Mechanics that you want

[grandjackal]

In other words, under that system, you never have to worry about lasting consequences of your actions, and you never make characters permanently distinct from one another.

It's not like we're giving everyone the same skill at the same time. Besides, units in FE through class, stats, weapon rank, coming promoted or not, and apparently keepable innate skills under Avrillino's idea, how is that not keeping units distinct from one another already? If anything, being able to take someone's innate skills kills distinction even more.

Besides, if we can reassign any skills whenever we want, innate or not, there's no such thing as lasting consequence. Chances are you put the skill on who uses it best, and there is no consequence. Only reward.

[Momo]

If you made it so inate ones couldn't be taken off, you could balance skills around that and still have the option of taking applied ones off. I don't want there to be another FE10 Astrid.

[NinjaMonkey]

In other words, under that system, you never have to worry about lasting consequences of your actions, and you never make characters permanently distinct from one another.

Sounds like a good idea to me!

Also, I'd like to see the return of FE10's support system (with special conversations for specific pairs), BEXP, and a base where you can buy/forge weapons (FE10 style), re-arrange inventories (moving items from one person to another, or moving items to and from the convoy), and assign/remove skills (in other words, I'd like to see the return of the FE10 Skill system).

Edited November 20, 2011 by NinjaMonkey

[dondon151]

In other words, under that system, you never have to worry about lasting consequences of your actions, and you never make characters permanently distinct from one another.

Is that really a bad thing? Whether you can or can't pass a skill like you can a Silver Lance involves 2 different kinds of resource management. I'd think being able to shuffle skills is a much more accessible system to most players because things that you can't undo tend to go unused for them (think of all those players who hoard stat boosters, unique weapons, etc.). I don't personally mind either way.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Is that really a bad thing? Whether you can or can't pass a skill like you can a Silver Lance involves 2 different kinds of resource management. I'd think being able to shuffle skills is a much more accessible system to most players because things that you can't undo tend to go unused for them (think of all those players who hoard stat boosters, unique weapons, etc.). I don't personally mind either way.

I agree. It's not like adding customizable, flexible skillsets somehow makes all characters the same. You still have movement type (and associated weaknesses, like arrows/thunder with fliers), base stats, growths, possibly available supports (at least support type), and availability to work with. Never mind that under the FE10 system, IIRC, the "base" skills a character had were free capacity-wise, meaning that a Cord-archetype fighter who came with Adept might be able to do Adept + Vantage + Resolve + Wrath, whereas his Bord counterpart might not due to capacity limits.

EDIT: Holy crap, I actually agreed with dondon on something. I'll wake up tomorrow to find rapture and peace in the Middle East occurring.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[CrashGordon94]

I have to say, I agree too. I can see that "lasting consequences" would be more strategetic but it would also be offputting to more casual players and I personally think it would be less fun, and that's what games are all about.

[Cysx]

And with x2 strength, using hero weapons would be... Hm? No one is listening? Well, okay then.

I'm not against keeping innate skills locked on their users, but then we need everyone to have at least one innate, and preferably something they can use. Like someone said, cancel on Leonardo was kinda meh, and some characters didn't even have innate skills.

Well in fact, I did like how skills were handled trough FE10 more than in FE9. Even if for the sake of balance, something FE9-like is a better choice, I think giving like a handfull of special scrolls allowing you to take an innate skill from someone, to put onto someone else, once per scroll AND per character, would be pretty neat and avoid actually going backward with the skill system.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Cysx

[Momo]

I definitely think characters should have things that differentiate them. Not doing so goes against the "single unit's worth" theme of the gameplay.

[Refa]

And with x2 strength, using hero weapons would be... Hm? No one is listening? Well, okay then.

You only get one hero weapon of each type in most FE games, and they're overpowered if you attack 4 times or attack twice with double ATK.

[Othin]

Maybe doubling the weapon's Mt would be better than doubling the unit's Str. Less effect to make up for hitting before counters and without burning through weapon uses.

[Anouleth]

And with x2 strength, using hero weapons would be... Hm? No one is listening? Well, okay then.

I'm not against keeping innate skills locked on their users, but then we need everyone to have at least one innate, and preferably something they can use. Like someone said, cancel on Leonardo was kinda meh, and some characters didn't even have innate skills.

Well in fact, I did like how skills were handled trough FE10 more than in FE9. Even if for the sake of balance, something FE9-like is a better choice, I think giving like a handfull of special scrolls allowing you to take an innate skill from someone, to put onto someone else, once per scroll AND per character, would be pretty neat and avoid actually going backward with the skill system.

Not really. I agree that it doesn't really make sense for a character to forget a skill and then a scroll appears in the convoy to give to someone else. Maybe if the game also had a few "Skill Rings": equippable items that would provide a certain skill in the style of FE4. That way, some skills would be transferrable and others wouldn't. In fact, overall, rings are probably a better system than scrolls. They retain the strategic effect of getting to choose who the skill goes on in each chapter, but character who had them "innate" wouldn't have that individuality taken away from them.

