thanibomb Posted October 22, 2011 Author Share Posted October 22, 2011 It's more likely just a trend of tradition. Intelligent Systems has liked to keep central thematic points, so as to keep the same Fire Emblem feel--and then diverge from these traditional roles into the new stories. A couple games don't follow the tradition out-right, but a majority do. It's not just Lords and swords--it's the overall atmosphere of each game which is repeated. The main characters in most pre-modern age RPGs use swords, so its not just FE. I guess its because swords (and spears) are the most "heroic" and "noble" weapon class(es) so its the most fitting for a lord. Hitting enemies from afar like a coward with bows and magic just isn't lord-like, and using axes stereotypically makes you look brutish. I mean, I don't mind not having a bow using lord as long as there are other bow users to choose from, but it'd be nice for IS to stray away from tradition a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rothene Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Hitting at range cowardly now? Calls armored knights cowards for hiding behind thick armour, obviously afraid of pain, while myrmidons bravely/foolishly charge into battle in far less protection. It takes courage to wade into battle with no armour at all. **Ends trolling** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uguu Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Yes so it is still just like FE and TRS. TRS was basically FE under a different name. And just because you are required to use Hector or Ephraim doesn't stop you from picking other axe and spear users respectively. Yes, swords are usually the most popular weapon class, but there's nothing stopping you from having two bow users or two mages on a team. Yes, and? Most people are more likely to use other sword users with a sword lord than a user of a different weapon with a lord of the same weapon, unless that unit has some kind of gimmick (ex: dragon rider). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirron Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I used Laura/Rhys with Micaiah, so that isn't applicable to everyone. Best example, since they're pretty much identical. Anyways, I like the idea of picking the weapon type for the Lord. Maybe change it to one of four options (Axe/Sword/Spear, Bow, Trinity of Magic, and Staves) and picking out of those groups changes some things (also gives replays more importance). Just smaller differences, nothing too major, but it'd be a bit odd if, say, this was done in FE7 and Hector mentioned training alongside Eliwood in the same kind of things when Eliwood was using a Staff that playthrough. Alternatively, two Lords is the best way to pull it off, and probably the most likely way they'll do things. One with swords, the other with something else. I'd like to see more non-sword options myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mai Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 I used Laura/Rhys with Micaiah, so that isn't applicable to everyone. Best example, since they're pretty much identical. Not really; neither Rhys nor Laura have Thani. Besides, Laura's healing is far better than Micaiah's (at least before part 3), and Rhys isn't even in the same team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacLovin Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 What about a female berserker lord (gets clobbered) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolganone Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Its because bows suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Yes, and? Most people are more likely to use other sword users with a sword lord than a user of a different weapon with a lord of the same weapon, unless that unit has some kind of gimmick (ex: dragon rider). That seems like a pretty broad assertion to make. Plenty of people seem to use Gilliam and Amelia in FE8, and Bartre and Dorcas have serious issues that would explain why they don't seem to be heavily used in FE7. Based on the available evidence, you can't really say for sure whether your hypothesis is correct or not, but I'd lean towards it not being true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ercdouken Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 There will be an archer lord in Fire Emblem 69 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureCam Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I've been using an archer lord in the hack I'm making, and it's turning out pretty well. The problem all lies in the range thing - but it becomes a purely skill-based problem at that point, at any rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirron Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Really, all you need to do for another weapon is flood the game with enemies weak to it. So just a lot more fliers early on. Could be that's the issue, usually tricky to take out flying units without Archers. But don't really see any overall issues with an Archer Lord that couldn't be fixed with some differences in unit layout and things like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 You can also offset the range by, if wanted to remain exclusive to the weapon type, giving the Lord a series of personal crossbows. Therein allowing shorter, direct-range combat. You'd just have to balance the availability if you'd rather the players not revert to playing as if he wasn't a bow-lord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Or just a normal 1-2 range Bow, we could use one of thsoe for ordinary Archers anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) Or you could, again, make range 2 combat important and not totally dominated by thrown weapons and magic. I think FE12 did well with this, actually, with enemies that can pose a real threat in melee on the harder difficulties and making thrown weapons less effective so archers aren't instantly outclassed by them. Edited November 5, 2011 by Othin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Or you could do both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethereal Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Or you could, again, make range 2 combat important and not totally dominated by thrown weapons and magic. I think FE12 did well with this, actually, with