Rate this idea: str and con dictate a unit's inventory size

[Progenitus]

Let me explain.

With this idea, your str + con will be how many "inventory" squares a unit will have. Then a weapon's wt is how many squares it takes up, and AS loss from weapons can just be removed.

e.g. 10 str + 10 con means you have 20 squares. If an iron sword has 5 wt, it takes 5 squares, so you have 15 left to work with.

So if you have 20 squares and you try to pick up a weapon that has 21 wt, you won't even be able to fit it at all.

The way I see it, this is better than the current way IS handles inventories, both balance-wise and intuition (if that's the right word to use).

1) Why would something like a vulnerary take up the same space in a unit's inventory as something heavy like ragnell or a steel axe?

2) How can a unit carry something that has more wt than his/her str and not suffer any penalties unless he/she is wielding it?

3) I've always complained about speed being an overpowered stat. This will indirectly nerf high spd units, because those units tend to have low str and con. High spd/low str units also tend to rely on weapon selection the most, be it having a killer weapon, slaying weapons, etc., so they can use the appropriate weapon for the situation, and because they can double attack they're better with those weapons than those that can't double. For example when I play Fe10, it's not uncommon for my Zihark or Mia to have every single slot be some kind of weapon (a normal generic weapon, a forge, a 1-2 range weapon, a good 1-2 range weapon, a killer weapon, and so on), while units like Gatrie or Haar have like 3 weapons and a vulnerary, if even that. Now if the unit has high str and spd, I'm assuming that unit is a glass cannon and should be balanced in other areas (and if they're not, well that's IS' fault for making a broken character, like Ike).

EDIT: keep in mind that the exact formula can always be tweaked for balance's sake. For example, it could be, say, (str/2 + con) or (str + con*2). And the weapon wt can be tweaked too. But I'm looking for feedback on the concept.

Edited November 19, 2011 by smash fanatic

[eclipse]

The magic weapons would need an overhaul, or Dark mages would be forever stuck with Flux. This will hurt growth units, as they'll be stuck with lighter weapons only (whereas something like a Hammer seems really heavy).

[dondon151]

It certainly makes sense, but I don't think it's a good idea to introduce mechanics that would widen the gap between growth and bases units.

[Progenitus]

If you're talking about the GBA FEs, then the magic users would need a str stat in the first place, so it's hard to say.

As for FE9 and 10, the magic tome weights can be decreased slightly (aside from the siege tomes which would need a huge wt decrease to actually fit into an inventory), but it's not really a huge overhaul.

As for hurting growth units, I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that. Assuming the game has any sort of balance, the game shouldn't throw jeigans/high base units at you in waves like it does in FE10 in the first place.

It certainly makes sense, but I don't think it's a good idea to introduce mechanics that would widen the gap between growth and bases units.

1) FE games shouldn't be introducing jeigan units. Paperblade and I have talked about FE balance, and we both agree that jeigans are really bad if you want FE balance, as they are either nearly useless (like jeigan himself) or are utterly broken (see FE7-10).

2) If you want unit with good bases and are worried about inventory size, that unit can have good bases in other stats, like skl or res (assuming again that the game is balanced and skl/lck/res are actually useful stats).

Edited November 19, 2011 by smash fanatic

[dondon151]

1) FE games shouldn't be introducing jeigan units. Paperblade and I have talked about FE balance, and we both agree that jeigans are really bad if you want FE balance, as they are either nearly useless (like jeigan himself) or are utterly broken (see FE7-10).

I don't really even mean units in the Jagen archetype. Compare like, Hardin vs. Matthis in FE11 or something. Hardin has so many advantages already and you're just adding another one to the mix.

(By the way I don't agree that Jagen is nearly useless; given how poor enemies in FE1 were I'd wager that he'd be at least moderately good).

2) If you want unit with good bases and are worried about inventory size, that unit can have good bases in other stats, like skl or res (assuming again that the game is balanced and skl/lck/res are actually useful stats).

