Thieves

[Othin]

I'd give them 15% more Strength growth.

You would prefer they serve the exact same function as every other unit rather than them being built into their own, unique role?

Recent FE games are just melee, melee, melee. If a character has half-decent melee, and sometimes range to fall back on if needed, it really doesn't matter who you pick. The worst offender is FE10, where that fact makes the characters virtually identical in how you use them. It's not conducive to good gameplay.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Othin

[CrashGordon94]

You would prefer they serve the exact same function as every other unit rather than them being built into their own, unique role?

Recent FE games are just melee, melee, melee. If a character has half-decent melee, and sometimes range to fall back on if needed, it really doesn't matter who you pick. The worst offender is FE10, where that fact makes the characters virtually identical in how you use them. It's not conducive to good gameplay.

Not necessarily, it's just that it's better if they have SOME combat use.

Adding 15% to a bad STR growth would just turn it into a mediocre or passable one, not enough to make them primarily fighters.

[Alabaster]

I think they are fine as they are. They just have to be able to dodge anything that's being thrown at them, so the high SPD+LUCK combo works just fine for them. They're useful as they are, even because they're not fighters, they have to steal or open chest, and maybe with their poor growth, they may take care of mages or units with low def, just to make sure that they take some experience. I find them to be very useful, I can't play a chapter without a thief, because I'm always stealing every single thing from enemies, even vulneraries xD

[eclipse]

You would prefer they serve the exact same function as every other unit rather than them being built into their own, unique role?

Recent FE games are just melee, melee, melee. If a character has half-decent melee, and sometimes range to fall back on if needed, it really doesn't matter who you pick. The worst offender is FE10, where that fact makes the characters virtually identical in how you use them. It's not conducive to good gameplay.

They can pick locks, steal stuff, and not suck at combat. I think most other units kinda fail the first two.

[Othin]

They can pick locks, steal stuff, and not suck at combat. I think most other units kinda fail the first two.

As the first post noted, in recent games, picking locks and stealing stuff hasn't been particularly significant.

It's not enough for thieves to do some minor thing combat units can't do, or even some significant thing. Distributing roles between classes means giving thieves something meaningful that combat units can't do, and giving combat units something meaningful that thieves can't do.

It also means giving those combat units meaningful things that other combat units can't do. To use Berwick Saga as an example again: From the start of the game, you get a few units. Say you're deciding whether to use Sherlock, a Horseman, or Chris, a Bow Knight. The classes sound rather similar, and they are. The most fundamental differences are that Chris has the option of using crossbows to trade range for accuracy, melee, and somewhat fixed power, while Sherlock has better effectiveness with regular bows and better ability to move through terrain. It's worth noting that Chris is one of two characters in the game able to use crossbows, and that they have certain unique effects, as does every weapon type. Another matter is skills. Chris has the Aim skill, allowing her to increase accuracy with either bows or crossbows as long as she doesn't move, while accuracy is often undesirably low otherwise. She also can keep from losing weapon durability as quickly with her Weapon Care skill. Sherlock, on the other hand, can use the Rapid-Fire skill to get additional attacks in combat, but has to wait four turns before using it again. He also learns the Shooter skill, allowing him to give up his turn entirely in order to prepare his bow, to automatically fire at the next enemy entering his range the following turn, ending their turn if they're hit. They aren't the only characters to have the skills Aim and Shooter, but they're both the only mounted units to have the skills, which becomes quite significant when giving up movement becomes necessary, to get where they need to be before that point. Chris also has a personal crossbow, the Hawkeye, and gains swords on promotion.

All in all, Chris is easily the better of the two, but despite their similarities, using Sherlock rather than or in addition to Chris is not using a character worse at doing the same thing, but using a character that does a completely different thing. That is the sort of thing that makes a choice between characters meaningful, not some simple statistical difference. It's the main thing Berwick Saga has over the rest of the series: actual differences between characters.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Othin

[CrashGordon94]

Perhaps it would be good to give them more things to steal and stuff, I wasn't trying to make Thieves obsolete combat units with my suggestions and I'm sure nobody else was with theirs, I was just making my suggestions with the intent of having them be somewhat passable, so they won't be a drain on your team when you're using them.

[Aquilae]

Why is there a need to further diversify roles? There are already enough differences between units in terms of weapon selection, stats and movement, and having Thieves have an additional function on the side already makes them different from regular units in the way you move and position them. I'd say the differences between Sherlock and Chris don't differ much from the differences between normal FE characters, each of them has a semi-unique function depending on their stats and their availability. The choices between characters in FE are meaningful, and you're oversimplifying the distinctiveness of the FE characters.

