Possible FE rebalance? (Warning: Stupid Snowy ideas likely inside)

[Snowy_One]

These are all just random thoughts relating to stats and skills that, maybe, would allow for Fire Emblem to become more balanced.

The general theme for this rebalance, though, is to provide unique utilities to various, previously, underutilized stats and classes. I will try to keep the general concept of the classes and stats in mind and will list my reasoning and logic in italics.

First off... Stats.

HP: Dynamic growth. For each level-up without HP a unit gains 15% towards the next level-up.

HP is a very valuable stat to have but, unlike other stats, is also very difficult to fix should a deficiency come up. There is a reason Serph robes give more than 2 points. This won't fix the problems of low-HP units, and it shouldn't, but this will help keep them from death by enemy sneezes. 15% isn't going to suddenly change the game as it will only give 1-2 extra HP on average, but it should help against screwage.

SPD: Speed avoid bonus reduced to 2.5 instead of 3.

This isn't a huge nerf at all, but the general idea is to start to downplay the value of SPD, especially for units who do not outright excel in it but can still dodge fairly reliably. While a unit with 20 SPD will only see a reduction of 5 avoid it will help make avoiding a blow just a BIIITTT harder to do.

Luck: Luck now grants 0.25 critical.

Luck is a very underrated stat since enemy critical hits are usually fairly easy to outright dodge, hitting an enemy isn't that hard, and the extra dodge is minor. Doing this makes enemies more likely to critical (increasing the value of the crit-avoid) and, combined with the dodge reduction, makes it just a bit more important.

Hit: Hit now grants 1 critical for every 10 points above 100.

Hit is very underutilized ATM as, when a unit gets to 100, there is no point for them to get any more. This makes high SKL units sort of underwhelming on the whole as their hit goes to waste most of the time. By setting it at 10 units with high hit get a LITTLE nudge but unless they have a whopping amount of overkill it's not going to make them jump entire tiers.

Weapons

Swords: Swords now grant 1 crit for every 10 points of Hit above 100.

Same as with hit. Yes, they do stack. Once again, this isn't going to whoppingly overwhelm the value of crit since, even if a unit touches 200 hit, that's only an extra 10 critical and very few units can do that. Even a 20/20 PoR Ike with Ragnell and Lethe/Elincia A/B supports would only get an extra 8% critical against an enemy with 0 dodge. It's not going to break the game, just give it a nudge and a reason to consider swords if/when all else has failed.

Lances: Lances now gain +1 MT for every 4 movement spent.

Lances don't really have a personality on their own. They're middle-of-the-road and don't really have anything unique to them. This should help them stand out as the go-to weapons for mounted units.

Axes: Axes base hit reduced by 40. Gain 1 hit for every 1 max HP.

One of the big problems with axes is that they're all around good, especially with lances being fairly common. Even without them they often simply have more MT. By doing this axes won't be that useful for units with low HP and will make it an uphill struggle for frailer units to reliably hit, but later-on in the game units can take advantage of their better HP to outweigh, even start to improve on, their power. This makes them best suited to high-HP units like warriors and only meh-ish for units who don't specialize in HP. PLEASE NOTE THAT, WITH ENOUGH HP, THIS CAN GO ABOVE THE 40 HIT PENALTY!

Thrown Weapons: Thrown weapons (Hand Axes, Javelins, and wind edges and their variants) can only double if the unit has moved 5 or less spaces. Cannot double following a dance.

Thrown weapons have held a strong dominance due to their ability to counter at 1-2 range. When coupled with high movement this allows for mounted units to simply rush forwards equipped with them and double their way through everything. By doing this a choice is presented for them. Do they double with a 1-2 ranged weapon or double with a melee weapon (discussed below). Foot soldiers will also be inclined a biiittt more to resort to melee weapons instead of sticking to thrown weapons, but won't be hurt too much.

Staff: New Staff type: Wall. Wall staffs place down a barrier over target three spaces (center + two side squares) for two turns. No unit can pass or attack through unless they have RES equal to or more than 1/2 casters magic +2 for every weapon rank. Range = 1/2 magic. Can only be used by foot healers. If cast on user two additional walls appear to their immediate left/right.