That's quite a tall assumption. If those 3 stats in question are worthless, then that unit would no longer have good bases. So what you're basically suggesting is that in order to circumvent one balance problem introduced by your idea, you have to completely remove a design option from the game; that is, you can't give units high base str because it would create a balance problem.

Lastly, there is also the FE9-11 weapon WT problem, which is that str increases linearly over the course of the game but weapon WT generally doesn't. If you make weapon WT scale linearly with a weapon's corresponding rank, then you'll need to have an alternate AS system. And that throws another wrench into balance: the ability to wield stronger weapons now depends, for a large part, on str.

Edited November 19, 2011 by dondon151

[Baldrick]

It seems like a good idea, but perhaps not make it impossible to carry any items beyond a unit's str and con, but rather split inventory into "on-hand" and "pack" categories.

"On-hand" items can be used immediately, but if the sum of their weight goes over str + con, you lose AS and avoid. "Pack" items can not be used, and do not affect you (e.g. having a Delphi Shield in your pack does not protect you from arrows), and to transfer them to "on-hand" (i.e. unpack them) you must surrender your turn (so you can pick up another weapon in order to defend yourself, but you can't attack immediately with it.

The idea would need an overhaul of item weight, but that usually happens from game to game, so it's not a big deal.

[whase]

seems weird that higher str and con gives units a bigger bag, or more hands or something.

I do think thieves should carry a bag, which would appear in its inventory. the bag can hold another 10 items,

but to switch items from bag to inventory or vice versa takes a turn. kind of like a little convoy.

you could do total strength + constitution - total inventory weight = attack speed. since it's kinda weird how not all weapons count for AS, it's not like they drop them on the floor for battle...

[Progenitus]

I don't really even mean units in the Jagen archetype. Compare like, Hardin vs. Matthis in FE11 or something. Hardin has so many advantages already and you're just adding another one to the mix.

Not sure what else to say other than the fact that Matthis is just a really poorly balanced character.

AFAIK IS has never actually made good growth characters other than in FE9 where you have BEXP to bring up low level units, and even then the low-level units aren't significantly better compared to their competition (save for a few exceptions like Astrid, which is due almost entirely because of the horse and not because her actual stats are good). But FE6-8 and 10 growth characters don't actually grow to be significantly better than their competition even at equal levels (if they are even better, which is kinda sad). The idea of growth characters isn't inherently wrong, but they need to be actually worth it, and IS has not done that.

(By the way I don't agree that Jagen is nearly useless; given how poor enemies in FE1 were I'd wager that he'd be at least moderately good).

I suppose "nearly useless" was a hyperbole, but you can't deny that Jagen is a very narrow unit. He's used for a few maps and then dropped (or turned into a healbot, which is about the same thing). I don't really like that kind of design.

That's quite a tall assumption. If those 3 stats in question are worthless, then that unit would no longer have good bases. So what you're basically suggesting is that in order to circumvent one balance problem introduced by your idea, you have to completely remove a design option from the game; that is, you can't give units high base str because it would create a balance problem.

I said IF it would be a problem. But the stats can be tweaked such that str can increase damage and inventory size, but still be fairly balanced relative to the other stats (for example, if skl gave more hit per point, or if maps had more enemy mages and thus res became more useful, or enemies had more crit and thus lck's criteva became more useful, etc. Again these are mere ideas; the point I'm trying to make is that the "useless stats" FE currently has can be buffed so that str, even with affecting inventory size, does not become speed 2.0).

If you leave the battle system just as it is except changing the whole inventory/weapon weight formulas, then there might be a problem. But FE's current mechanics are kinda poorly balanced. If I could change the mechanics, I believe this inventory idea is a step in the right direction.

Lastly, there is also the FE9-11 weapon WT problem, which is that str increases linearly over the course of the game but weapon WT generally doesn't. If you make weapon WT scale linearly with a weapon's corresponding rank, then you'll need to have an alternate AS system. And that throws another wrench into balance: the ability to wield stronger weapons now depends, for a large part, on str.

