Mechanics that you want

[Othin]

I was referring to effects. Kngt and bottlegnomes were both speaking from the perspective that these skills would not be promotion-specific and evaluating the effects, so clearly that's not what they meant. As for being permanently locked to the character, I think we all know well enough to regard that as a given for skills that are intended to matter.

There are many things a combat skill can do; FE4/5/9/10 barely scratched the surface of the possibilities between the four of them. Certainly, they were worlds away from any limit other than IS's imagination. There is so much more that combat skills can do without being dictated by randomness, and there are so many more relevant possibilities for non-combat skills.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Othin

[Shin]

Looking at Berwick Saga's skill list, there are actually quite a few ideas which could work quite nicely.

Say for argument's sake, we give archers knives. The "Versatile" skill swaps a unit's weapon to one to they can counterattack with. Suddenly, archers aren't doomed EP. Sure, they're not going to amazing, but it's better than just getting hit. Or the "Aim" skill, which lets them increase their accuracy in exchange for moving that turn, "Hunter" lets a unit ignore enemy forest avoid bonuses. Any of these could be class skills, or even personal.

Of course, these alone wouldn't offset bad bases but passive skills, in combination with chance based ones can give units their own niche. Sick of enemies hiding in forests? Why not let Hunter Boris sort them out? Annoying dodgeboss on a throne? Our Sniper Rodriguez might cause him some trouble.

One thing I've always wondered, why isn't there an Armourslaying Bow? It's a silly concept, but what makes Horseslayer so dangerous to horses ^^?

[Celice]

The horseslayer is a weapon in which the horse impales themselves. It's meant to be laid out and held as the horse drives itself to its death. They're a real weapon, and are quite large.

For a bow to have the same qualities against armor, it'd have to be like a ballista, to situate enough force to crumple the armor.

[Anouleth]

The horseslayer is a weapon in which the horse impales themselves. It's meant to be laid out and held as the horse drives itself to its death. They're a real weapon, and are quite large.

Actually, a horseslayer looks more like a cavalry lance (it has a vamplate), which were specifically meant to be used by mounted fighters. What you describe is more like a pike, which looks almost nothing like the horseslayers we see in Fire Emblem and are used by footsoldiers in formation rather than mounted knights.

[Snowy_One]

Actually, a crossbow would probably work as a armor-slayer on the whole, at least looking at history.

I never figured that one out actually. Crossbows take longer to reload than normal bows, so why can they counter at 1-range (when the archer would probably be screaming and ducking while trying to crank the bowstring back), while normal bows (which take only a second or so to reload, draw, and fire) can't? Seems backwards to me.

[bottlegnomes]

Actually, a horseslayer looks more like a cavalry lance (it has a vamplate), which were specifically meant to be used by mounted fighters. What you describe is more like a pike, which looks almost nothing like the horseslayers we see in Fire Emblem and are used by footsoldiers in formation rather than mounted knights.

That's one thing I never got about the design. They do look more like a "knight lance" than anything else, but their function makes them more similar to what Celice described. I don't know, just a little thing that never made sense to me.

Actually, a crossbow would probably work as a armor-slayer on the whole, at least looking at history.

I never figured that one out actually. Crossbows take longer to reload than normal bows, so why can they counter at 1-range (when the archer would probably be screaming and ducking while trying to crank the bowstring back), while normal bows (which take only a second or so to reload, draw, and fire) can't? Seems backwards to me.

Because reality!=gameplay. Mostly they wanted to give archers a weapon that let them counter close attacks and they were like what would fit with archers that we don't have? Crossbows. Even more problematic with that though, is in history crossbows were made for common people so they could use some sort of projectile weapon but didn't need the massive training bows took. If anything, going from history, everyone except archers should be able to use crossbows. But meh, gameplay==relaity < gameplay==fun.

Edited February 2, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[Anouleth]

That's one thing I never got about the design. They do look more like a "knight lance" than anything else, but their function makes them more similar to what Celice described. I don't know, just a little thing that never made sense to me.