[BwdYeti]

Plus you have to give up some of your inventory space with rings so you have a minor penalty for skills and you can't go overboard, and you can trade them between units on the map if you need an ability on a different unit. I definitely prefer rings for skills to scrolls

And yeah double mgt sounds more fair than double str

Edited November 20, 2011 by BwdYeti

[Paperblade]

I have to say, I agree too. I can see that "lasting consequences" would be more strategetic but it would also be offputting to more casual players and I personally think it would be less fun, and that's what games are all about.

Fun is subjective, your definition of fun does not hold for everyone else.

[Anouleth]

Plus you have to give up some of your inventory space with rings so you have a minor penalty for skills and you can't go overboard, and you can trade them between units on the map if you need an ability on a different unit. I definitely prefer rings for skills to scrolls

I would imagine that it would be like FE9/10 where you can only "equip" one secondary item. But that works too I guess.

And yeah double mgt sounds more fair than double str

No, I disagree. "Super Attack" shouldn't be weaker than Double Attack. As dondon suggested, the only time when Super Attack is stronger than Double Attack is when the weapon might is lower than the enemy defense, which isn't "that" common. It's better against armours and Paladins. But I imagine that the stronger, slower classes like Generals and Warriors would get this, and they're supposed to be better against high-defense units anyway. I suppose there's also the advantage of not taking a counterattack inbetween attacks...

Fun is subjective, your definition of fun does not hold for everyone else.

That's why he said "I personally think". He wasn't declaring it to be Gospel straight from the mouth of Odin, God of Wisdom.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Anouleth

[dondon151]

No, I disagree. "Super Attack" shouldn't be weaker than Double Attack. As dondon suggested, the only time when Super Attack is stronger than Double Attack is when the weapon might is lower than the enemy defense, which isn't "that" common. It's better against armours and Paladins. But I imagine that the stronger, slower classes like Generals and Warriors would get this, and they're supposed to be better against high-defense units anyway. I suppose there's also the advantage of not taking a counterattack inbetween attacks...

I think their beef is with how a "super attack" completely destroys anyone when done with a brave weapon. But you are completely spot on with my suggested intention.

If you double MT, a "super attack" could be more powerful if the unit manages to get his hands on a strong weapon like a Silver Lance early on. With an effective weapon, it would be completely bonkers. Anyhow, possible solution is that the "super attack" only gets 2x str on the first attack of a brave weapon round of combat. But whatever the case, now we're getting into specifics; the point was to pose a suggestion that would increase the value of skl as a combat parameter and to aid classes who are traditionally unable to double attack with the current trends in unit design.

[Anouleth]

I think their beef is with how a "super attack" completely destroys anyone when done with a brave weapon. But you are completely spot on with my suggested intention.

Not significantly more than attacking four times normally does. Brave weapons are already the strongest non-legendary weapons in FE. I suppose that Super Attack use half the uses... so maybe it should use up 2 uses per attack?

If you double MT, a "super attack" could be more powerful if the unit manages to get his hands on a strong weapon like a Silver Lance early on. With an effective weapon, it would be completely bonkers.

Um, how so? Say Marcus has a Silver Lance for 30ATK against an enemy with 10DEF. With Super Attack, he deals (16x2)+14-10=36 damage. With Double Attack, he deals (16+14-10)x2=40 damage. And enemies that have as much as 10 defense in earlygame aren't common. I suppose that OHKOing is stronger than ORKOing, but I mentioned the advantage of not taking a counter.

Anyhow, possible solution is that the "super attack" only gets 2x str on the first attack of a brave weapon round of combat. But whatever the case, now we're getting into specifics; the point was to pose a suggestion that would increase the value of skl as a combat parameter and to aid classes who are traditionally unable to double attack with the current trends in unit design.

It achieves that, but I don't think it would be broken, especially if enemies could also use it. Now you would have to worry about being Double Attacked by the fast enemies and Super Attacked by the skilled enemies (and since player character defense/resistance is very often higher than weapon might, it would deal more damage as well).

[Paperblade]

That's why he said "I personally think". He wasn't declaring it to be Gospel straight from the mouth of Odin, God of Wisdom.

I have a trigger response to the "fun" argument.

[dondon151]

Um, how so? Say Marcus has a Silver Lance for 30ATK against an enemy with 10DEF. With Super Attack, he deals (16x2)+14-10=36 damage. With Double Attack, he deals (16+14-10)x2=40 damage. And enemies that have as much as 10 defense in earlygame aren't common. I suppose that OHKOing is stronger than ORKOing, but I mentioned the advantage of not taking a counter.

That's not what I meant. I was saying that if you had a unit with 10 str and a Silver Axe (15 MT), doubling the MT has the opposite effect of increasing damage compared to if you doubled str.

It achieves that, but I don't think it would be broken, especially if enemies could also use it. Now you would have to worry about being Double Attacked by the fast enemies and Super Attacked by the skilled enemies (and since player character defense/resistance is very often higher than weapon might, it would deal more damage as well).

Neither do I. Brave weapons are an edge case and they're just not very balanced in general regardless.

