So how bad are bows really?

[Snowy_One]

How bad are bows on the whole, really? Not just in tier-lists, but on the whole? What would it take to fix them (that wouldn't include making them attack at 1-range)?

[Ema Skye]

Really, just a lack of 1-2 range is what makes Bows bad.

FE2 has the best bows (in fact, I think they're the best weapon type in that game) because they could attack at melee and at a distance.

FE10's Crossbow's were sort of a good idea, but they really needed to function as normal bows in terms of damage calculation (ignoring strength made them rarely do more than 10 damage a hit).

[Momo]

They generally have less flexibility in exchange for being worse than magic. The supposed longrange expert doesn't do its job better than guys that fling magic. To fix it, I dunno, make bows 2-3 from the very start and go from there.

[-Cynthia-]

It really depends on the game. In some games it's very useful to have accurate,high damage 2 range weaponry with effective damage to fliers (FE6, FE12). But in many FE games, it's easy to take on large numbers of enemies at once and counter them all, thus giving more experience to those units and increasing the gap. Hand Axes/Javelins being equal or almost equal to bow strength is likely another factor.

Sometimes bow using units are also worse statistically as well- Wil is never really than Sain at anything for instance. I don't think bows are actually underpowered persay, just that most FE games don't have an environment that favors their usage.

[Refa]

Bows are fantastic in each and every FE game when it comes to enemy units.

[Rehab]

When somebody comes within their range, have them automatically attack from 2 range and stop the enemy in their tracks if they hit. Or at least the first person that goes within range each turn.

(I forget whether that's Tearring Saga's idea, Othin's, or somebody else's, in any event credit to somebody else)

Edited September 28, 2012 by Rehab

[Baldrick]

What bows need is the ability to be shot further than you can chuck a javelin or a hatchet.

FE10 had the right idea, but the accuracy nerf meant it was often better to take the counter anyway.

FE2's bows were a little too powerful for my liking, but perhaps they need that kind of range, considering how archers have gotten screwed over badly in the other games(especially in the GBA games).

[Chocolate Kitty]

Really, just a lack of 1-2 range is what makes Bows bad.

FE2 has the best bows (in fact, I think they're the best weapon type in that game) because they could attack at melee and at a distance.

FE10's Crossbow's were sort of a good idea, but they really needed to function as normal bows in terms of damage calculation (ignoring strength made them rarely do more than 10 damage a hit).

FE10's crossbows were sort of just flier killers imo, they weren't really supposed to function as traditional bows(you're just pulling a trigger, the tension was there to begin with), which is probably why it ignored strength

2-3 range for bows is good, but the main issue for archers is that they have no enemy phase.

In my own ideal world of FE Hacking, I'd give bow locked units a locked secondary weapon, like a knife or a short sword automatically when they get attacked in melee range, kinda like laguz in fe10 when attacked in melee range. And possibly have them auto use bows when attacked at range.

Basically, a simplified version is that any weapon in a unit's inventory that affects range would be auto equipped at ranged attacks and stay equipped.

ex: Fighter with an iron axe attacks one with a steel axe, nothing changed. Then an soldier with a javelin attacks that same steel axe fighter, but he auto equips his hand axe he has in his inventory to counter. Then, another soldier attacks that fighter in melee range, but his weapon remains that handaxe.

With archers it would work with the weaker locked melee knife/sword but change every 2 times they were attacked.(range attacked, bow equipped -> melee attacked, still bow equipped -> melee attacked again, knife equipped -> range attacked, still knife equipped -> range attacked, bow equipped again)

tl; dr; idfk i tried

[Dark Sage]

Bows are actually good in games that require accurate and strong 2 range, or have lots of fliers, or where there's a lack of strong 1-2 range. Bows are also great in modes where the enemies can 2HKO most people, so having a unit that can chip or kill the enemy at a distance without taking a counter is rally useful. The DS FEs generally does the best job with bows, but FE6 also does a decent job too.