I'm supporting the goat idea too (who wouldn't? =P), but I think it'd be cool if there weren't Chest Keys at all in the games, and Thieves had a monopoly on chests. It'd make them more useful and not obsoleted by Chest Keys.

[Rothene]

They should just get large bonus exp for stealing stuff or opening chests or doors at best.

Also, their good sight radius makes them invaluable in Fog of War. They're a situational class which performs their 'basic' function(Lock picking) effectively irregardless of level. Leave the fighting to the REAL fighters and only field them either if you really love them or when you need them.

And since the thief has a usually 1 slot many uses item to open chests and doors, you need not spend gold and weapon slots on other units with a door key or chest key, allowing them to be more versatile(weapon-wise). It's not like you need all 20 of your units to be excellent fighters since figting usually devolves to sending forward you best 1~3 units to soak damage and dish them back and mop up what's left. Plus thieves also serve as anti-squishies in a pinch.

So they seem fine how they are to me. IS just needs to present more opportunities for their other skills to shine. Would be cool to have a maze full of doors(that act a short cuts with risks) and powerful opponents stalking around, presenting the player with the option to run around the map slowly and grind their way through powerful opponents or rush through with thieves opening doorways that allow players to bypass certain strong foes.

[Anouleth]

Recent FE games are just melee, melee, melee. If a character has half-decent melee, and sometimes range to fall back on if needed, it really doesn't matter who you pick.

I really don't understand your point here.

All in all, Chris is easily the better of the two, but despite their similarities, using Sherlock rather than or in addition to Chris is not using a character worse at doing the same thing, but using a character that does a completely different thing. That is the sort of thing that makes a choice between characters meaningful, not some simple statistical difference. It's the main thing Berwick Saga has over the rest of the series: actual differences between characters.

Hmm, I kind of see your point now. So you think that personal skills like in FE4, FE5, and FE9 should return?

I don't really agree with you that characters in later FEs aren't different: they are different and distinct, as fast play will show. But I think there's a lot of room for characters to be more distinct.

In addition, you're wrong when you say that Chris and Sherlock do different things. Chris and Sherlock are presumably in the business of killing enemies. Their unique skills are merely a means to that end. It reminds me of when people hype up FE7 Canas because he's "unique" in being a Dark magic user, when really he is just another combatant, a means to the end of killing enemies and completing chapters.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Anouleth

[Aethereal]

Rather than personal skills, I'd like to see more unique and dynamic skills. In FE10, Sol, Luna, Stun, Colossus, etc. are all basically the same thing: An instant kill, that happens completely by chance. It doesn't make the gameplay more interesting, it just makes your units better. I think the goat thing would be hilarious personally, but more importantly, I'd like to see more interesting differences between classes.

[eclipse]

I will happily disagree and say that picking locks and stealing stuff is minor. It's what makes a thief a thief. 15% Strength growth won't change the fact that thieves steal stuff (but it would make stealing heavier weapons easier in Tellius).

[Ein]

IS could always do away with Door and Chest Keys making Thieves a somewhat vital unit but if that scenario were to occur the Thieves would have to be pretty good in several aspects so maybe letting them have access to Canto would be good. >_>

[Othin]

I really don't understand your point here.

Strategy for using Kent in FE7: Send him near enemies and watch him kill them, healing when necessary.

Strategy for using Gerik in FE8: Send him near enemies and watch him kill them, healing when necessary.

Strategy for using Zihark in FE9: Send him near enemies and watch him kill them, healing when necessary.

Strategy for using Aran in FE10: Send him near enemies and watch him kill them, healing when necessary.

Combat strategy is pressing the "Attack" command, which most of the time works out the same as if the enemy attacks you instead anyway. And playing rock-paper-scissors. It's not very interesting, and it's pretty much the same no matter who you use in those games.

Hmm, I kind of see your point now. So you think that personal skills like in FE4, FE5, and FE9 should return?

I don't really agree with you that characters in later FEs aren't different: they are different and distinct, as fast play will show. But I think there's a lot of room for characters to be more distinct.

In addition, you're wrong when you say that Chris and Sherlock do different things. Chris and Sherlock are presumably in the business of killing enemies. Their unique skills are merely a means to that end. It reminds me of when people hype up FE7 Canas because he's "unique" in being a Dark magic user, when really he is just another combatant, a means to the end of killing enemies and completing chapters.