This sort of staff should grant foot healers a unique edge that sages and mounted healers simply cannot replicate as well as hamper the value of movement and increase the value of RES as a stat. A good barrier can shut down an entire advancing army, be they player or enemy.

Classes:

Mounted units (general): Mounted units can no longer use stat-boosters.

This won't directly affect them beyond making them a bit of a gamble to use. A mounted unit may still end up being really good, but if they end up lacking in STR you can't just slap a stat-booster band-aid on them.

Mounted units cannot double with melee weapons unless they move 6 or more spaces.

This will give mounted units a choice. They can rush forwards and do some real damage, but if they try to do it with a thrown weapon they'll be stuck unable to double. If they don't move at all they can use the ranged weapon but will be stuck unable to double with the melee weapon making it a trade-off.

A mounted unit that has rescued a unit, recently dropped a unit, or a unit that has been recently dropped by a unit, will be auto-doubled until the start of the next turn.

This will put a hamper on the rescue/drop strategy. Using rescue/dropping to simply move units to the front-line or get them away from danger won't be an issue, same for if it's done with a melee unit, but keep people from just flying behind enemy lines and dropping units off willy-nilly.

Snipers: New Mastery: Rapid-fire. If a Sniper kills an enemy, they may move up to two-spaces and fire again. This may be repeated multiple times.

Snipers real crippling aspect comes from the fact that they are completely exposed on the enemy-phase, yet have no utility other than combat. A sniper that can quickly and reliably pick-off player-phase foes would be a lot more useful.

Point-blank: If an Archer/Sniper does not move they may attack/counter at 1-range.

Should help with that pesky 1-range issue as well as making simply rushing in for a kill not ALWAYS applicable.

Armor Knights/Generals: +1 movement.

New Skill: Rolling Stone. An armor knight may have one of the two bonuses.

1) For every individual attack received, gains +1 AS until the end of the next player turn. Note: getting doubled counts as 2 attacks.

2) 50% of DEF gets added to the armor-knights STR on the EP.

These two bonuses can be toggled once per player-phase before moving. Bonuses do not apply to bosses.

This will allow armor-knights a bit of utility. Other foot-soldiers will be more reliable and double consistently, but if an armor knight can take a bunch of attacks, then switch to his second mode, a unit is about to be flattened.

Probably needs a lot more, but does it sound like a good start?

Edited December 6, 2014 by Snowy_One

[NinjaMonkey]

You're right, they are stupid ideas.

[BBM]

The axe nerf is a really bad idea because you presumably want to nerf axe-using paladins and the like- this is very easy; take away axes like in FE8. All the hit nerf does is penalize Fighters, because mounted units can just switch to lances anyways, which are only slightly worse, whereas Fighters already face hit issues in the earlygame and are generally a mediocre class anyways.

The SPD thing is rather pointless because games prior to Awakening all had x2 SPD in the AVO calculations and there was no real difference? I think you're trying to nerf mounts here with 'units don't outright excel in SPD but can still dodge reliably' but in reality it's a very minor nerf that probably affects actual dodge-tanks more because they're much more reliant on dodging than mounts, even if they have more avoid.

For the wall staff I think you mean that units need MORE than that amount of RES to pass through? Rewarding low-RES units doesn't really make sense to me. In any case, mounted healers' main advantage over infantry healers is rescue-drop stuff, not really staff shenanigans because most (not all) of the time you're warping at the start of the map.

[Elieson]

These are all just random thoughts relating to stats and skills that, maybe, would allow for Fire Emblem to become more balanced.

The general theme for this rebalance, though, is to provide unique utilities to various, previously, underutilized stats and classes. I will try to keep the general concept of the classes and stats in mind and will list my reasoning and logic in italics.

First off... Stats.

HP: Dynamic growth. For each level-up without HP a unit gains 5% towards the next level-up.