In most FE games though, the enemies tend to be weak enough that many units can ORKO them with 1-2 range weapons with little chance of death. In addition, the 1-2 range weapons themselves tend to be about on par with bows in might. Generally in games like FE7, FE8, and FE9 where bows are at their worst, its because there's almost never a situation where a bow user can do a better job than someone with access with 1-2 range. This is generally not helped by the fact most early bow users suck.

tl;dr version: bows are good in harder games and games that have situations where bows are useful (this pretty much goes hand in hand) and suck in really easy games.

[Hawk King]

Bows just lose to magic in almost every way. The only thing bows have is 3 range wth longbows (4 range with FE9's double bow). Magic has 1-2 range and 3-10 range with siege tomes. The only way for a bow user to have 3-10 range is to hop in a friggen ballista.

Bows need more unique uses. All bows should be 2-3 range, 2-4 range for longbows, and there should be 3-10 range bows just like the siege tomes. Fuck ballistas.

[dondon151]

Bows just lose to magic in almost every way. The only thing bows have is 3 range wth longbows (4 range with FE9's double bow). Magic has 1-2 range and 3-10 range with siege tomes. The only way for a bow user to have 3-10 range is to hop in a friggen ballista.

Bows need more unique uses. All bows should be 2-3 range, 2-4 range for longbows, and there should be 3-10 range bows just like the siege tomes. Fuck ballistas.

snipers/horsemen have more move than sages in the DS FEs and generally superior offensive parameters where it counts. in a vacuum, magic is mostly strictly better than bows, but in practice bows have numerous advantages over magic due to game design, such as better classes that use them, better availability of good bows, etc. (that's not to say that bows don't have disadvantages, obviously).

2-3 range bows is not generally a good idea. the problem here is that it really skews the balance among enemy units: enemy archers are designed with 2 range bows in mind and can cover a huge area of the map with 2-3 range bows. as refa has pointed out, archers are actually a really good enemy class because they are good at being obstacles that require a certain plan to defeat.

[Xinnidy]

I think that most of the factor about Archers being so underwhelming comes from the fact that a good amount of bow users given to the player are growth units. Bows and growth units don't really mix that well in most FEs other than Gaiden, from what I've seen. Their lack of reliable EP and affinity for chip makes them gain EXP much slower than your other units. A strong bow user tends to have a fair amount of purpose like dishing out good damage to a strong 1-range to let your own 1-range get the kill without taking a counter, to finishing fliers quick, and baiting other 2-ranges or situational annoying enemies without going squish like a mage. A growth bow user is just annoying, they struggle really hard to catch up, especially since archers get EXP slower overall.

I also think DS FEs did a lot of justice to bow users, the high move, high bases sniper had a lot more purpose and pretty much any physical unit could do good as one. And it can even be favored over horsemen for the higher durability and weapon rank, they both had solid advantages. (the unpromoted archer, however, was terrible for being the very opposite of it's promotion. The hunter class was much better on this end)

2-3 range is a niche for foot archers that really could be explored better, I think it'd help unpromoted archers a lot, it gives them a solid unique range from both the sense of not taking a counter (and not being redundant around 1-2 range) but from the fact that having an even bigger attack range coverage pumps the archer's value. I do worry if it could make snipers and enemy archers too strong, but looking at how archers tend to be, I'd say it's worth a try, or at least worth having more longbows available in a game. I also feel that most archers shouldn't be as focused on the skill stat, but focused on both the strength and skill stats equally.

From what I think, they should be the units that reduces PP headaches and make it fun. :/

[Scarlet]

Giving 2-3 range to all bows as has been suggested multiple times is a bad idea because not only does it screw over enemy balance, it also defeats the main point of javelins, hand axes and magic (being able to counter anything thrown at them except for special weapons like longbows or siege tomes).

I think "bow users are too weak" is hitting the nail on the head, and FE7 to FE10 generally being easy enough to not need ranged attacks in the first place is not helping.

In my opinion, do it how FE11 did it, then make unpromoted plain archers not terrible (in other words, give them enough Move to outrun slow units like knights) and give them innate Elite or something. Just like how staves prior to FE6 and after FE10 actually weren't all that terrible for leveling up, bow users probably wouldn't be quite as bad if they just grew a lot faster than they do, and the only way to achieve this while maintaining their lack of Enemy Phase is to increase their Exp gain. Plain and simple.

