A way to fix skill

[CT075]

the double attack does more damage than the double strength until the enemy's defense is higher than the player's weapon; when they match the two break even (14 str + 5 mt vs 3 def does 16 + 14 damage for +str and 16*2 damage for double attack // 14 str + 5 mt vs 7 def does 12 + 14 damage with +str and 12*2 damage with double attack)

(str + weapon) - def + str vs (str + weapon - def)*2

[dondon151]

None of this is even relevant. 1 and 3 just mean Skl is duplicating Spd's effect for those characters that would get the Skl advantage, and 2 is simply a situational difference to effects that are fundamentally the same. And the advantages, as you state them, are rather one-sided anyway, which isn't good.

no they're not, to both statements. skl "duplicating" spd's effect is like saying that str "duplicates" spd's effect. the advantages are not "one-sided" like i stated (did i even state anything of that sort?).

the point is that this sort of thing broadens tactical scope, and that's a good thing. it makes skl relevant, which is a good thing. and it's effectively a "skill" that can be selectively used or not used to differentiate classes - didn't you say that having skills was a good thing?

[Baldrick]

I think the points Othin was making is that the skill advantage skill (it needs a proper name to be discussed, Vital Hit or something) occupies the same niche Pursuit does (give statistically better units more damage output) and is too OP compared to Pursuit (the only time you'd ever prefer Pursuit is when enemy def is so low that either skill would most likely ORKO the enemy).

It'd work best when Pursuit is non-intrinsic and skills are non-transferable, and so Pursuit and Vital Hit are never in competition (except when you have a choice between unit A with Pursuit and unit B with Vital Hit.)

[dondon151]

and is too OP compared to Pursuit (the only time you'd ever prefer Pursuit is when enemy def is so low that either skill would most likely ORKO the enemy).

but that's very much not true. a stronger weapon does, in general, significantly more damage on a double attack than on a 2*str attack. skills and critical hits, as we know them, are more likely to proc on a double attack. conversely, a 2*str attack that OHKOs an enemy prevents the user from taking a counter, and performs better with weaker weapons and against enemies with high def stats.

furthermore, these skills cannot possibly occupy the same niche in the strict definition. there can be units with high skl and low spd that are vulnerable to one skill but not the other, and vice versa. there could be units that have respectable stats in both categories but neither skill so that they generally tend to defend well but don't have the potential to do more damage in return (or, they could be a bit more vulnerable but have some other outstanding advantage, like mounts and fliers). and so on: tactical decisions.

i mean, what do most skills do? they output damage and/or reduce the amount of incoming damage. and yet othin doesn't complain that they're "too similar" - on the contrary, he thinks that FE13 is the best game in the series! surely it can't be because it has a flawed, redundant skill system!

disclaimer: i don't actually believe that the FE13 skill system is seriously flawed, but there are several aspects of redundancy that othin was just criticizing

Edited September 18, 2012 by dondon151

[Anouleth]

If there's an imbalance, that can always be addressed by raising weapon might relative to enemy defence.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Anouleth

[Othin]

Redundant features aren't necessarily a net negative. But more to the point, they aren't as much of a positive as they could be. Skills add variety, unless they get completely bungled like in FE10: having some redundant skills isn't a concern as long as the important effects aren't all the same. In the same vein, dondon, your suggestion isn't bad, but it just doesn't add as much as alternatives might. That's all I'm saying.