I guess it's supposed to like, knock the other knight off like in a joust.

[Ether]

Actually, a crossbow would probably work as a armor-slayer on the whole, at least looking at history.

I never figured that one out actually. Crossbows take longer to reload than normal bows, so why can they counter at 1-range (when the archer would probably be screaming and ducking while trying to crank the bowstring back), while normal bows (which take only a second or so to reload, draw, and fire) can't? Seems backwards to me.

The main idea behind it is that you could have a shot loaded, and not lose it when you dodged, or got hit. They shouldn't be able to double at any range, for certain, but to use them in close range isn't farfetched if they are already loaded with a bolt.

[Titamon]

iirc the Radiant Dawn used stones as Crossbow ammo

[bottlegnomes]

I guess it's supposed to like, knock the other knight off like in a joust.

Makes as much sense as anything else in these games.

iirc the Radiant Dawn used stones as Crossbow ammo

Pretty much unrelated, but how about slings as weapons?

[Refa]

Lame. I don't want to see baby weapons in Fire Emblem.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Refa

[VincentASM]

One thing I've always wondered, why isn't there an Armourslaying Bow? It's a silly concept, but what makes Horseslayer so dangerous to horses ^^?

There's the Cleave Bow in FE12 that does exactly what you want, but it's not incredibly useful since it's a randomly obtained item (albeit one of the more common ones).

[bottlegnomes]

Lame. I don't want to see baby weapons in Fire Emblem.

Sling, not sling shot. You know, the thing that killed Goliath in David and Goliath and was actually a remarkably useful hunting weapon? Learn your weapons.

[Refa]

Sling, not sling shot. You know, the thing that killed Goliath in David and Goliath and was actually a remarkably useful hunting weapon? Learn your weapons.

I know, I still don't want to see it. It doesn't add anything to the game besides look, new weapon. It's not even a very cool looking weapon.

[bottlegnomes]

I know, I still don't want to see it. It doesn't add anything to the game besides look, new weapon. It's not even a very cool looking weapon.

How do you know it wouldn't add anything? It could function differently than bows and other ranged tomes.

[Byte2222]

If anyone cares I can bring some realism to this archery talk:

The horseslayer is a weapon in which the horse impales themselves. It's meant to be laid out and held as the horse drives itself to its death. They're a real weapon, and are quite large.

For a bow to have the same qualities against armor, it'd have to be like a ballista, to situate enough force to crumple the armor.

The main reason longbows and crossbows were so popular historically was because they were powerful enough to shoot straight through plate armour. My bow (admittedly a modern recurve) shoots at a speed in the range of 100 feet per second and it only has a 33lb draw weight; the bows recovered from the Mary Rose had draw weights in the region of 120lbs so, even though they're less efficient and would have only managed 3 shots a minute since fatigue hurts, they would shoot with more than enough power to pierce armour. Medieval archers trained literally their entire lives so they would have enough strength to shoot through armour. Maybe an anti-armour bow would feature barbed arrows to force the broken armour into the wound or snare the arrowhead.

Actually, a crossbow would probably work as a armor-slayer on the whole, at least looking at history.

I never figured that one out actually. Crossbows take longer to reload than normal bows, so why can they counter at 1-range (when the archer would probably be screaming and ducking while trying to crank the bowstring back), while normal bows (which take only a second or so to reload, draw, and fire) can't? Seems backwards to me.

The main reason bows are useless in melee is because they take so long to shoot. With all my modern gizmos on my bow (like a clicker) it takes me about 10 seconds between grabbing an arrow in the quiver and it being fired, admittedly this would be faster with a bare bow but only in the range of 4 seconds 'cos you still need to set the arrow on the string and actually aim. Also, assuming you're using a crossbow of a practical power that could be drawn by hand, the crossbow takes about the same time to draw, load and shoot as a normal bow so neither would work as a 1-range weapon.

tl,dr: bows can penetrate armour and take too long to shoot in melee combat, with crossbows being no better or worse.

