begin with. And who cares if they're very sturdy? Sages can counter in both ways. They're useful in both melee and range. Sages are awesome classes anyways. They were meant to attack for both melee and range while Snipers are only meant to attack on range. Clearly I would pick a unit that can attack both 1-2 range over 2. You also sounded like Sages are really bad.

[Knife]

I agree that Assassins (and Whispers if we're talking about FE10) are the worst class IMO. Snipers are not bad though, they usually have good stat caps, a decent critical bonus, and an accurate ranged attack. Though I will admit the Snipers are inferior to some other classes.

[Rehab]

If I made Sages sound like a bad class, that was not my intention. My intention is to say that Sages have some spacing issues. As do Snipers. You obviously do not consider Sages a bad class, but you obviously think Snipers are ineffective. You seem to base that on the fact that they can't attack or counterattack at 1 range, while Sages can. But that leads me to a question.

How often do you purposely have Sages attack at 1 range?

If you have a chance to make a defensively weak but offensively powerful unit safe from a counterattack, you'd take up that chance, right?

You base this whole thing about Snipers being a bad class on attack range. Yes, a Sage has the ability to counter, or just attack, at 1 range, while Snipers do not. That is a viable advantage that Sages have over Snipers. However, on the chance that they miss at one range, they will probably be counterattacked. And on the chance that they get hit on that counterattack, their chances for survival are not what I would consider great. Being able to counter at a certain range simply doesn't mean much if being hit in that range means you're already dead in the water.

Snipers can attack from 2 range. This means that they must be spaced properly to be able to attack, and should probably have another unit backing them up to protect them from attack. Sages, while they can attack from 1 and 2 range, are rather fragile, and they have no reason to attack from 1 range short of when fighting a Sniper if they can help it.

Both of these classes need to be spaced properly and safely to be the best they can be. Sages are not bad because of this need, and are in fact a very good class used correctly. Same with Snipers.

[Florete]

Dr.Dorian wins the topic. I agree with everything he said.

Logic Swordsman, you're still acting like snipers are units that go out into battle alone. They won't be ganged up on if there are other units around them, which there very well should be.

[Metal Rabbit]

Hmm... I reviewed the topic and can't render a decision.

Oh, and The worst class is obviously cilvilians.

[Florete]

Hmm... I reviewed the topic and can't render a decision.

Oh, and The worst class is obviously cilvilians.

End of discussion, right here.

[Liz]

Snipers FTW!!!

i'm so with you, Dr. Dorian! very valid points you provided there.

[Gemini-Saga]

I share the same opinion about Warriors/Fightes, of Rakath.

I don't have problems with Wispers, with me bane activate quite often.

[Liz]

Hmm... I reviewed the topic and can't render a decision.

Oh, and The worst class is obviously cilvilians.

lol! so true! and they just get in the way.

[Florete]

Now that Warriors are mentioned, I agree they are among the worst classes, though I have seen Bartre become very reliable, and Geitz isn't half bad. Boyd is amazing. Otherwise...

[Liz]

Now that Warriors are mentioned, I agree they are among the worst classes, though I have seen Bartre become very reliable, and Geitz isn't half bad. Boyd is amazing. Otherwise...

i was about to smack you until i read the "boyd is amazing" part.

but in general, i have to agree. amazingly high HP just doesn't cut it when you have amazingly low def. growths (and my warriors usually take hits right on the face)

Boyd is the exception

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

If I made Sages sound like a bad class, that was not my intention. My intention is to say that Sages have some spacing issues. As do Snipers. You obviously do not consider Sages a bad class, but you obviously think Snipers are ineffective. You seem to base that on the fact that they can't attack or counterattack at 1 range, while Sages can. But that leads me to a question.

How often do you purposely have Sages attack at 1 range?

If you have a chance to make a defensively weak but offensively powerful unit safe from a counterattack, you'd take up that chance, right?

You base this whole thing about Snipers being a bad class on attack range. Yes, a Sage has the ability to counter, or just attack, at 1 range, while Snipers do not. That is a viable advantage that Sages have over Snipers. However, on the chance that they miss at one range, they will probably be counterattacked. And on the chance that they get hit on that counterattack, their chances for survival are not what I would consider great. Being able to counter at a certain range simply doesn't mean much if being hit in that range means you're already dead in the water.