No, I think personal skills like in Berwick should return. Skills that give characters unique or semi-unique commands that let them fight in different ways than standard combat, and that force you to use unique strategies for each character in order to use the skills effectively, and in situations where they actually have an impact.

Fast play in recent games brings forth a few additional strategies that a few characters can use effectively, and others can't. And if by "fast" you mean those "efficiency" runs, they limit your options so much that there's no reason to play the game at all. Alternate capabilities and strategies are good when they give you more ways to play through the game, not when the only strategy that matters for any given chapter is the one ridiculously complex method that lets you save one more turn, making all other strategies worthless except when you substitute nearly identical characters to do the same thing.

When Sherlock uses his Rapid-Fire skill, yes, the goal is killing enemies more effectively. On the other hand, when he uses his Shooter skill, his goal is to stop enemies in their tracks, filling a support role instead, as so many other characters can with their skills. But even for characters who don't have much in the way of support skills, like Chris, the common goal of killing enemies does not make them the same. The end is important, but even support strategies are typically for the purpose of making other characters better at killing enemies. It's just how a game like this works. What matters is the means to that end. The means are where the gameplay and strategy come into effect.

Perhaps this is a more illustrative and pertinent example:

Axel - Pirate

Skills: Swim, Search, Robbery, Pulverize, Hide

Sedy - Thief

Skills: Unlock, Provoke, Steal, Evasion, Search, Hide, Critical II

As you can see, Axel is the most thief-like non-thief in Berwick Saga, having their Hide and Search skills, as well as the ability to occasionally take items his own way, randomly from a defeated enemy. He also has terrifying combat effectiveness backed up with Pulverize, allowing him to double his Attack power for one attack before even applying enemy Defense, at the cost of having to remain still that turn and giving up his defenses for that round of combat. Sedy remains useful not because of competing directly with Axel's combat abilities; he can't do much damage at all without a crit, but with even more strongly emphasized utility. He of course has the basic thief abilities, which are particularly important in this game with the lack of keys and his ability to take even heavy unequipped weapons, although there are other limits on doing so. Using knives, he gets an increased chance of inflicting the Injury status, disarming and weakening enemies and making them easier to cripple and capture. Provoke seems like a completely counterproductive skill on a thief, but it's used by command in Berwick Saga, making it effective if used skillfully. It certainly combines well with his Evasion skill, granting him a huge Avoid bonus until he moves, but like Sherlock's Rapid-Fire skill, requires a few turns to recharge (and like even more skills, requires remaining still on activation).

This is the sort of thing that gives thieves their own role and effectiveness, rather than making them be able to do everything every other unit can do but with some bonus commands. But it's not something that can be tacked on, either. Provoke would be superfluous in a game that could easily be won with simple strategies, the Unlock skill wouldn't be so valuable in a game that provided other easy means to get doors open, and even knives help make thieves more distinct because they were specifically built for utility rather than simple combat effectiveness. It takes a lot to make a game work like Berwick Saga does, but it's worth it.

I will happily disagree and say that picking locks and stealing stuff is minor. It's what makes a thief a thief. 15% Strength growth won't change the fact that thieves steal stuff (but it would make stealing heavier weapons easier in Tellius).

As I said, it can be significant at times, but that's only half of the matter.

Distributing roles between classes means giving thieves something meaningful that combat units can't do, and giving combat units something meaningful that thieves can't do.

As I noted above, giving a thief better combat ability just makes it so the only difference between them and other units is that the thief has some additional options. It doesn't give thieves and fighters separate roles; it just gives them one role to share and thieves some other abilities on top of that, making them just better fighters.

And don't bother bringing up other stat advantages fighters will have. Stats are a simple matter. You either have enough to fight in melee or you don't. It's not quite so simple for ranged attackers, since they can fight without being in melee, but thieves don't have range, at least in most games. And if they have good range but can't melee, they're just better archers rather than better fighters.

IS could always do away with Door and Chest Keys making Thieves a somewhat vital unit but if that scenario were to occur the Thieves would have to be pretty good in several aspects so maybe letting them have access to Canto would be good. >_>

Well of course, you have to avoid the scenario of being forced to protect a vital but vulnerable unit. Why, that might even require strategy!

Why is there a need to further diversify roles? There are already enough differences between units in terms of weapon selection, stats and movement, and having Thieves have an additional function on the side already makes them different from regular units in the way you move and position them. I'd say the differences between Sherlock and Chris don't differ much from the differences between normal FE characters, each of them has a semi-unique function depending on their stats and their availability. The choices between characters in FE are meaningful, and you're oversimplifying the distinctiveness of the FE characters.