After all, even in the easy games - last I checked, units like Innes or Klein were considered to be pretty okay-ish. That's because they're actually strong enough to kill stuff.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Scarlet

[Baldrick]

I don't get why people are saying 2-3 range bows will hurt enemy balance. It will help it.

As it stands, 1-2 range units are too overpowered because they can counter everything on the defend phase, and not take counters from anything but other 1-2 range units on the attack phase. Longbows, ballistae, and seige tomes exist, sure, but unlike Hand Axes and Javelins, Longbows suck, and 3-10 range affects all units equally.

Giving archers 2-3 range would give them a niche over 1-2 range users, while maintaining their weakness to melee attacks.

[arvilino]

Innes and Klein are good because of their auto-A rank and join time. the combination means they actually have better 2 range combat with a Silver Bow than Character X or Y with a Hand Axe or Javelin. Whereas the Archers have the poor situation where not only are they restricted to 2 range only, in many games Hand Axes and Javelins aren't much weaker than Steel Bows and aren't as much as a hamper on AS to the units that use them and Archers base STR/SPD can be pretty low to the point they're outdamaged at 2 range by most Axe and Lance users.

Pre-promote Archers would be better like the way Hunters are in FE11 and FE12. Coming with really high strength(1 point above Fighters) and above average speed, so that the Archers get something that can actually componsate for their range restriction by having the best ranged combat(though if you look at Enemy Archers in Part 1 of Radiant Dawn they're actually like that with Leonardo is actually an outlier which makes him worse).

Edited September 29, 2012 by arvilino

[ClLoulD]

Really I think it's just how well you can utilize them and is it worth a spot on your team? For example Astrid in FE9 Is incredibly useful throughout the game for being able to attack an enemy and then retreat but she doesn't get in my squad on FE10 because by the time she permanently joins she is outclassed by most characters. but I do think of archers as more support units, there a little more durable than mages but not by much. I would probably say they are temporary units designed to make earlier chapters more bearable.

[Loki Laufeyson]

Peronally i think it has more to do with the Archer class than the actual weapon. lol! Other non-archer class bow users do fine. In the GBA games, warriors do well with low rank bows because of their strength output. Nomads have plenty of move too. (and most of the time, more strength output.) Guys like Innes do rather well because of their bases and bow rank. The Archer class is generally pretty meh (unless you are Shinon in FE10) what with meh bases. Someone upthread stated that a lot of the time, archer class guys are actually growth units with bow lock. Which is pretty true. Bad idea. The lack of enemy phase and 1-2 range is a pain. Hence why the Double Bow in FE10 was so awesome. lol! As for crossbows, Kitty more or less summed up my opinion on them.

[Othin]

When somebody comes within their range, have them automatically attack from 2 range and stop the enemy in their tracks if they hit. Or at least the first person that goes within range each turn.

(I forget whether that's Tearring Saga's idea, Othin's, or somebody else's, in any event credit to somebody else)

That's a special skill in Berwick Saga. Tricky to use, but highly effective. It's uncommon among playable archers, although a ton of enemies use it.

2-3 range bows is not generally a good idea. the problem here is that it really skews the balance among enemy units: enemy archers are designed with 2 range bows in mind and can cover a huge area of the map with 2-3 range bows. as refa has pointed out, archers are actually a really good enemy class because they are good at being obstacles that require a certain plan to defeat.

So design archers with 2-3 range in mind?

Giving 2-3 range to all bows as has been suggested multiple times is a bad idea because not only does it screw over enemy balance, it also defeats the main point of javelins, hand axes and magic (being able to counter anything thrown at them except for special weapons like longbows or siege tomes).

Why should they have some god weapon that can counter everything? Is avoiding melee counters and countering one another not enough?

More things are good when they're good at different things rather than some being the best at everything.

[Ein]

So........

