On the distinctions and roles of characters+classes.

[The Void]

Here's a topic featuring how distinct the characters and classes are, if they are distinct enough, and if IS can do more.

I'm sure several posters here agree that Knights/Generals haven't been all that good through the series, and while several things can be tied to this, at least one of them is how even in the earlygame, the player has access to alternatives who can tank (namely mounted ones). If tanking is something you want to do that is.

Another few classes are Archers/Snipers. Chances are, the player will get access to alternatives, be they magic users, mounted bow users, etc.

There's also how high the growths have gotten through the series. Compare what Awakening has for growths with Gaiden and you'll see a difference.

And of course, there's reclassing.

Now, do you have suggestions for how distinctions between characters and classes be handled in a future FE? If there are enough of them? Or if IS even can do more?

[ddxgrsd]

The question of class distinction heavily relies upon what happens with the Pair Up feature in the future. As an example with the current system, let us assume that a typical Swordmaster will probably have more than sufficient speed to act as their main defense for most of the games/difficulties, but their main weakness will usually come from a weak strength stat. Now let us assume that we have a generic Warrior with a high strength skill pair up with said Swordmaster, giving them a significant amount of strength, thus making the end Swordmaster/Warrior pair a strong, well rounded unit. If any flaws in a particular class are easily covered by combining two units into one, are significant distinctions a possibility?

Now that I have read that, I answered one of your questions with another question.

[Randa]

I think 5 and 7 did class and characters the best. The fatigue system forces you to use different characters so you knew how good each one was. The major benefit being that each characters strong points were highlighted and careful planning about these advantages and how they balanced. But the class differences sucked due to 20 stat caps and scrolls. 7 did a great job with classes each having strong points, though mounts were OP, and you could balance your team. The only issue was that generals sucked.

[The Void]

The only issue was that generals sucked.

And Archers/Snipers.

[dondon151]

and every other unmounted class

1. put in dismounting (increases the value of infantry)

2. let generals mount to great knights (increases the value of generals)

3. give archers a lower class power like in FE5 and make map design decisions to make them more valuable

oh and how could i forget

4. get rid of pair up

Edited July 19, 2013 by dondon151

[Randa]

Class balance in 5 was great. The dismounting basically said you now suck every time inside. The archers were pretty good IMO, there really wasn't an over powered class.

[dondon151]

Class balance in 5 was great. The dismounting basically said you now suck every time inside. The archers were pretty good IMO, there really wasn't an over powered class.

it's great if you're like... selectively ignoring things. i will agree that there were a lot of characters in very diverse classes that could be marginally useful even in an LTC, though a lot of that has to do with their personal strengths and not with their class strengths. obviously, staff users are OP because of warp. if you ignore staves, sages are significantly better than other unmounted classes because their bases are fantastic, they use magic, and they have 7 mov (mercenaries, warriors, generals, and dark mages have 6 mov). pegasus knight and dracoknight are way more useful than their grounded counterparts. archers have a much needed EXP boost, but are hindered by the lack of capturing ability, plus ronan and tanya still suck. bow knights are also awful, and selphina is only saved by the hero bow.

though it is pretty interesting that generals in this game actually aren't terribly hindered by their movement because they tie a handful of other promoted infantry classes. now if only they didn't have a base E rank in everything.

really, the classes weren't so OP, but the characters definitely were. they either had access to awesome weapons to kill everything or just amazing stats.

Edited July 19, 2013 by dondon151

[darkkfan]

As much as I hate Shadow Dragon, I think the DS games had it right in terms of class balance with reclassing. Generals weren't that useless; FE11 Wolf, Sedgar, FE12 male class sets removed Aran made decent prepromotes as Generals and even bow users had their use. The only problem with that was that hunters were way better than archers, but that was somewhat balanced by the class limits (better classes like hunter, berserker, swordmaster had lower maximums for people in that class). Snipers on the other hand weren't even bad, especially in FE12. Mounts weren't even that OP in those games, in fact Paladins were kinda useless, but that balances out with the fact that you could have a ton of them.

So yeah, the DS games might not have had the most balanced classes per se, but there was a niche for most of them (except maybe archer and sorceror) and you could always reclass out.

Of course character balance is another beast entirely *shudders*.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Walhart

[dondon151]

FE11 is like royal airforce all the way. FE12 is royal airforce for the first 60% of the game with a transition to swordmasters, berserkers, snipers, and horsemen by the end of the game.

oh, and warp/rescue/again.

[Randa]

Ignoring LTC and warp skip 12 does a pretty good job.

[darkkfan]

FE12 is royal airforce for the first 60% of the game with a transition to swordmasters, berserkers, snipers, and horsemen by the end of the game.

oh, and warp/rescue/again.

This is definitely true, but that's still most of the classes right there. Besides, I still think hunters and General Aran have some use. Ok maybe not General Aran especially not in an LTC context.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Walhart

[The Void]

Clearly IS needs to make sure mounts and staves are toned down at least.

Edited July 19, 2013 by The Void

[Mighty Kamina]

Clearly IS needs to make sure mounts and staves are toned down at least.

Perhaps mounted units could be weak to fire magic, and make weapons that are effective against cavalry more common?