HP is a very valuable stat to have but, unlike other stats, is also very difficult to fix should a deficiency come up. There is a reason Serph robes give more than 2 points. This won't fix the problems of low-HP units, and it shouldn't, but this will help keep them from death by enemy sneezes. 5% isn't going to suddenly change the game as it will only give 1-2 extra HP on average, but it should help against screwage.

5% means 1-2 HP in the long run, if at all. How exactly does this balance anything? If anything, something like a +/- 15% per level with above/below average to make a more noticable difference. For a unit that's gaining +1HP in every levelup but only has a 60% growth, a +15% helps her odds much more, while a -15% means that once every 5 levels she is assured a non-HP levelup. 1-2 HP won't make much of a difference by endgame unless the game really breaks down combat to needing to survive by that little bit.

SPD: Speed avoid bonus reduced to 2.5 instead of 3.

This isn't a huge nerf at all, but the general idea is to start to downplay the value of SPD, especially for units who do not outright excel in it but can still dodge fairly reliably. While a unit with 20 SPD will only see a reduction of 5 avoid it will help make avoiding a blow just a BIIITTT harder to do.

Units with 20 speed would see themselves with 50AVO rather than 60AVO (preLuk). 10 AVO makes a pretty big deal in middling hitranges in the world of TrueHit, changing TrueHit values by 15-20%.

Luck: Luck now grants 0.25 critical.

Luck is a very underrated stat since enemy critical hits are usually fairly easy to outright dodge, hitting an enemy isn't that hard, and the extra dodge is minor. Doing this makes enemies more likely to critical (increasing the value of the crit-avoid) and, combined with the dodge reduction, makes it just a bit more important.

.5 May make a more significant difference. If you have somehow capped your luk out at 30, then an enemy unit with 8 luk completely negates your crit boost from Luk. I don't know how heavily you value the reliability of crits, but remember that Luk is undervalued as it is, and most units naturally aren't rolling caprammed luck. You're probably seeing units with a boost of 4 crit on average, which is pretty insignificant, don't you think? Remember, you're trying to balance things out. 4 crit isn't balancing much. 11 or so makes more of an impact than one hand's-worth. Combined with your Sword thing, this might be powerful, but for Tome users feel minimal benefit to this, and Bows feel the same benefit.

Hit: Hit now grants 1 critical for every 10 points above 100.

Hit is very underutilized ATM as, when a unit gets to 100, there is no point for them to get any more. This makes high SKL units sort of underwhelming on the whole as their hit goes to waste most of the time. By setting it at 10 units with high hit get a LITTLE nudge but unless they have a whopping amount of overkill it's not going to make them jump entire tiers.

This makes Axe users worse by comparison, as Sword users only get better (and mounted Sword users feel the benefits even more), while Lances still get the boost. It's not exactly common to see. Axe users, on the other hand, have

Weapons

Swords: Swords now grant 1 crit for every 10 points of Hit above 100.

Same as with hit. Yes, they do stack. Once again, this isn't going to whoppingly overwhelm the value of crit since, even if a unit touches 200 hit, that's only an extra 10 critical and very few units can do that. Even a 20/20 PoR Ike with Ragnell and Lethe/Elincia A/B supports would only get an extra 8% critical against an enemy with 0 dodge. It's not going to break the game, just give it a nudge and a reason to consider swords if/when all else has failed.

I guess, if stacked with your new Luk thing, plus supports, plus other stuff, this could make a negligible difference. Builds back to my other thing though, on LUK, but notsomuch because it makes more sense. I more or less support this.

Lances: Lances now gain +1 MT for every 4 movement spent.

Lances don't really have a personality on their own. They're middle-of-the-road and don't really have anything unique to them. This should help them stand out as the go-to weapons for mounted units.

Meanwhile, at 2 range, you see a decrease in accuracy. Charging at full speed makes your accuracy drop when chucking sticks 15 feet into the distance.

Axes: Axes base hit reduced by 40. Gain 1 hit for every 1 max HP.