It looks like the Archer class and their weapon either needs an overhaul or the game design has to favor them somehow. Right? >_>

[dondon151]

So design archers with 2-3 range in mind?

how

i mean, you simply can't do it without a massive overhaul. first, 3 range bows cover a huge area of the map and confine certain unit types to an overbearing extent. second, 3 range bows makes it much easier for enemies to snipe over player units and to gang up on the same player unit: your own positioning options get reduced, which is overall a bad thing.

it's not so bad in games like final fantasy tactics where you can get attacked like 5 times by archers and still survive, and death is not generally a problem; it's significantly different in fire emblem. those of you who have played old DoF chapter 5 should remember how annoying those longbow archers were.

Why should they have some god weapon that can counter everything? Is avoiding melee counters and countering one another not enough?

no. think of how much slower and how much less fun the game would be if you had to kill literally every bow user from full HP on player phase only. there are plenty of ways to make javelins and hand axes do what they are supposed to do, among them lowering MT, hit, or even hardcoding them to not allow double attacks.

i mean, most users in this thread have already properly identified the problem. bows are good in games where tough enemy fliers abound (FE6), where sustaining a counter has a high risk of damage (FE11, FE12), and where ORKOing outright is sometimes difficult (FE11, FE12). plenty of nomads, bow knights, horsemen, and snipers are ranked moderately to highly on their respective tier lists, though bow lock will probably prevent any unit from being a top tier unit. FE5 was unique in that bow fighters got augmented EXP gain relative to other classes.

Edited September 29, 2012 by dondon151

[Shin]

no. think of how much slower and how much less fun the game would be if you had to kill literally every bow user from full HP on player phase only. there are plenty of ways to make javelins and hand axes do what they are supposed to do, among them lowering MT, hit, or even hardcoding them to not allow double attacks.

I quite like the idea of hand axes/javelins not doubling at range or even an AS penalty. It would mean archers do their 2 range thing better than others. Mages would still have an edge, but if enemies actually had some RES it wouldn't be too bad. In FE6 you wouldn't want to attack magic units with your mages due their ridiculous res.

[Baldrick]

3 range bows cover a huge area of the map and confine certain unit types to an overbearing extent.

Less area than a mount with a Javelin would.

second, 3 range bows makes it much easier for enemies to snipe over player units and to gang up on the same player unit: your own positioning options get reduced, which is overall a bad thing.

Be less incompetent at the game.

Seriously, if your units can't handle the heat, don't let them in the kitchen. It's not difficult to find a formation that will protect squishy units from 3-range attacks.

no. think of how much slower and how much less fun the game would be if you had to kill literally every bow user from full HP on player phase only.

Instead of having to X HKO bow units, I have to X+1 HKO them? Nooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Alternatively, use your archers to counter enemy archers. If there are a mix of melee units and archers, then no one class can counter every attack from the squad. Balance!

bow lock will probably prevent any unit from being a top tier unit.

Non-balance!

[Snowy_One]

I don't get why allowing bows 2-3 range constantly is a bad thing either. Seriously. I get that having to kill them on the PP would suck but... You know what, FE is supposed to be a STRATEGY game. Not a turn-based hack-and-slash where you watch your OP'ed units mow down foes at lightning speed.

Also, hard-coding in a lack of double attacks on 1-2 range weapons murders their usage. You won't kill ANYTHING with them that wasn't previously weakened or very weak to begin with. So I don't think that's a good idea.

So it sounds like the best choice is letting bow users get 2-3 range for now... Which I REALLY like. I thought it was a wonderful choice in FE10 and thought it would be a series mainstay after its original appearance (I don't have the DS FE's).

[ClLoulD]

I don't see bows (or archers for that matter) as totally useless characters I just find that some have useless growths and aren't worth using or they are too fragile as compared to say a warrior.

There are some Archers/Snipers that were really useful though such as Rolf in FE9 Shinon in F10 and Innes in F8.

[Shadow Mir]

I don't see bows (or archers for that matter) as totally useless characters I just find that some have useless growths and aren't worth using or they are too fragile as compared to say a warrior.

There are some Archers/Snipers that were really useful though such as Rolf in FE9 Shinon in F10 and Innes in F8.

Bold: Oxymoron. If we're talking about FE9, "Rolf" and "useful" cancel each other out.

On a more serious note, I don't have much to say about the topic that hasn't already been said.