Not quite. Maybe weapon wt has to be reduced slightly, but ideally, with my proposal, a low str unit such as Mia can still use something heavy like a steel blade. She just can't have steel blade AND wind edge AND several other weapons.

It seems like a good idea, but perhaps not make it impossible to carry any items beyond a unit's str and con, but rather split inventory into "on-hand" and "pack" categories.

"On-hand" items can be used immediately, but if the sum of their weight goes over str + con, you lose AS and avoid. "Pack" items can not be used, and do not affect you (e.g. having a Delphi Shield in your pack does not protect you from arrows), and to transfer them to "on-hand" (i.e. unpack them) you must surrender your turn (so you can pick up another weapon in order to defend yourself, but you can't attack immediately with it.

The idea would need an overhaul of item weight, but that usually happens from game to game, so it's not a big deal.

This idea isn't really any different than what FE currently has other than having to equip items (like said delphi shield in your example)...

seems weird that higher str and con gives units a bigger bag, or more hands or something.

The idea is that units that are physically stronger can carry more items. It isn't so much "how much space or how big this person's bag is", it's more "how strong is this person to carry these given items".

I do think thieves should carry a bag, which would appear in its inventory. the bag can hold another 10 items,

but to switch items from bag to inventory or vice versa takes a turn. kind of like a little convoy.

This is actually an interesting idea.

you could do total strength + constitution - total inventory weight = attack speed. since it's kinda weird how not all weapons count for AS, it's not like they drop them on the floor for battle...

The proposal I made is something very similar. Except your str + con dictate what you can actually carry in your total inventory weight, which cannot exceed your str+con.

Edited November 19, 2011 by smash fanatic

[Baldrick]

This idea isn't really any different than what FE currently has other than having to equip items (like said delphi shield in your example)...

The unlimited inventory is still in play, the difference is that the unit is not carrying it (it's in their pack). The logical question, who's carrying their pack, is where my idea stops making sense... However, the items they are carrying (that are "on-hand") weigh them down, whether they are equipped or not. It's designed to solve problem 2.

[Thor Odinson]

I feel that it makes sense logically, but the higher-str/con units already have some advantages (barring those with so much con they can't be rescued) already that I feel the lower-str/con units are just gonna get shafted more. So I'd rather have the inventory be constant.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Luminescent Blade

[Zkirsche]

Lastly, there is also the FE9-11 weapon WT problem, which is that str increases linearly over the course of the game but weapon WT generally doesn't. If you make weapon WT scale linearly with a weapon's corresponding rank, then you'll need to have an alternate AS system. And that throws another wrench into balance: the ability to wield stronger weapons now depends, for a large part, on str.

Which, in a way, would help balance these games. Going strictly from an FE10 viewpoint, units like Boyd and Aran would become much more viable with this sort of effect on. Even characters like Brom would suddenly find use. This is simply because doubling in this game is a much fought after ability, but now units like Mia would become more balanced as she can't just carry around both a steel blade/forged steel sword and a tempest blade.

Although movement type affects a characters abilities more in those games anyway.

[Original Alear]

2) How can a unit carry something that has more wt than his/her str and not suffer any penalties unless he/she is wielding it?

Pfft realism. How can a person shoot out fire from a book? But I don't necessarily dislike this concept.

1) Why would something like a vulnerary take up the same space in a unit's inventory as something heavy like ragnell or a steel axe?

And on the subject, while I understand how a 1 use vulnerary could take up as much space as a three use vulnerary, why can't two one use vulneraries be combined into a two use vulnerary?

1) FE games shouldn't be introducing jeigan units. Paperblade and I have talked about FE balance, and we both agree that jeigans are really bad if you want FE balance, as they are either nearly useless (like jeigan himself) or are utterly broken (see FE7-10).

