Its too bad there's still no archer lord

[CrashGordon94]

What, no Dark Magic option? Surely having a Lord who uses only initially uses staves would suck big time, right?

You seem to forget that FE10!Shinon exists...

Yeah, but some people might enjoy it.

No, because a few exceptions don't break a rule.

[Ether]

The problem with archers in general is that they simply don't have enough offensive prowess to make up for their lack of 1 range. Even if hand axes and javelins weren't an issue, an archer would still be inferior to a foot unit such as a fighter or a mercenary with even offensive prowess. Archers in general are a mediocre class due to this, while a good chunk of prepromote Snipers manage to avoid this fate due to highly notable offensive abilities, and in Shinon's case, the ability to absorb hits if absolutely necessary(though certainly not recommended)

Archers would be improved simply by being notable offensive units to make up for the class' shortcomings. The problem is, most 'archers' are forced into the position of growth units, and thus flounder. Archers need higher bases so they can contribute to their role, which should be an accurate, powerful, player-phase unit.

[Anouleth]

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.

Boss abuse is already pretty easy in Fire Emblem, I'm not worried about making it easier.

Two solutions:

-Give bosses their own bows and make them able to counterattack with whatever weapon they want

-Create an enemy 1-3 range Spear, Axe, or tome, much how in FE6, Spears and Tomahawks were enemy only to give them more potent 1-2 range combat

[Othin]

There is merit in rare 1-3 range tomes (as seen in TRS and in 1-2 range spells in Berwick Saga), but thrown spears and axes capable of going that far would just be ridiculous. It could be explained by some sort of magic effect on them, but that just seems unnecessary; better to keep that range away from melee weapons under all conditions.

I'm more inclined to agree with your first point. Anytime a player wants to boss abuse in an FE game or otherwise cheaply kill a boss, they'll find a way. Remember the guy who broke all his enemies' weapons?

[Aethereal]

Which would be pretty cool, really. Archers should be really good for once...

Being able to kill bosses without any risk of death at all, completely discarding the use of any strategy whatsoever, in a strategy game, would be pretty cool? How?

There is merit in rare 1-3 range tomes (as seen in TRS and in 1-2 range spells in Berwick Saga), but thrown spears and axes capable of going that far would just be ridiculous. It could be explained by some sort of magic effect on them, but that just seems unnecessary; better to keep that range away from melee weapons under all conditions.

I'm more inclined to agree with your first point. Anytime a player wants to boss abuse in an FE game or otherwise cheaply kill a boss, they'll find a way. Remember the guy who broke all his enemies' weapons?

Why would enemy only weapons to make bosses more versatile, and less easily trivialized be ridiculous or unnecessary? I'm not being sarcastic or anything, just asking. Bosses with only melee range capabilities are generally jokes, or at the least worse and less versatile than bosses without. I, personally, think bosses should not be so easily trivialized as "use an archer".

[Anouleth]

There is merit in rare 1-3 range tomes (as seen in TRS and in 1-2 range spells in Berwick Saga), but thrown spears and axes capable of going that far would just be ridiculous. It could be explained by some sort of magic effect on them, but that just seems unnecessary; better to keep that range away from melee weapons under all conditions.

You're kind of right. And I suppose that putting Bows on all bosses necessitates them being in Bow-using or Magic-using classes. Not such a bad thing if you have lots of FE4/5/11/12 style Generals or Barons, but it limits the variety of bosses.

That being said, I would prefer to have every Throne or Gate or Fort camping boss be some sort of armour, or general. It doesn't really make sense to have Paladins or Dracoknights sit in one spot instead of taking advantage of their movement. I wouldn't even mind if the boss was a generic, like in FE12 Ch20 where the boss is a generic General with souped-up stats and the "real" bosses are the Wolfguard.

[CrashGordon94]

Well, other unmounted units could make sense there too but I can see Armors/Generals being the most common.

[Cysx]

You're kind of right. And I suppose that putting Bows on all bosses necessitates them being in Bow-using or Magic-using classes. Not such a bad thing if you have lots of FE4/5/11/12 style Generals or Barons, but it limits the variety of bosses.

Yes, pretty much. Moreover, that would allow the player to force them into using a bow once, then go rapefest the next turn with melee characters(and magic with 1-2-3 range seems obviously overpowered). Using that strategy to clear every boss in the game doesn't seem enjoyable at all to me. At the very least, even bosses with, let's say, a silver lance and a javelin could still punish melee with the javelin, and forcing the silver lance could be pretty dangerous. And then, relying on the very same class everytime to clear bosses safely doesn't strike me as overly interesting either.