Snipers can attack from 2 range. This means that they must be spaced properly to be able to attack, and should probably have another unit backing them up to protect them from attack. Sages, while they can attack from 1 and 2 range, are rather fragile, and they have no reason to attack from 1 range short of when fighting a Sniper if they can help it.

Both of these classes need to be spaced properly and safely to be the best they can be. Sages are not bad because of this need, and are in fact a very good class used correctly. Same with Snipers.

Whats your point? Your basically comparing those two. How about compare how they do battle. Who cares if Sages were to miss? Enemy units hit a grand average speed of 18 and of course 0 luck. That's a pretty low avoid, you can quite easily guarantee 100% hit if Sages were to attack. Snipers might applies as well. But due to their lack of melee...I don't think so.

Dr.Dorian wins the topic. I agree with everything he said.

Logic Swordsman, you're still acting like snipers are units that go out into battle alone. They won't be ganged up on if there are other units around them, which there very well should be.

You just prove my point right there. This proves that Snipers need guarding.

[Florete]

You just prove my point right there. This proves that Snipers need guarding.

No it doesn't. I said nothing about guarding. Like I said previously, no unit should be totally abandoned on the field of battle, thus making "walls" for everyone, including your snipers. Everyone needs some protection, it's just different for some classes. Like Dr.Dorian said, snipers need the same type of protection as Sages, even if it is for slightly different reasons.

And in case you hadn't noticed, nobody agrees with you on this yet.

[Metal Rabbit]

Oh dear god... stop egging him on. You all are so fucking stubborn.

[Florete]

Oh dear god... stop egging him on. You all are so fucking stubborn.

What? If you don't want to be a part of this, then don't be. This is a serious discussion.

[Metal Rabbit]

*rolls eyes*

I don't think snipers are the worst units at all. *coughshinoncough*

I DO think that the dancers are the worst and here's why:

-Can't promote, and therefore have bad caps

-Normally have bad growths to begin with with the exception of speed and maybe luck

-Weak defensively and they can't fight at all

-Have to be babysat, even if they're 20

As for warriors, I think it depends on the individual unit and not the class in general. You CANNOT bunch Nolan and Dorcas in the same group. Same goes for snipers. Shinon can take hits and therefore is useful even if his class is limited. Others like Wolt and Wil... you get my point.

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

I wasn't expecting anyone to agree with me anyways. This is my opinion towards Snipers by expressing my General fact towards Snipers of how they're bad.

Sages and Snipers are barely even comparable. For starters. They both have different weapon uses. Tomes can do 1-2 hits and Bows can do only 2 hits. Compare to the weapons they each use by ranks; Anima tomes tend to have more hit ratio than Bows, just barely. Snipers are only stuck with just Bow weapons while Sages can not only use Anima but they can use Light tome in FE8. Oh and they can use Staff as well. What makes you think Snipers are better than Sages anways?

[Metal Rabbit]

I don't think he was directly comparing sages to snipers...

[Florete]

I wasn't expecting anyone to agree with me anyways. This is my opinion towards Snipers by expressing my General fact towards Snipers of how they're bad.

Sages and Snipers are barely even comparable. For starters. They both have different weapon uses. Tomes can do 1-2 hits and Bows can do only 2 hits. Compare to the weapons they each use by ranks; Anima tomes tend to have more hit ratio than Bows, just barely. Snipers are only stuck with just Bow weapons while Sages can not only use Anima but they can use Light tome in FE8. Oh and they can use Staff as well. What makes you think Snipers are better than Sages anways?

No one said snipers are better than sages. I think that generally sages probably are better then snipers. You're just nit-picking now. Snipers have plenty of skill so hit chance is rarely a problem. And the comparison of them is in defense not offense so they are very easily comparable.

[Metal Rabbit]

Well, that's not completely true. Strategy when using them also plays into "defense".

[Florete]

Well, that's not completely true. Strategy when using them also plays into "defense".

Yes, but they were being compared on a defensive level. They need to be protected in similar fashions for the best strategy.