Ideas for new staves

[Dr. Tarrasque]

All of these for FE5.

Expertise: Max an ally's weapon ranks for a 5 turns. Becomes Mastery Staff when stolen/taken by player.

Range: All.

Uses: 5

Mastery: Increase an ally's selected weapon rank for 1 turn.

Range: 1-3

Uses: 3

Re-move: Grants an ally 10 re-move stars for 3 turns. Becomes Heal when stolen/taken by player.

Range: All

Uses: 5

Resistance: Grants immunity to status affects inflicted by weapons, staves and magic tomes to units in a selected radius of 5 for 5 turns. Becomes Heal when stolen/taken by player.

Range: All

Uses: 10

Darkness' Silence: Silences all staff use by the opposing team and cuts M.ATK down to 1/4.. Becomes Silence when stolen/taken by player.

Range: All

Uses: -- (Active from the player's first turn and until enemy loses the staff)

Edited March 25, 2011 by Sirius

[Darros]

Refreshing staves. :)

In Archanea there is an Again Staff.

[Kinata]

Completely missing the point. Players don't need new ways to trivialize Fire Emblem. I wouldn't mind if half of your suggestions were enemy only just to screw the player, but stuff like Capture, Banish, and Teleport are too powerful when put in players' hands.

Perhaps new FE games could give us more powerful weapons, staves, and items, but put the player in tougher situations. They would balance each other and allow for more complicated and interesting tactics. For example, wouldn't it be fun for there to be a chapter that practically requires a really clever use of the Teleport staff to win? Of course, that would be really unfair to beginners because they could get screwed. Maybe a game with a super hard highest difficulty that actually forces the player to plan ahead to win.

Anyways, my idea is the Confusion staff. 1 use, A rank: The AI of all non-boss enemies is weakened for the rest of the chapter. This includes increased likelihood of enemies attacking strong characters and sometimes avoiding units who cannot counterattack.

[Paperblade]

So you wouldn't object if halfway through the game, you get an "Autowin" staff that finishes the rest of the game for you, right?

More on-topic:

I'd agree with those who say that the potential for staves is undertapped, but I think there is a problem with giving a single weapon type too many abilities. Furthermore, the better abilities are typically only accessible by 2-4 characters out of the entire cast. Existing staves currently:

- heal ally

- restore ally status

- inflict enemy status

- augment ally stats

- transport ally units

- perform map effects

- steal enemy items

- repair ally items

Giving them much else would concentrate too much power in the hands of a handful of unit types (not that it's incredibly imbalanced already). I think it would be acceptable if we introduced new staves while getting rid of staves that inflict enemy status and assigning those attributes to certain weapons instead (e.g. FE5 Poison, Stone, Blizzard).

Split staves up into 2-3 categories then. They have 5 categories of magic and they're pretty much the same thing.

[AstraLunaSol]

Light Rune Staff anyone?

Elibian Nights had one.

Too bad the runes disappeared too fast

[eclipse]

Something like Barrier for Defense.

[Original Alear]

a saving staff

That's just...too meta!

[Rothene]

Maybe a reverse of Barrier that causes victims to take extra damage from either magic or strength based attacks.

Or maybe one to negate Terrain benefit! Those pesky boss on Thrones become not so stupidly hard to hit for a while. 8D

Edited March 25, 2011 by Rothene

[Celice]

A staff which temporarily sets a healing spot would be pretty nifty as well. The problem with the staves we have now is that they're too little and too far between to really be depending on. They're usually rationed out by players. Sometimes not even used at all. Putting out a little variety creates... variety.

[Frosty]

I'd call dibs on a Sanctuary staff for that, Celice

Sets up a small healing square area which restores HP equal to 20+MAG of the caster to any unit that will step there will sound nice.

As for my concepts, staffs that can induce a gradual HP restore status (Regen staff), staves that can provide immunity to status effects for a short time (Guard staff), and lastly, staves that render flying units to be ground units for a short time. Handy to make those enemy fliers to be screwed for a while, cause the staff's range is like those Berserk staves. (Gravity staff)

Edited March 25, 2011 by Frostbite

[Anouleth]

Game difficulty, unfortunately, isn't officially defined by self-imposed restrictions. Hard games aren't hard because the players choose to make it so.

It's funny, I've seen you say the exact opposite thing before. If you're willing to do so, you could grind almost indefinitely in virtually any Fire Emblem and produce and extremely powerful team to trivialise the game. If you're willing to spend 20 turns on a chapter instead of 5, it becomes much easier. Much of the difficulty in Fire Emblem, and indeed, almost all RPGs out there is artificial. Which is part of the reason they are so enduring, because the player has a degree of control over their experience... they can produce many different experiences from different playthroughs of the same game.

Giving them much else would concentrate too much power in the hands of a handful of unit types (not that it's incredibly imbalanced already). I think it would be acceptable if we introduced new staves while getting rid of staves that inflict enemy status and assigning those attributes to certain weapons instead (e.g. FE5 Poison, Stone, Blizzard).