IMO only warp, rescue, and FE5 status staves were overpowered.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Virion

[The Void]

Or you could have all mounted units have really lower caps, bases, and/or growths in certain stats than non-mounted units. As well making mounts buyable. have their HP, and locked to certain units with stat and weapon changes once mounted.

Edited July 19, 2013 by The Void

[Vennobennu]

Generals ought to either tie other promoted infantry in movement, or have reduced terrain penalties (e.g. can cross forests, pillars and forts without penalty). Generals should have significantly higher physical durability than other classes; and if enemies had - for example - FE12 Maniac levels of offense, they might be useful by virtue of being able to avoid a 3HKO.

Archers (as characters and as classes) should get any two out of high bases, accelerated exp gain and map/enemy design that favors avoiding counters. I don't think 1-2 range bows or anything like that is a good idea, because it dilutes their niche. Arhers should be all about powerful, reliable Player Phase offense and doing it better than the other classes.

[Shengar]

In some other Tactica/Strategy games they make mounted/horse cavalry units being weak to Archer. Is that would make Archers too OP?

[darkkfan]

In some other Tactica/Strategy games they make mounted/horse cavalry units being weak to Archer. Is that would make Archers too OP?

Realistically speaking (as in, in real life) it would make the most sense to make mounts weak to infantry units like soldiers/halberdiers if you were to make mounts weak to a certain unit type. Not sure how that would hold as far as FE class balance though.

[The Void]

Generals should have significantly higher physical durability than other classes; and if enemies had - for example - FE12 Maniac levels of offense, they might be useful by virtue of being able to avoid a 3HKO.

Going from this, you could give a large portion of the cast low growths (I'm talking Bantu low) and bases in defense.

[Emperor Hardin]

I think 5 and 7 did class and characters the best. The fatigue system forces you to use different characters so you knew how good each one was. The major benefit being that each characters strong points were highlighted and careful planning about these advantages and how they balanced. But the class differences sucked due to 20 stat caps and scrolls. 7 did a great job with classes each having strong points, though mounts were OP, and you could balance your team. The only issue was that generals sucked.

I highly disagree with 5 being balanced classwise.

Archers/Snipers- Meh

Lance/Duke Knights - Completely inferior to Cavaliers in every, forced to use swords indoors crippling them massively.

Cavaliers/Paladins - Can lances and swords mounted in addition to having the same stats as Lance Knights.

Free/Forest Knights - Get to keep their primary weapon indoors and have no real dismounting stat losses aside from movement. God Tier basically

Axe Armor/General - Have lower movement then usual, tons of terrain disadvatnages, in a game where enemies love to use Hammers despite they're being only two armored units. Have access to all weapons, only playable class able to use lances, but due to starting with an e-rank in all weapons, Dalsin the only promoted general will be stuck with Axes. The other playable general, Xavier would be decent despite the lack of movement and many hammers if he wasn't ludicrously hard to recruit.

[The Void]

Don't forget Sages and their Mov.

[Knight]

I think archers need to get experience faster and/or have more move in order to help them out. There always characters and classes that are inferior.

[Anouleth]

The thing about archers is that they're best used for player phase chipping: a role that is useful, but gives little in the way of experience. Personally, I think the whole experience system should be completely revised.

[NinjaMonkey]

Perhaps mounted units could be weak to fire magic

You do realise that "mounted units" include Pegasi and Wyverns, which are already weak to magic anyway...

Generals should have significantly higher physical durability than other classes

I'm pretty sure that they already have that. After all, Gatrie is infinitely more durable than Micaiah is when it comes to being attacked by physical weapons...

Edited July 20, 2013 by NinjaMonkey

[darkkfan]

The thing about archers is that they're best used for player phase chipping: a role that is useful, but gives little in the way of experience. Personally, I think the whole experience system should be completely revised.

About archers, you're definitely right that they are best at player phase chipping (obviously, since they have virtually no enemy phase). Consequently, their usefulness varies game to game. Which wouldn't be a problem if they changed the class or map layout to fix this but with FE13's enemy phase heavy maps vs something like FE12 where archers are more useful, it is the consistency of the archer class (little to no evolution throughout the series besides the occasional mounted version) that makes them inconsistent (in the sense that if the class stays the same game to game but the enemy density changes, archers' effectiveness as a class is going to vary).

[Anouleth]

About archers, you're definitely right that they are best at player phase chipping (obviously, since they have virtually no enemy phase). Consequently, their usefulness varies game to game. Which wouldn't be a problem if they changed the class or map layout to fix this but with FE13's enemy phase heavy maps vs something like FE12 where archers are more useful, it is the consistency of the archer class (little to no evolution throughout the series besides the occasional mounted version) that makes them inconsistent (in the sense that if the class stays the same game to game but the enemy density changes, archers' effectiveness as a class is going to vary).

Even in a game like FE12, archers only have good EXP income against certain enemy types that they ORKO. That is to say, that even in games where their particular "niche" is useful, they still don't have stable experience gain because that niche doesn't give a lot of experience unless the game is stuffed with flying units. Take Leonardo vs Edward. Both are useful in their earlygame chapters, both are going to be used at every available opportunity; but the path of least resistance is to give kills to Edward instead of Leonardo. Even though they're equally "useful", that's not reflected in their EXP gain because Edward is better suited to finishing enemies off and Leonardo is better suited to weakening.