[Rewjeo]

I thought the crossbow was overall less effective a weapon (my understanding is that it's slower and has a worse range, which I would guess would also translate into less power, but I'm certainly no expert) but required almost no training when compared with a regular bow. It doesn't change the fact that bows were very powerful.

It would be nice if archers in FE represented that. What if bows had some sort of DEF-penetrating ability or something? Obviously it would need to be balanced some way, but what do people think of that? I would be happy enough to see more FE10 Shinon-esque archers, but if they're going to give us a growth archer, giving them an ability like that could be nice.

[bottlegnomes]

The main reason longbows and crossbows were so popular historically was because they were powerful enough to shoot straight through plate armour. My bow (admittedly a modern recurve) shoots at a speed in the range of 100 feet per second and it only has a 33lb draw weight; the bows recovered from the Mary Rose had draw weights in the region of 120lbs so, even though they're less efficient and would have only managed 3 shots a minute since fatigue hurts, they would shoot with more than enough power to pierce armour. Medieval archers trained literally their entire lives so they would have enough strength to shoot through armour. Maybe an anti-armour bow would feature barbed arrows to force the broken armour into the wound or snare the arrowhead.

Didn't they find ones that were up to 150 lb draw?

The main reason bows are useless in melee is because they take so long to shoot. With all my modern gizmos on my bow (like a clicker) it takes me about 10 seconds between grabbing an arrow in the quiver and it being fired, admittedly this would be faster with a bare bow but only in the range of 4 seconds 'cos you still need to set the arrow on the string and actually aim. Also, assuming you're using a crossbow of a practical power that could be drawn by hand, the crossbow takes about the same time to draw, load and shoot as a normal bow so neither would work as a 1-range weapon.

tl,dr: bows can penetrate armour and take too long to shoot in melee combat, with crossbows being no better or worse.

From my experience, with a very basic bow (as in one that has trouble hitting at 20 yards just aiming straight), it takes me about 3-4 seconds to draw from a quiver standing on the ground and take a shot that can reliably hit a target well at 10 yards, a not unreasonable distance for 1 range combat. My guess is someone more experienced would be able to do it faster and more accurately. That's probably doable in melee combat, granted you couldn't aim much. Then again those bows were sadly week, like 15 lb pull, so using a stronger bow would probably take longer.

How about giving snipers, and only snipers because of the amount of skill required, a skill that lets them fight at 1 range but with reduced accuracy, because of less time to aim. Also, how about a skill that lets archers attack multiple times with reduced accuracy, like in BS, sort of. It'd be like firing two arrows at ones, but you could choose how many and each additional one would reduce accuracy further. Like 1 = normal hit, 2 = -20 hit, 3 = -45 hit? It could be broken or useless very easily, but it could help their player phase offense without needing to give them really good stats.

I thought the crossbow was overall less effective a weapon (my understanding is that it's slower and has a worse range, which I would guess would also translate into less power, but I'm certainly no expert) but required almost no training when compared with a regular bow. It doesn't change the fact that bows were very powerful.

It would be nice if archers in FE represented that. What if bows had some sort of DEF-penetrating ability or something? Obviously it would need to be balanced some way, but what do people think of that? I would be happy enough to see more FE10 Shinon-esque archers, but if they're going to give us a growth archer, giving them an ability like that could be nice.

Same to the first part. IIRC it was also less powerful, because anyone had to be able to use it. That said, they were stupidly useful IRL and even got banned by the Catholic Church because they were making war too "cruel."

The armor piercing ability would be cool.

Also, one thing to help weaken mounted units could be the horse getting fatigued/scared from taking damage. If a rider takes too much damage, the horse could become difficult to control and cause some sort of negative effect on the unit overall. Not sure how you'd balance that, though.