Unless you are going to argue that Othin isn't a Jeigan, he's a good balance. Definitely someone you rely on at first, but gets surpassed by some of your other units eventually due to holy weapons, skills, and better stats.

seems weird that higher str and con gives units a bigger bag, or more hands or something.

Right...you'd think it would be better, if realism is better, to have an AS system that accounts for all items held, or something like that. Oh wait you just said that. I guess I could get behind that notion.

or enemies had more crit and thus lck's criteva became more useful, etc.

This is just me, but I don't like getting critted by enemy units with moderate to high attack power. In fact, I dislike it so much I'd give up my units' power to critical to get rid of the enemy's power to critical assuming enemies were actually given crit. This is because FE is about keeping my units alive. I guess it would make high defense units even more useful.

[Progenitus]

I feel that it makes sense logically, but the higher-str/con units already have some advantages (barring those with so much con they can't be rescued) already that I feel the lower-str/con units are just gonna get shafted more. So I'd rather have the inventory be constant.

Again, the other stats can be tweaked such that str doesn't become speed 2.0. Again, if all the stats, point for point, did roughly equivalent (but different) things, then it wouldn't matter if str did damage+inventory size, as the other stats point for point would do something just as important.

Unless you are going to argue that Othin isn't a Jeigan, he's a good balance. Definitely someone you rely on at first, but gets surpassed by some of your other units eventually due to holy weapons, skills, and better stats.

I haven't played FE5, but I thought the general consensus was that Othin was still overpowered. The FE5 tier list in fact has Othin at the top spot for combat units (I'm guessing FE5 warp is OP or something?)

This is just me, but I don't like getting critted by enemy units with moderate to high attack power. In fact, I dislike it so much I'd give up my units' power to critical to get rid of the enemy's power to critical assuming enemies were actually given crit. This is because FE is about keeping my units alive. I guess it would make high defense units even more useful.

I have toyed with the idea of having crit rates be overall higher, but reduce crit damage to x2 instead of x3.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

I have toyed with the idea of having crit rates be overall higher, but reduce crit damage to x2 instead of x3.

I have been advocating this for forever.

Also, for LUK to have some other effect (weaker bonus to crit chance than SKL, maybe), simply because it's probably one of the weakest stats (only decent when coupled with high SPD to push AVO into the range of absurd or maybe in FE6's stupidly high crit bonuses for SMs/berserkers).

[dondon151]

Not sure what else to say other than the fact that Matthis is just a really poorly balanced character.

See, this is why I don't like to participate in balancing discussion.

You make an assumption that the game possesses this mechanic and is otherwise balanced (both in terms of mechanics and in terms of character design), then you use that to defend any possible imbalances that your mechanic may introduce.

Does anyone see a problem here?

You can make absolutely zero changes to the current FE game mechanics and just alter the character design to achieve intended balance. That doesn't mean that you can handwave any issues that one might identify with your idea, because clearly this sort of balance has not ever been (and will probably never be) satisfactorily implemented in any previous FE game. When discussion over your proposed idea (which, in my opinion, is a perfectly passable idea) is centered on ways that the mechanic may disturb balance of the game in ways not intended, you can't just counter with "oh, if everything else is balanced, then this will have no problems." If everything else is balanced, we wouldn't need any novel ideas in the first place.

I have toyed with the idea of having crit rates be overall higher, but reduce crit damage to x2 instead of x3.

This may sound like a tempting idea, but it's really easy to implement this poorly. Depending on how much higher you make crit rates, you may increase damage variance more than you decrease it. Particularly if player units are now consistently facing crit rates, it's so much more likely to get spontaneously killed.

Edited November 20, 2011 by dondon151

[Original Alear]

I haven't played FE5, but I thought the general consensus was that Othin was still overpowered. The FE5 tier list in fact has Othin at the top spot for combat units (I'm guessing FE5 warp is OP or something?)

Oops. Why did I say Othin. I meant Oifaye, from FE4. He might be highly ranked too, but I suspect he isn't gonna be listed as overpowered. Othin is not a Jeigan.