enemies that can pose a real threat in melee on the harder difficulties and making thrown weapons less effective so archers aren't instantly outclassed by them. Magic users don't dominate, because of their crappy durability against ranged physical weapons, which are generally more abundant. I agree that javelins and hand axes being so dominant is dumb, however. Or you could do both. That really takes away the unique quality of the bow using classes. I'm also not particularly interested in units that can break the game in half, thanks. =/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Archers with 1-2 range wouldn't necessarily be any more broken than any other physical unit with 1-2 range. But honestly, just about any durable unit with effective and easily available 1-2 range could probably be considered broken anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethereal Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Archers with 1-2 range wouldn't necessarily be any more broken than any other physical unit with 1-2 range. But honestly, just about any durable unit with effective and easily available 1-2 range could probably be considered broken anyway. Yeah, they kinda are. And if the bow did any kind of significant damage (read: More than iron) it would probably be more "broken" than hand axes or javelin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) It takes both availability and battle stats, really. FE10's Double Bow has 1-2 range, but it wasn't broken because it was a one-of-a-kind item, and only available at the end of the game for that matter. Meanwhile, it also had Crossbows, which were common enough later in the game, but at the times they were available, they didn't have the power to stand out. Archers would be more broken with a 1-2 range weapon both as common as Hand Axes and Javelins and more effective in battle, but I don't think anyone's really advocating it, and I certainly wouldn't expect to see one in an actual FE game. (At least, with the classic FE range system, as opposed to the Berwick Saga system where bows do have range 1-2 but still don't work in melee because it's relegated to range 0. But that's not too relevant... or is it?) Edited November 5, 2011 by Othin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 (At least, with the classic FE range system, as opposed to the Berwick Saga system where bows do have range 1-2 but still don't work in melee because it's relegated to range 0. But that's not too relevant... or is it?) Isn't that just kinda sorta the equivalent of having 2-3 range in Fire Emblem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Isn't that just kinda sorta the equivalent of having 2-3 range in Fire Emblem? Pretty much. Distances tend to be shorter in Berwick Saga in general because the same distance covers a much wider area on a hex grid than on a square grid. 2-3 range can reach 20 squares, but 30 hexes, while 1-2 range covers 12 squares, but 18 hexes. So it's mostly compensating for that. There are a few other implications. In particular, bow units can attack enemies while adjacent, and if they're attacked by an adjacent enemy with magic or a crossbow, it's still counted as a ranged attack and they can potentially counter. Actually, probably the biggest implication is that while melee weapon types have ways to fight indirectly at range 1, that's the farthest they can reach; you need bows or certain magic in order to attack at range 2 at all. And exclusive access to range 2 is much more significant than exclusive access to range 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BwdYeti Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Isn't that just kinda sorta the equivalent of having 2-3 range in Fire Emblem? Which doesn't seem like a terrible possibility for improving bows, having 2-3 for all of them. They'd actually have something over throw weapons/magic that way, but still have the lack of 1 range as a weakness. And then if Crossbows were added they could be 1-2 range like thrown weapons, letting bowmen counter up close but making them weak to other bow users Although 2-4 Longbows don't sound as useful if their main advantage is just outshooting other bow users... maybe 2-5 or 3-5 or something, and go all in on the range? Sounds better than 3-10 range tomes at least :R Edited November 7, 2011 by BwdYeti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cysx Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Giving to the player the ability to hit from 3 range at the very beginning of the game would be a bit broken imo. Think about all these bosses with 1-2 range weapons that could feed your archers with exp simply using an iron bow. Personally, I found archers pretty useful in FE10, and I always ended up having one with me endgame because of their particular range and insane damage. Ledges, shoving and +1 range upon promotion did the trick for me(but the general weakness of sages could have been a factor too). So I guess an archer lord with an 1-2 range personnal weapon(crossbow or not) and +1 range upon promotion could be perfectly usable, and very interesting at that. Apart from that, I'd really like to see a female wind sage lord, or a female thief lord(with daggers and not swords of course. No need for another sword user lord). Edited November 7, 2011 by Cysx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashGordon94 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Giving to the player the ability to hit from 3 range at the very beginning of the game would be a bit broken imo. Think about all these bosses with 1-2 range weapons that could feed your archers with exp simply using an iron bow. Which would be pretty cool, really. Archers should be really good for once... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaMonkey Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) Maybe change it to one of four options (Axe/Sword/Spear, Bow, Trinity of Magic, and Staves) and picking out of those groups changes some things (also gives replays more importance). What, no Dark Magic option? Surely having a Lord who uses only initially uses staves would suck big time, right? Archers should be really good for once... You seem to forget that FE10!Shinon exists... Edited November 8, 2011 by NinjaMonkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.