That being said, I would prefer to have every Throne or Gate or Fort camping boss be some sort of armour, or general. It doesn't really make sense to have Paladins or Dracoknights sit in one spot instead of taking advantage of their movement. I wouldn't even mind if the boss was a generic, like in FE12 Ch20 where the boss is a generic General with souped-up stats and the "real" bosses are the Wolfguard.

Well, while I DO find that a throne guarded by a paladin is a bit strange, you can't discard every other class in the game, as some of them make very good bosses, even if they wear very little armor(swordmasters and sages come to my mind). Plus, a dracoknight leader taking the sky to fight would put himself at risk of being shot down by archers. So seeing him staying in the safest spot doesn't seem illogical to me. And after all, leaders mustn't die. Wether they wear a big armor or not doesn't change that fact.

Back to the subject, I agree that archers are a pretty bad class in most FE games, but I don't think that the solution is to change them so they become game breaking and potentially your best units(ennemy archers gets killed by your melee units, everything else can be killed by your archers without any risk of punishment)

Seriously, being the only unit with an accurate and strong 3 range upon promotion already seems like an extremely good reason to train them to me. Maybe with a slightly higher strength base too, but nothing more really.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Cysx

[Byte2222]

You know, looking at this topic and thinking about what I know about FE I'm really starting to think that range is the least of the Archer class' problems. Being specialised to 2 range is what makes the class unique, its problem is that outside the realm of prepromotes the playable Archers have stats so poor that they'd be completely redundant if they had 1 range like the rest of the cast. In most cases this is due to these units being growth-focused; when we look at the exceptions (Jamuka and FE10 Shinon spring to mind) who are neither prepromoted or growth-focused they're regarded as fairly good units (even if we disregard Shinon's crossbows he's still good by most metrics I can think of).

Another example is FE2: Archers have 1-3 range (potentially extendable to 1-5) and if you promote Robin to an Archer it merely makes him suck a bit less because he can avoid counters; Leo and Python (and Alm on promotion), however, are easily the most godly units in the game because 1-3/1-5 range amplifies their already good abilities. FE's problem with Archers is primarily a problem of stats and performance, range merely affects what they can do with it.

[Anouleth]

Yes, pretty much. Moreover, that would allow the player to force them into using a bow once, then go rapefest the next turn with melee characters(and magic with 1-2-3 range seems obviously overpowered).

I imagine that such magic would be enemy-only, much as how Spears in FE6 were limited to enemy bosses only.

Using that strategy to clear every boss in the game doesn't seem enjoyable at all to me.

It seems to me to be a point that me and Othin already covered. If you really really want to, any boss can be trivialised, given infinite time and freedom to set up.

At the very least, even bosses with, let's say, a silver lance and a javelin could still punish melee with the javelin, and forcing the silver lance could be pretty dangerous. And then, relying on the very same class everytime to clear bosses safely doesn't strike me as overly interesting either.

Except that Javelins have in recent times been pathetically weak (as they should be). Either 2 range is common and powerful and bosses are a threat at range, but your own units can trivialise enemies at range as well, or 2 range is weak and bosses are forced to resort to Bows.

Well, while I DO find that a throne guarded by a paladin is a bit strange, you can't discard every other class in the game, as some of them make very good bosses, even if they wear very little armor(swordmasters and sages come to my mind). Plus, a dracoknight leader taking the sky to fight would put himself at risk of being shot down by archers.

Uh, how does that risk not exist if he's sitting on a throne? If a Dracoknight was trying not to get shot down, then it seems to me that there's very little he can do about it and that sitting in the same spot actually makes matters worse. Compare FE6 Freyr who can easily be trivialised thanks to sitting in one spot to FE5 Marlock who will attack you and then Canto back to safety on a Peak where you can't shoot him. Marlock is far, far more threatening because he's mobile. And the same applies for basically every flying boss in the game. Ashnard is way scarier when he's making use of his full ridiculous 10 move than when he just sits there. Catalena is a joke because she doesn't move. And wouldn't Valter be actually kind of dangerous if he moved, as well? How about if Sigune moved?

So seeing him staying in the safest spot doesn't seem illogical to me. And after all, leaders mustn't die. Wether they wear a big armor or not doesn't change that fact.