[Anouleth]

Strength doesn't need to be made more important. Moreover, the game shouldn't be trying to prevent units from carrying lots of different items for different situations. I think that adds more to the strategy of the game than making the player choose which items to give to which units.

[Progenitus]

See, this is why I don't like to participate in balancing discussion.

You make an assumption that the game possesses this mechanic and is otherwise balanced (both in terms of mechanics and in terms of character design), then you use that to defend any possible imbalances that your mechanic may introduce.

Does anyone see a problem here?

You can make absolutely zero changes to the current FE game mechanics and just alter the character design to achieve intended balance

Current FE mechanics are badly flawed for someone trying to achieve character balance anyway.

Making 0 changes to the current mechanics while trying to balance characters will result in everyone having extremely similar stat spreads because there are really only 3 important stats in FE (str/spd/def, with spd typically being the most important), with mobility and availability being important non-stat factors, and everything else is either situationally useful (HP, weapon levels, affinity, etc) or almost completely useless (mag on physical units, etc). You can achieve balance like that, but then every unit becomes essentially the same and the game would become boring.

I want to achieve a certain level of character balance (obviously making everyone exactly equal is not only impossible, but may also make the game boring), but also make the characters different enough from each other.

And I'm sitting here trying to think of units this change could possibly break, assuming the other FE mechanics remain the same (other than maybe reducing weapon wt to something more appropriate). Haar? Gatrie? Titania? High str/low spd units are the units who actually don't rely on having a huge weapon selection; they're typically fine with a normal weapon, a 1-2 range weapon (possibly forged), and maaaaybe a brave weapon/hammer. The way I see it, it's not really a buff to str, but a nerf to spd, since units with good spd typically have low str (unless you're just broken like Ike). either way even if this makes str become speed 2.0, at least we will have two overpowered stats rather than 1 overpowered stat (str+spd vs just spd), whcih still makes things a little more interesting if you want variance in character balance.

That doesn't mean that you can handwave any issues that one might identify with your idea, because clearly this sort of balance has not ever been (and will probably never be) satisfactorily implemented in any previous FE game. When discussion over your proposed idea (which, in my opinion, is a perfectly passable idea) is centered on ways that the mechanic may disturb balance of the game in ways not intended, you can't just counter with "oh, if everything else is balanced, then this will have no problems." If everything else is balanced, we wouldn't need any novel ideas in the first place.

Then what changes would you make to it so it becomes better?

This may sound like a tempting idea, but it's really easy to implement this poorly. Depending on how much higher you make crit rates, you may increase damage variance more than you decrease it. Particularly if player units are now consistently facing crit rates, it's so much more likely to get spontaneously killed.

I personally want to make it so that crit rates are something the player can actually rely on. Granted, the changes I would make to crits extend to more than just "make crit rates higher" and that's not the topic to discuss that, but it's either make the changes, or have crit rates/skill (stat used to add crit) and luck (stat used to negate crit), all (nearly) useless parameters.

Strength doesn't need to be made more important. Moreover, the game shouldn't be trying to prevent units from carrying lots of different items for different situations. I think that adds more to the strategy of the game than making the player choose which items to give to which units.

Which currently consists of "use units with huge spd/bases and load them up with all your godly weapons ever".

How does "stacking your team with the best weapons available" add more strategy to the game than the player actually having to plan out how to distribute his weapons?

[NinjaMonkey]

I have to say that I think that this idea is an even worse one than FE5's fatigue system... And that was a terrible idea, as far as I am concerned (and I'm glad they haven't brought it back)!

because there are really only 3 important stats in FE (str/spd/def, with spd typically being the most important)

I'm sure mages would prefer mag over str, somehow...

Edited November 21, 2011 by NinjaMonkey

[Anouleth]

Which currently consists of "use units with huge spd/bases and load them up with all your godly weapons ever".

Yes, because the fundamental imbalances in FE10 derive from being able to give your units four different kinds of weapon, not from the fact that forged Hand Axes are the best choice 99% of the time. The solution is obviously to make Edward incapable of picking up the Steel Sword in Chapter 1-1.