I'm supporting the goat idea too (who wouldn't? =P), but I think it'd be cool if there weren't Chest Keys at all in the games, and Thieves had a monopoly on chests. It'd make them more useful and not obsoleted by Chest Keys.

Mind elaborating on some meaningful differences between FE characters and how they'd actually change your strategy notably from the one I listed above for Kent/Gerik/Zihark/Aran?

I'm not sure which version of Berwick Saga you've been playing where Sherlock and Chris have any meaningful difference in their stats and availability. Their differences, as I explained, are differences coming from skills granting them entirely new commands. Each of them has at least one command entirely unique to them among all playable characters, and another command requiring careful positioning, therefore being best for characters with the additional mobility of being mounted, and they're each the only mounted playable character with that command.

Almost every playable character is like this, having some unique skill or skill combined with something that gives them a distinct strategic capability other characters lack. Unique commands or near-unique commands with a unique way of using them are the ways characters are distinct from one another, not tiny statistical differences.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Othin

[Anouleth]

Strategy for using Kent in FE7: Send him near enemies and watch him kill them, healing when necessary.

Strategy for using Gerik in FE8: Send him near enemies and watch him kill them, healing when necessary.

Strategy for using Zihark in FE9: Send him near enemies and watch him kill them, healing when necessary.

Strategy for using Aran in FE10: Send him near enemies and watch him kill them, healing when necessary.

Combat strategy is pressing the "Attack" command, which most of the time works out the same as if the enemy attacks you instead anyway. And playing rock-paper-scissors. It's not very interesting, and it's pretty much the same no matter who you use in those games.

But how is that different from earlier Fire Emblems? What I don't understand is the distinction you draw between earlier Fire Emblems and later Fire Emblems.

No, I think personal skills like in Berwick should return. Skills that give characters unique or semi-unique commands that let them fight in different ways than standard combat, and that force you to use unique strategies for each character in order to use the skills effectively, and in situations where they actually have an impact.

Right, so characters should have unique or semi-unique skills. For example, like Kieran's Gamble. Only useful.

Fast play in recent games brings forth a few additional strategies that a few characters can use effectively, and others can't.

Well duh. If characters did the same thing in the same strategies, then there would be no difference between them.

And if by "fast" you mean those "efficiency" runs, they limit your options so much that there's no reason to play the game at all.

Well, you are correct that there is only one fastest way to play the game. I would be quite worried if you reached any other conclusion, since almost by definition there can only be one fastest way to play the game.

Alternate capabilities and strategies are good when they give you more ways to play through the game, not when the only strategy that matters for any given chapter is the one ridiculously complex method that lets you save one more turn, making all other strategies worthless except when you substitute nearly identical characters to do the same thing.

When did I ever say that the only strategy that matters is the fastest? I said that if you play the game more quickly, the differences between units become apparent. That does not mean you need to drag in your personal stereotype of tier list debaters.

When Sherlock uses his Rapid-Fire skill, yes, the goal is killing enemies more effectively. On the other hand, when he uses his Shooter skill, his goal is to stop enemies in their tracks, filling a support role instead, as so many other characters can with their skills. But even for characters who don't have much in the way of support skills, like Chris, the common goal of killing enemies does not make them the same. The end is important, but even support strategies are typically for the purpose of making other characters better at killing enemies. It's just how a game like this works. What matters is the means to that end. The means are where the gameplay and strategy come into effect.

Personally, I find that skills that don't have an impact on movement are just... kind of forgettable. That's why I found FE11 so dull; there were no interesting movement mechanics like Shove, Canto, Rescue, or even Rescue staves. FE4 skills are worse because so many of them are reliant on luck. I don't think this is something that's caused by FE's mechanics; if you look at Advance Wars, movement and range boosting effects are also quite strong and only balanced out by some of the statistical bonuses being completely ridiculous.