I don't know if FE5 is any different, but in my experience status staves have always been among the most useless staves in my arsenal, while simultaneously being some of the most annoying things to fight against. I'm happy to keep statuses on staves just because it's so much more of a boon for the enemy than the allies.

A staff which temporarily sets a healing spot would be pretty nifty as well. The problem with the staves we have now is that they're too little and too far between to really be depending on. They're usually rationed out by players. Sometimes not even used at all. Putting out a little variety creates... variety.

I think that a 'healing spot' staff would be pretty useless unless you have an extremely specific and well-planned out strategy that demands a unit getting healed with no healer around.

I don't think that's true at all. Staff users are really, really good and well worth deploying and depending on even in FE10, when they were arguably at their weakest.

Some players do ration out powerful staves, just as they ration out powerful weapons. So what? I don't know any players who 'never' use staves, the vast majority of players do use staves, even if not the more powerful ones (since they don't appreciate the benefits, or they're just a packrat).

Edited March 25, 2011 by Black Star

[whase]

I would like a staff that could deal damage. dunno if it'd be too redundant though. would give troubadours, clerics, and priests a way to defend themselves and level up faster.

(FE10 staff counter?)

other than that, a stave that 'unheals' enemies could make sense

and how about:

- a full map restore staff (I hate not having restore with more than 1 range)

- timewarp staff, warps you back to previous phase,only difference being -1 use for staff (could be a replacement for having to reset when someone dies) (S rank 3 uses to make less overpowered)

- a random temporary stat raiser staff, a 1 range staff to temporarily (like for 3 turns or so) raise 1 random stat by level/4 (raised by minimum of 1)

- multiple target berserk staff, range of mag/2. every character, ally and enemy, in range will get a chance to become berserked. you could have a staff user run into a field of enemies, use full berserk, and rescue user with rescue staff.

- timewarp 2.0, skip 1 enemy phase

[Celice]

If the AI was coded to actually work in FoW (IS didn't bother for Advance Wars, I know), a Fog Staff could be a fun device for certain enemies to have too. As would a rain staff. The trouble would be in trying to get the AI to tactfully use the staff, rather than just spam it from the get-go. That could be solved best by having it used through events, and once a player gets hold of it, the tactic-part is in their hands. This would be the staff that allows you to slow enemy movement at your discretion, though, obviously you suffer the penalties as well.

An Illusion Staff could be useful as well, since the AI does respond, in some part, to terrain. It could be either like one of those light runes, or the pitfalls from the later games, where once the enemy tried to go for the better terrain, they get caught. Again, though, AI-controlled enemies can't really benefit from the staff unless they're forced to use them specifically through events.

Maybe even a Fast Staff, which let's you make another unit able to attack first in battle, during an opponent's turn phase. (one battle length only or so).

[Darros]

(FE10 staff counter?)

They had 1 might, aka pathetic.

[Vicious Sal]

Well, some did beef up Def AND speed.

[Celice]

But that was on the wielder, not on allies. And for most of their beginning life, staff-users wouldn't make too much use of those stat boosts, as they'd be in way too much danger.

[Vicious Sal]

I know it's on the wielder, and even though their offense is crap with a Rod, you can leave them a bit more unprotected giving more offense.

It's quite liberating. [/melodrama]

[whase]

stave counters were especially useful to get that stave level up for sages. and to top that, strong sages might even do a few damage, giving lots of experience if you're not watching your turn count.

summon staff:

summon an ally from the base (an actual character, not just some faceless ally) to help you, can only be used a set number of times per chapter

field heal staff:

heals for user's MAG shared to every ally on the field who needs it.

[Krad]

I think that for enemy-exclusive staffs some "Sacrificial" staves could be used. You could use a staff that grants a bonus between 1 and 5 of a stat (depending on the specific staff) for a turn, while taking the same amount from the character who used the staff. So for example, if a staffer with 10 SPD used gave a 5 SPD boost to a character with 6 SPD, the character would now have 11 SPD while the staffer would have 5 for that turn. Giving these staves to the player could potentially trivialize the game, so it's best to keep them enemy only.

[dondon151]

It's funny, I've seen you say the exact opposite thing before.

You must be imagining things, because I have not said the opposite before. It's certainly true that the restrictions I impose upon myself make Fire Emblem more difficult (for my personal enjoyment), but that doesn't change the fact that most Fire Emblem games are pretty low on the difficulty spectrum.

If you're willing to do so, you could grind almost indefinitely in virtually any Fire Emblem and produce and extremely powerful team to trivialise the game. If you're willing to spend 20 turns on a chapter instead of 5, it becomes much easier. Much of the difficulty in Fire Emblem, and indeed, almost all RPGs out there is artificial. Which is part of the reason they are so enduring, because the player has a degree of control over their experience... they can produce many different experiences from different playthroughs of the same game.

The fact that a player has to grind to trivialize a game makes the game more difficult. Not "fun" difficult, but difficult. Example: Pokemon Colosseum is more difficult than Pokemon Crystal because the former has higher leveled bosses and more scarce EXP through trainer battles. Even the most powerful in-game Colosseum strategy (overleveled Feraligatr + Helping Hand Espeon/Plusle) requires a fair bit of luck and item management to complete the game successfully whereas most players can easily clear Crystal with a team of 2 or 3 Pokemon.