In addition, the fact that Fire Emblem is currently unbalanced is not a good reason to make changes that would make it more unbalanced by making life harder for units that already have a lot of trouble (low base strength units).

How does "stacking your team with the best weapons available" add more strategy to the game than the player actually having to plan out how to distribute his weapons?

Simple. If a character carries many weapons, then they have to choose between what weapon to use in each battle. They might choose to favour 1-2 range, or cost, or pure attack, or accuracy, or go for the chance of a critical, or use an effective weapon, or use a Brave weapon to avoid a counter-attack, or maybe you want to conserve Brave weapon uses, or maybe you want to work on your Lance rank. A player can do all those things if the situation calls for it. What you are suggesting is to limit his options, because if he were allowed to pick which weapon to use based on the situation, he would make the game too easy. Well, a player should be allowed to be right.

I mean, why is the player having to pick the best weapon for each situation so bad? You make it sound like a terrible thing because the player can pick correctly. Well, that's strategy. The player shouldn't be prohibited from using strategy because you feel that it makes the game too easy.

[Thor Odinson]

I'm sure mages would prefer mag over str, somehow...

Str is still fairly important to them, though, when str determines AS loss instead of constitution.

See, with speed, once you have enough of it over a certain point, it suddenly matters a lot less, and more speed over that point is only really important if you're an avoid unit like Swordmasters. More str is better on a consistent basis for everyone, so it really doesn't need to be more overpowered. Hell, in Tellius, strength DETERMINES a part of your speed.

[Progenitus]

Yes, because the fundamental imbalances in FE10 derive from being able to give your units four different kinds of weapon, not from the fact that forged Hand Axes are the best choice 99% of the time.

It's just one of the many imbalances that exists, and it's not just in FE10. Never did I say it was THE fundamental imbalance, or even close to it.

The solution is obviously to make Edward incapable of picking up the Steel Sword in Chapter 1-1.

Pretty sure I said earlier that weapon wts can be tweaked with if things like this end up happening.

Plus Edward is a bad example because his bases kinda suck, and as we all know about FE, bases are pretty important. A better example would be "Zihark and Mia are now incapable of using every single weapon they want".

In addition, the fact that Fire Emblem is currently unbalanced is not a good reason to make changes that would make it more unbalanced by making life harder for units that already have a lot of trouble (low base strength units).

If the game is actually balanced, then these low str base units will make up for it in other areas, like more spd or def (or skl/lck/res if the game is better balanced and those stats aren't complete jokes).

Now does str need a buff? It depends. If you wnat to make it as good as spd, then it does. If the plan is to instead nerf speed, then maybe not. Personally I would buff non-spd stats so that we don't get a game like FEDS in our hands where roughly half the stats are worthless and HP is only useful in the sense that your team is typically dying in 2-3 hits so every HP counts.

Again, I'm looking for feedback on the concept and the intuition part, not so much the balance. Again, the inventory space can ALWAYS be altered to make it less (or more) str reliant, and the formula can always be more generous if you're that worried about units not having enough inventory. But the main idea is that 7 vulneraries should not take up the same space as 7 axes.

I have no idea why everyone is reacting as if this would completely break str. All this really does is make the low str/high spd units be unable to use every weapon they want and thus make up for their low str, which happens pretty damn often (and this doesn't just apply to Mia, it applies to every game). THAT is bad balancing. Not slightly tweaking inventory size so units can't be using 7 different weapons (4 weapons + 4 items for FE9, 5 for GBA FEs if you want to be technical about it).

Simple. If a character carries many weapons, then they have to choose between what weapon to use in each battle. They might choose to favour 1-2 range, or cost, or pure attack, or accuracy, or go for the chance of a critical, or use an effective weapon, or use a Brave weapon to avoid a counter-attack, or maybe you want to conserve Brave weapon uses, or maybe you want to work on your Lance rank. A player can do all those things if the situation calls for it. What you are suggesting is to limit his options, because if he were allowed to pick which weapon to use based on the situation, he would make the game too easy. Well, a player should be allowed to be right.