Perhaps this is a more illustrative and pertinent example:

Axel - Pirate

Skills: Swim, Search, Robbery, Pulverize, Hide

Sedy - Thief

Skills: Unlock, Provoke, Steal, Evasion, Search, Hide, Critical II

As you can see, Axel is the most thief-like non-thief in Berwick Saga, having their Hide and Search skills, as well as the ability to occasionally take items his own way, randomly from a defeated enemy. He also has terrifying combat effectiveness backed up with Pulverize, allowing him to double his Attack power for one attack before even applying enemy Defense, at the cost of having to remain still that turn and giving up his defenses for that round of combat. Sedy remains useful not because of competing directly with Axel's combat abilities; he can't do much damage at all without a crit, but with even more strongly emphasized utility. He of course has the basic thief abilities, which are particularly important in this game with the lack of keys and his ability to take even heavy unequipped weapons, although there are other limits on doing so. Using knives, he gets an increased chance of inflicting the Injury status, disarming and weakening enemies and making them easier to cripple and capture. Provoke seems like a completely counterproductive skill on a thief, but it's used by command in Berwick Saga, making it effective if used skillfully. It certainly combines well with his Evasion skill, granting him a huge Avoid bonus until he moves, but like Sherlock's Rapid-Fire skill, requires a few turns to recharge (and like even more skills, requires remaining still on activation).

From my perspective, this is just a simple "better combat versus better utility" comparison. The difference, perhaps, between a thief and an Axe Fighter. I don't understand why this is so different to say, Chad versus Astohl or some similar comparison.

This is the sort of thing that gives thieves their own role and effectiveness, rather than making them be able to do everything every other unit can do but with some bonus commands.

Uh, how? From what you've said, this is the list of roles that Sedy can play:

-Chip an enemy and maybe Injure them

-Steal stuff

-Distract enemies with Provoke

From FE6, this is what Chad can do:

-Chip an enemy

-Steal stuff

-Distract enemies (FE6 AI often targets Chad because he has low HP, even when they have a very low chance of hitting him)

-Contribute to EXP rank because of thief EXP bonuses

Obviously, some of this isn't unique and other units can do it (like open chests with Keys), and I think that Chest Keys should probably be removed, as they've done in FE12 (Thief staff still exists though). But from what you've said, I really don't think that Berwick Saga has made thieves significantly more unique than in recent FEs.

[NinjaMonkey]

and I think that Chest Keys should probably be removed, as they've done in FE12

Not according to this page they aren't!

[Dark Sage]

They're only around in the bonus content like the BS FE maps.

[Othin]

Anouleth, you've brought up some good points, and some things I still disagree with. My feelings about my original point are unchanged, but I don't think there's any sense in continuing this. Berwick Saga is too different from the rest of the series for me to explain sufficiently to argue with someone who hasn't played it for us to be really arguing the same matter at all. Bringing it up the way I did here, at least at the present time, was a mistake.

That said, I highly recommend playing it, to anyone, especially after I can get more data compiled and hopefully added to this site.

[Anouleth]

Not according to this page they aren't!

I'm pretty sure that the only Chest Keys are in optional missions. There is a Master Key in Chapter 20, but that's basically when the game is almost over.

[Junkhead]

You're crazy. Thieves are fine as they are. None of this donkey thing.

[Othin]

Thinking about it again, I'd say thieves are fine as long as they have sufficient opportunity to steal something decently worthwhile. Like, a few enemies in every chapter with decent secondary weapons they can steal, although that of course requires the thieves being able to steal weapons. FE games tend to not have many items that are worth getting, yet don't have to be super-rare; more items between the two would be necessary for thieves to make sense in a game where they couldn't steal weapons.

[-Cynthia-]

I do agree that more useful stealable items would make fielding thieves more worthwhile. In many FE games, thieves can just be replaced by Chest Keys or the Thief staff which is somewhat disappointing.

I did like how character skills were personalized in FE9 (and that there were scrolls available if you wanted more skills). It made characters more individualized, though FE9 being so easy made them irrelevant in some cases.

[Chalis]

Knight Ring already exists for your unit fixing pleasure even though you're absolutely putting it on a dancer/Reyson all day erry day. But holy damn goats sound amazing.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Chalis

[RNG Princess]

I don't like the donkey idea ^^' thieves should always be foot units. I think chest keys, torches, and door keys should be extremely rare instead of common. I also think funds should be more dependent on thieves, villages should give less gold and more enemies could carry stealable items like gems causing thieves to do more thieving. Their combat should stay as it is though.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Queen_Kittylincia

[PuffPuff]

I don't like the donkey idea ^^' thieves should always be foot units. I think chest keys, torches, and door keys should be extremely rare instead of common. I also think funds should be more dependent on thieves, villages should give less gold and more enemies could carry stealable items like gems causing thieves to do more thieving. Their combat should stay as it is though.

Why should Chest and Door Keys be rare? Suppose you have no Thieves in your party when you lose them in combat and don't feel like starting over?

[eclipse]

Then it sucks to be you? Part of what makes thieves awesome is the ability to open stuffs for relatively cheap.