I don't know if FE5 is any different, but in my experience status staves have always been among the most useless staves in my arsenal, while simultaneously being some of the most annoying things to fight against. I'm happy to keep statuses on staves just because it's so much more of a boon for the enemy than the allies.

Blame it on map design. FE5 status staves were extremely powerful both in ally and enemy hands.

[Florete]

You must be imagining things, because I have not said the opposite before. It's certainly true that the restrictions I impose upon myself make Fire Emblem more difficult (for my personal enjoyment), but that doesn't change the fact that most Fire Emblem games are pretty low on the difficulty spectrum.

Ugh. You know, I really hate it when people say this. Sure, we find it easy. We also dissect the games to their core, uncovering hidden data like growth rates, analyze pros and cons of decisions, sort through enemy stats, and play the games multiple times over. Of course we find it easy. But to the casual player who doesn't do that, or even a normal fan who doesn't discuss it much? Not at all. FE7 HHM (and EHM to a lesser extent) and FE10 HM are especially difficult games if you don't know them in and out. Even FE10 NM can be a real challenge if you don't abuse the Battle Save feature (and even then it's still technically difficult unless you reset constantly for good levels). 8 and 9 on HM can be quite challenging if you don't know the best units (I recall having lots of trouble in my early days playing in Rausten Court). 11, of course, would be a nightmare on H5 even for some people who may have played through all the previous games. Note that I've just listed all the games released outside of Japan, which is almost half.

My point? Any game can be "easy" if you're good enough at it. Over in the Other Games forum some people were talking about having lots of trouble against certain bosses and occasionally getting stuck in Metroid Fusion, a game I can now steamroll in an hour because I've just played it that much. I don't call it easy, though, because I remember the days when I had just as much trouble getting through it.

[Anouleth]

You must be imagining things, because I have not said the opposite before. It's certainly true that the restrictions I impose upon myself make Fire Emblem more difficult (for my personal enjoyment), but that doesn't change the fact that most Fire Emblem games are pretty low on the difficulty spectrum.

I recall you saying that all difficulty was defined by self-imposed restrictions (at least in FE). It was something along the lines of 'Fire Emblem is as difficult or as easy as you want it to be'.

The fact that a player has to grind to trivialize a game makes the game more difficult. Not "fun" difficult, but difficult. Example: Pokemon Colosseum is more difficult than Pokemon Crystal because the former has higher leveled bosses and more scarce EXP through trainer battles. Even the most powerful in-game Colosseum strategy (overleveled Feraligatr + Helping Hand Espeon/Plusle) requires a fair bit of luck and item management to complete the game successfully whereas most players can easily clear Crystal with a team of 2 or 3 Pokemon.

Well, I don't define difficulty in the same way you do, then. I define difficulty as being composed of two different properties - the margin for error, and the difficulty of determining what strategies are 'erroneous' and which ones are 'correct'. There is very little possibility of error in grinding against a boss for EXP because they generally do not move and eventually break their weapons, while it reduces the margin for error in later maps because your units are overlevelled.

Blame it on map design. FE5 status staves were extremely powerful both in ally and enemy hands.

Wouldn't it be because status staves in later games are generally quite difficult to hit bosses with (with a few exceptions, like with Athos or something)? I mean, Sleep in FE9 is just useless since it's virtually impossible to get it to affect any enemy of note.

My point? Any game can be "easy" if you're good enough at it. Over in the Other Games forum some people were talking about having lots of trouble against certain bosses and occasionally getting stuck in Metroid Fusion, a game I can now steamroll in an hour because I've just played it that much. I don't call it easy, though, because I remember the days when I had just as much trouble getting through it.

Well, FE in particular offers a lot of difficulty for people who haven't played it. It annoys me when people generalise certain FEs as being 'extremely easy', since for people who don't obsessively dissect them as we do, they can be challenging even on easier difficulties.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Black★Star

[Paperblade]

There is very little possibility of error in grinding against a boss for EXP because they generally do not move and eventually break their weapons, while it reduces the margin for error in later maps because your units are overlevelled.

Probably not very relevant, but if I were designing an FE game and wanted to avoid this, the obvious solution is that any enemy tagged as a boss (the little shield) does not give combat experience.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Paperblade

[Florete]

Probably not very relevant, but if I were designing an FE game and wanted to avoid this, the obvious solution is that any enemy tagged as a boss (the little shield) does not give combat experience.

But that's no good because bosses are primarily useful for the experience boost (especially for Jeigan-type units), and it makes sense that they should give more experience as opposed to less/none. Maybe make it so they only give experience on being killed? Keep that initial boost but remove the grinding.

[Paperblade]

But that's no good because bosses are primarily useful for the experience boost (especially for Jeigan-type units), and it makes sense that they should give more experience as opposed to less/none. Maybe make it so they only give experience on being killed? Keep that initial boost but remove the grinding.

I think jeigans are stupid anyway, but I guess that would work.