Edited February 4, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[Byte2222]

Crossbows and longbows (warbows) have similar power but a crossbow could use a cocking aid (a crank or something) and the string is latched on, whereas a longbow needs to be drawn and held on the fingers. As a result crossbows are really easy to shoot and longbow takes a lifetime's training: there's an old expression, "to make a good longbowman, start with his grandfather".

I believe (and have said a few times) that I think the problem with archers in FE is the units themselves being rubbish (at least at base) and that future archers should be more like Jamuka and FE10!Shinon who are usable from the word 'go' and actually good compared to the rest of the cast; everything else comes down to balancing weapon types (I'd probably add a point of might to bows, nerf javelins/hand axes a little and reduce focus on enemy phase (I hear FE12 is good at the last two) but you lot know far more about this than me). But anyway, I'm getting off topic, my point was that if archers were just made a bit better they wouldn't need a 'penetrate armour' ability, not least because lances and axes will penetrate/break armour too (can't comment on swords).

Edit: 3-4 seconds is how long I'd expect a barebow shooter to take if they shot quickly, even if they were an expert. Now imagine you have an elite swordmaster, a veteran soldier or a crazed berserker about to try and kill you; 3 seconds is far too long to take to attack. Maybe an expert at surviving in close combat could last long enough to find an opening to draw and fire (almost blindly) in but they'd be the exception since an archer would probably be killed/injured before they can make a shot. Don't forget that this is what 1-range normally means: within the reach of a sword/lance/axe/knife.

Also: yes, I think the bows from the Mary Rose did go up to 150lbs but I was taking a lower estimate since it was more practical (and still ruddy huge!)

Edited February 4, 2012 by Byte2222

[bottlegnomes]

I was kind of going off the appearance in FE9 and 10 for distances. Those look to be about 10-15 yards. So figure 2 seconds to draw as the person is running, because running in armor is hard. That should give you enough time to nock the arrow. Then you'll probably get a chance to get one shot off, though you will definitely get hit (why in real life bows were useless at one range, since one hit will kill you), but definitely not two.

About swords. They couldn't penetrate armor, though I don't think lances or axes could break chainmail, not sure about plate armor, but they could break the bones under the armor, and cause abrasions, something lances, and I think, axes couldn't boast.

EDIT: How about an absurdly long morning star (think Onix from Oracle of Seasons or the ball and chain from Twilight Princess) as a ranged armor piercing weapon. It'd be ridiculous, but wouldn't it be awesome to see Nolan using a morning star where the ball is almost as big as he is?

Edited February 4, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[Paperblade]

It would be nice if archers in FE represented that. What if bows had some sort of DEF-penetrating ability or something? Obviously it would need to be balanced some way, but what do people think of that? I would be happy enough to see more FE10 Shinon-esque archers, but if they're going to give us a growth archer, giving them an ability like that could be nice.

You mean increase their might?

[Anouleth]

Also, one thing to help weaken mounted units could be the horse getting fatigued/scared from taking damage. If a rider takes too much damage, the horse could become difficult to control and cause some sort of negative effect on the unit overall. Not sure how you'd balance that, though.

That sounds needlessly complex when balancing mounted units is actually very, very, very easy.

[Griffen78]

I say give the higher up bows some defense bonuses to help survivability.

[bottlegnomes]

That sounds needlessly complex when balancing mounted units is actually very, very, very easy.

People were bitching about just giving mounts significantly lower stats. *shrug* But yeah, it'd be ridiculously hard to balance.

I say give the higher up bows some defense bonuses to help survivability.

That wouldn't really help anything. Archers that come at a high enough level to use those bows are usually fairly decent units, ie not terrible (Jamka, Briggid, Faval, Igrene, Klein, Innes, and Shinon). The problem is archers who start out at a low level and rely on growths to get usable. They wouldn't be able to use those bows, unless you want something like Wil coming with an A in bows, which would be somewhat interesting. But even then, that still wouldn't fix their biggest problem, bad offensive abilities.

Edited February 4, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[CrashGordon94]

Dismounting apparently worked well and it made sense, though I wouldn't want the universal dismounted Swordlock to appear again...