[Cysx]

You only get one hero weapon of each type in most FE games, and they're overpowered if you attack 4 times or attack twice with double ATK.

Well, hero weapons are imbalanced anyway, I can't argue that. But they have rather low might, so they rely on the user's strength(or battle skills) quite a lot more than any other good weapon. Basically, you'd be attacking twice before the ennemy can do anything at double strength, which means if your unit as enough strength, you could kill about anyone if you attack first, without ever getting hit. And I don't even want to imagine putting vantage in the mix... This is quite a lot better than hitting four times for lower overall damage(most of the time) and taking a counter. That would effectively make it into the absolute best 1-range weapon, while before it was not.

the point was to pose a suggestion that would increase the value of skl as a combat parameter and to aid classes who are traditionally unable to double attack with the current trends in unit design.

Okay, sorry for bringing that up again. Just seemed that everyone thought it was perfectly balanced, which I believe is wrong. Not really asking anyone to balance it, just pointing out the problems.

Not really. I agree that it doesn't really make sense for a character to forget a skill and then a scroll appears in the convoy to give to someone else. Maybe if the game also had a few "Skill Rings": equippable items that would provide a certain skill in the style of FE4. That way, some skills would be transferrable and others wouldn't. In fact, overall, rings are probably a better system than scrolls. They retain the strategic effect of getting to choose who the skill goes on in each chapter, but character who had them "innate" wouldn't have that individuality taken away from them.

Well, rings would be cool too. I merely mentionned having a very small and restrictive way of taking one's innate, because otherwise you're basically losing those of every character you're not using.

...But I guess that would completely destroy the possibility of giving a mediocre unit a good innate skill to balance it... You'd just take his/her innate as soon as you can and ditch him/her.

Probably would be fine with balanced and appropriate innate skills for everyone, plus rings, then.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Cysx

[BwdYeti]

That's not what I meant. I was saying that if you had a unit with 10 str and a Silver Axe (15 MT), doubling the MT has the opposite effect of increasing damage compared to if you doubled str.

This seems fairly uncommon though. Most units are going to have, at worst, barely lower Str than Silver weapon mgt by the time they hit A rank and find a Silver weapon, and even more so for the classes with low enough speed that they would rather have 'super attacks' instead (Fighters, Armors, etc), and then their Str will still have room to go up even more after that

Oh, something no one has mentioned regarding it, one of the important things about the double attack system is that heavier weapons can reduce your speed enough that you lose it, but there's no analog for Skl loss

Since we're talking about them, Brave weapons especially fall into this, with their heavier than Steel weight, so the classes that are fast enough to double things usually have low enough Con (and sometimes Str) that they can't just 4x attack everything. But a theoretical super attack guy wouldn't have the same problem?

[Snowy_One]

Does that really matter though? I mean, you basically have three different possible setups.

A guy has enough SPD to double with the brave weapon: Uses it for the X4 attack.

A guy has enough speed to double, but not enough to use the Brave weapon: Either uses a normal weapon or a brave when he wouldn't double anyways.

A guy doesn't have the speed to double regardless of weapon choice: Uses the brave for a X2 attack.

[BwdYeti]

Well it means a unit only ever needs 4 more Skl for the super attack, but for double attacks a unit can need much more Spd depending on weapon choice. A Myrm with a Brave Sword would have trouble doubling an Armor if they need 9 more Spd, for example, but it's always 4 Skl for the super attack. And, as mentioned above, given how powerful a Brave super attack would be...

Edited November 21, 2011 by BwdYeti

[Snowy_One]

Is weapon weight really that big a issue though? Unless a weapon is super-heavy, any half-decent melee fighter will likely have the STR to wield it without AS loss. The only ones who might miss-out are thieves (who may or may not be using knives), Swordmasters (who have a lot of speed to spare), and maybe a pegasus knight or paladin if they aren't STR focused. All those units usually have SPD to spare and the ones who will have speed low enough to potentially not double if they get AS loss, but not so low as to remove the prospect of doubling from the table are units with (usually) high STR like warriors and mercs. The only unit type I can actually see the AS loss being a issue for is the archer (which I admit I'm not terribly familiar with), which has too many downsides already.

[Thor Odinson]

It depends. AS loss wouldn't be nearly as significant using the Tellius or 11 standards (or hell, nonexistent in 12), but if we go back to con-based deduction, then certain units can lose up to a lot with how heavy braves are. I remember how capped-speed Miledy failed to quad her fellow dragonlords in FE6HM, and Silver Lance did more damage since she doubles normally but Brave weighs her down more. Not like she isn't one of the best units in the game already, anyway, but just an example.

It makes an issue if there isn't something to keep Skill in the a similar kind of check. What is there a limiter to it, if speed gets it and skill doesn't?

[Snowy_One]

If we go by Tellius/FE11 standards, there will be no limiter, kind of how like in Tellius there were only a few weapons where AS loss was really a issue (though they were better about it in 10). Most high-SKL units usually don't have high STR anyways, so it's not like there isn't one in place already.