The problem is that units should NOT be able to do anything in any given situation. That's what people call "broken". My idea isn't going to make units only be able to carry 1-2 weapons, if that's what you're thinking, but instead they can only use, say, a 1-range weapon + 1-2 range weapon + armorslayer, instead of 1-range weapon + 1-2 range weapon + forged versions of both + armorslayer + brave weapon + killer weapon.

I mean, why is the player having to pick the best weapon for each situation so bad? You make it sound like a terrible thing because the player can pick correctly. Well, that's strategy. The player shouldn't be prohibited from using strategy because you feel that it makes the game too easy.

My idea will force the player to make his decisions before the map starts. He'll have to know (or at least have a general idea) what his units will be doing to complete the map, what enemies they will probably face along the way, and what weapons to load them with because of that. You tell me if that takes more strategy than a player just loading whatever he wants onto his team.

See, with speed, once you have enough of it over a certain point, it suddenly matters a lot less, and more speed over that point is only really important if you're an avoid unit like Swordmasters. More str is better on a consistent basis for everyone, so it really doesn't need to be more overpowered. Hell, in Tellius, strength DETERMINES a part of your speed.

Not necessarily.

More str would be pointless if everyone OHKO'd. Hell, if you can 2HKO and double, you've already reached a pretty high threshold for str, and having more str has signficant diminishing returns just like having enough speed to double.

Str is an important stat, but it isn't really overpowered moreso than stats like skl and lck being underpowered. But that isn't the topic to discuss that.

Edited November 21, 2011 by smash fanatic

[dondon151]

Plus Edward is a bad example because his bases kinda suck, and as we all know about FE, bases are pretty important. A better example would be "Zihark and Mia are now incapable of using every single weapon they want".

Zihark isn't really even that good, and they're not hampered more than any other unit by the loss of ability to carry more weapons.

Again, I'm looking for feedback on the concept and the intuition part, not so much the balance. Again, the inventory space can ALWAYS be altered to make it less (or more) str reliant, and the formula can always be more generous if you're that worried about units not having enough inventory. But the main idea is that 7 vulneraries should not take up the same space as 7 axes.

If that's all you're looking for, then what's the point of making this topic? By itself, it's a fine idea. And that's really all we can say about it. We can't disagree with it because you're asking us to not make any assumptions as to how it may be implemented poorly. In reality, mechanics aren't inert like noble gases; they interact with other mechanics to produce gameplay.

If you are so freely allowed to bring up Zihark and Mia as examples of units who are affected by this rule to change the game in a positive manner, then why can we not bring up Edward or Titania as examples of units who are either made useless or more broken than previously?

[Progenitus]

I find it interesting that you ignored the part where I asked you what changes you would make, but...

Zihark isn't really even that good, and they're not hampered more than any other unit by the loss of ability to carry more weapons.

Low str/high speed units rely on having a greater variety of weapons available to them moreso than any other unit I can think of.

If that's all you're looking for, then what's the point of making this topic? By itself, it's a fine idea. And that's really all we can say about it. We can't disagree with it because you're asking us to not make any assumptions as to how it may be implemented poorly. In reality, mechanics aren't inert like noble gases; they interact with other mechanics to produce gameplay.

Well, I don't really see how it could be implemented so poorly that it would make characters broken or useless.

If you are so freely allowed to bring up Zihark and Mia as examples of units who are affected by this rule to change the game in a positive manner, then why can we not bring up Edward or Titania as examples of units who are either made useless or more broken than previously?

Because Edward and Titania are not made useless/broken by this. Unless you don't change weapon wts at all.

[NinjaMonkey]

Str is still fairly important to them, though, when str determines AS loss instead of constitution.

Most tomes aren't heavy anyway, except maybe Thunder and Dark tomes.