If leaders staying alive is of such vital importance, then surely they should all be Generals?

Why is it so crazy that some leaders will mix things up and actually take the fight to the enemy? And this seems to me that it would fix completely the issue of using the same strategy to trivialise every single boss. You'd actually have to use different strategies for different bosses.

[dondon151]

Uh, how does that risk not exist if he's sitting on a throne? If a Dracoknight was trying not to get shot down, then it seems to me that there's very little he can do about it and that sitting in the same spot actually makes matters worse. Compare FE6 Freyr who can easily be trivialised thanks to sitting in one spot to FE5 Marlock who will attack you and then Canto back to safety on a Peak where you can't shoot him. Marlock is far, far more threatening because he's mobile. And the same applies for basically every flying boss in the game. Ashnard is way scarier when he's making use of his full ridiculous 10 move than when he just sits there. Catalena is a joke because she doesn't move. And wouldn't Valter be actually kind of dangerous if he moved, as well? How about if Sigune moved?

Catalena actually does move if you engage her in a round of combat and don't kill her before her next turn.

Easy solution to the bow weak problem is to give them Delphi Shield equivalents. You can also make them unstealable like in FE10 to get around thief shenanigans that will obviously be abused if given the opportunity.

And yeah, I totally agree that Freyr is a hilarious boss. Klein doesn't even give him a chance.

[Cysx]

It seems to me to be a point that me and Othin already covered. If you really really want to, any boss can be trivialised, given infinite time and freedom to set up.

You misunderstood. I know that most immobile bosses can be killed extremely easily. My point is that I don't see how making it even easier would do any good. And like I've already said, it would make it reliant on archers only, and clearly lead you into doing it, wether your lord is an archer or not.

Except that Javelins have in recent times been pathetically weak (as they should be).

"Recent times" are remakes. We don't know for sure how IS will handle things for FE13, but I somewhat doubt they'll put as many difficulties or reclassing. I see FE11 and 12 as outsiders; time may prove me wrong though.

Uh, how does that risk not exist if he's sitting on a throne? If a Dracoknight was trying not to get shot down, then it seems to me that there's very little he can do about it and that sitting in the same spot actually makes matters worse.

You can't deny that thrones have always been considered as the safest place to be in any Fire Emblem map where there is one. In reality, the safest place to be would be far from the battlefield, but that's irrelevant here. And in these same games, it has often been implied that dracoknights, just like pegasus, feared arrows. Finally of course, they are staying on the throne for you not to take it, or because they've been given the order to do so.

If a Dracoknight was trying not to get shot down, then it seems to me that there's very little he can do about it and that sitting in the same spot actually makes matters worse. Compare FE6 Freyr who can easily be trivialised thanks to sitting in one spot to FE5 Marlock who will attack you and then Canto back to safety on a Peak where you can't shoot him. Marlock is far, far more threatening because he's mobile. And the same applies for basically every flying boss in the game. Ashnard is way scarier when he's making use of his full ridiculous 10 move than when he just sits there. Catalena is a joke because she doesn't move. And wouldn't Valter be actually kind of dangerous if he moved, as well? How about if Sigune moved?

I'm like about anyone, I like challenging bosses. Of course moving bosses are better. But like I said, some are under orders not to move, and this is Fire Emblem logic we're talking about. Apart from that, you speak about dracoknight bosses canto-ing outside of your reach. How far would they need to canto if you had a longbow archer with 4-5 range with you?

If leaders staying alive is of such vital importance, then surely they should all be Generals?

Not everyone can fight properly while wearing such a huge armor. Not every soldier that became leader trained to be able to do that. Not every noble kid that became leader trained to be able to do that. Some are physically frail but highly intelligent, so they master magic. Some are mercenaries who always fought riding a pegasus. Some live in a country were this style of fighting isn't taught. Or whatever.

Oh, and game variety.

Why is it so crazy that some leaders will mix things up and actually take the fight to the enemy? And this seems to me that it would fix completely the issue of using the same strategy to trivialise every single boss. You'd actually have to use different strategies for different bosses.

Actually, I totally agree about that.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Cysx

[Paperblade]

I want to see more bosses move, and maybe buff their HP just enough that I can't threaten to 1-2RKO them with guys that outrange them.

Immobile ones just aren't threatening because they're either still easy or tedious because lolololgate

[Renall]

Rather than crossbows, you could give Archers (or an Archer Lord) Daggers as a melee option. Thieves being the only people to use them in FE9/10 made them kind of pointless as they basically only applied to one whole class (particularly when Mages lost them in 10, not that they could've made any use of them to begin with).

Many archers have decent STR, just play off that a little bit and they could at least do something at 1 range. Then give the lord a personal bow and a personal dagger, boom. Give the bow uses and make the dagger indestructible, just to troll (and encourage Hypothetical Bow Lord's Treasured Mom's Dagger Only gimmick runs).

[Cysx]

Sounds like a pretty good idea. Maybe keep 1-2 range daggers rogue only though.

But other than that, I conccur.

[Renall]

Sounds like a pretty good idea. Maybe keep 1-2 range daggers rogue only though.

But other than that, I conccur.

At 2-range, I'd think any Archer would rather have the power of a Bow than a diddly throwing dagger.

Unless your point is "yeah but then it's 1~2 Range which is the problem as it means they're not choosing," then I suppose so, although it'd hardly be the end of the world for a class that has historically been constantly range-screwed on Enemy Phase to suddenly have mediocre counterattack potential. Plus you might tone down the accuracy on all 1~2 weapons anyway; Rogues will be fine because of their extremely high SKL, Bows can have much higher base Hit, and now going 1~2 Range as an Archer means giving yourself the ability to hit back at 1 Range in exchange for flushing your 2 Range down the can. If I were really that concerned about 1 Range attackers, I'd probably choose to use a 1 Range dagger anyway.

[Mirron]

Think the main issue is that most Archers just lack... well, the power or speed to really make them as good as they could be, and suffer from the counterattack issue. Only other ranged guys attack Resistance, which is normally lower, and don't have the counterattack issue. So just chiming in that I don't think Bows themselves are the issue, more how they're designed currently.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Mirron

[Vorena]

Bows are still the issue. Only attacking at 2 range limits the effectiveness of the character due to losing out on enemy phase attacks from most units. If anything, the better way to balance it would be to give them a mount to help out with low turn counts or simply getting to areas faster. Better stats is another viable option to make the unit still valuable; just seeing less combat per turn. Or better stats over all I suppose.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Eryth

[Mirron]

I don't know, it just needs to be viable to actually attack once and not counterattack. The issue is it isn't viable right now, you aren't as strong as the characters who can attack and get countered. Doesn't help that they're likely to get attacked on their turn if they don't finish off the enemy, so the advantage of not being hit is kind of moot.

[General Banzai]

Range for archers should be a stat, which they can level up (it'd be a low growth of course). The cap would be at 10 range.

This only works in a purely hypothetical FE where every enemy moves and the maps are like FE4's.

[Cysx]

Unless your point is "yeah but then it's 1~2 Range which is the problem as it means they're not choosing

That, and balancing of thieves. Only giving them stealing to compensate for their low strength and durability made them pretty mediocre units in most FE games(didn't check any tier list actually, that's mostly how I felt it was). So very fast and cheap access to 1-2 range through knives is a nice buff to their usefulness. But, giving these to archers too would probably do more bad than good, since they don't really NEED it anyway, as you said.

And make S rank knives as thieves only, I guess. Seems fair to me.

Range for archers should be a stat, which they can level up (it'd be a low growth of course). The cap would be at 10 range.

Seems like a pretty good way to completely break the game tbh, since we'll probably get battle saves on normal mode for every FE game to come.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Cysx

[Othin]

Seems like a pretty good way to completely break the game tbh, since we'll probably get battle saves on normal mode for every FE game to come.

And we won't have any of the other changes anyone wants, either. No reason to constrain ourselves to some aspects of reality and not others.

[Cysx]

And we won't have any of the other changes anyone wants, either. No reason to constrain ourselves to some aspects of reality and not others.

True, but discussing the viability of such improbable changes is part of the fun, right?

Or is it not?

[Othin]

True, but discussing the viability of such improbable changes is part of the fun, right?

Or is it not?

Discussing the viability within a reasonably malleable setting is fun. Discussing it in one where everything else is set in stone is incredibly boring.

[Cysx]

Discussing the viability within a reasonably malleable setting is fun. Discussing it in one where everything else is set in stone is incredibly boring.

A "discussion with a reasonably malleable setting" is not the kind of thing I'm expecting to find out there. And even then, seeing how people tend to get into arguments when they're talking about things utterly unimportant, I can only guess where malleability would lead(not particularly reffering to SF).

So yes, I'm quite fine with the latter, personally.