One of the big problems with axes is that they're all around good, especially with lances being fairly common. Even without them they often simply have more MT. By doing this axes won't be that useful for units with low HP and will make it an uphill struggle for frailer units to reliably hit, but later-on in the game units can take advantage of their better HP to outweigh, even start to improve on, their power. This makes them best suited to high-HP units like warriors and only meh-ish for units who don't specialize in HP.

This doesn't benefit early game fighters. In fact, it makes units like Wade, Lott, Dorcas, Bartre, Dart, Garcia, ROSS and arguably early promoted Heroes like Raven worse off, making them less desirable. Raven at least has swords to his name, but you'd really need to retool Fighters/Brigands to make this remotely balanced. If you changes the HP from 40 to 20 or 30, then it'd make a difference even. but 40 is far too much for the traditional early-game axe user to climb out of, when they already have the most inaccurate weapon in the game.

Thrown Weapons: Thrown weapons (Hand Axes, Javelins, and wind edges and their variants) can only double if the unit has moved 5 or less spaces. Cannot double following a dance.

Thrown weapons have held a strong dominance due to their ability to counter at 1-2 range. When coupled with high movement this allows for mounted units to simply rush forwards equipped with them and double their way through everything. By doing this a choice is presented for them. Do they double with a 1-2 ranged weapon or double with a melee weapon (discussed below). Foot soldiers will also be inclined a biiittt more to resort to melee weapons instead of sticking to thrown weapons, but won't be hurt too much.

This seems sort of impactical. I'd propose a Hit decrease in spaces moved, since logically, you're going to have a harder time hitting a target while running/riding at higher speeds. Maybe -5 Hit per tile moved.

Staff: New Staff type: Wall. Wall staffs place down a barrier over target three spaces (center + two side squares) for two turns. No unit can pass or attack through unless they have RES equal to or less than 1/2 casters magic +2 for every weapon rank. Range = 1/2 magic. Can only be used by foot healers. If cast on user two additional walls appear to their immediate left/right.

This sort of staff should grant foot healers a unique edge that sages and mounted healers simply cannot replicate as well as hamper the value of movement and increase the value of RES as a stat. A good barrier can shut down an entire advancing army, be they player or enemy.

Mounted healers aren't that great though. Why can't this be usable by all kinds of staff users?

Classes:

Mounted units (general): Mounted units can no longer use stat-boosters.

This won't directly affect them beyond making them a bit of a gamble to use. A mounted unit may still end up being really good, but if they end up lacking in STR you can't just slap a stat-booster band-aid on them.

There's no reason to this. I'd rather see boosters benefit footbound units more, as you could think that you're splitting the benefits of a boost with your mount and yourself, or something? 2x benefit to infantry (or .5x benefit to mounts) would make more of an impact I would think, rather than strictly nerfing mounts. How would you handle units like Eliwood, who promote to gain a mount?

Mounted units cannot double with melee weapons unless they move 6 or more spaces.

This will give mounted units a choice. They can rush forwards and do some real damage, but if they try to do it with a thrown weapon they'll be stuck unable to double. If they don't move at all they can use the ranged weapon but will be stuck unable to double with the melee weapon making it a trade-off.

Move 6 or 7 spaces, and you get to double? In LTC settings, mounted units tend to charge ahead as fast as possible. If anything, this rewards maxmove turns and benefits LTC more. Also, you contradict your above statement with "move 5 or less spaces".

A mounted unit that has rescued a unit, recently dropped a unit, or a unit that has been recently dropped by a unit, will be auto-doubled until the start of the next turn.

This will put a hamper on the rescue/drop strategy. Using rescue/dropping to simply move units to the front-line or get them away from danger won't be an issue, same for if it's done with a melee unit, but keep people from just flying behind enemy lines and dropping units off willy-nilly.

Not sure how to interpret this. It sounds neat, but in my head I can't quite make sense of it as a logical event. Please clarify if "Has rescued" a unit refers to "has a unit in tow" or simply "rescued a unit on the current turn

Snipers: New Mastery: Rapid-fire. If a Sniper kills an enemy, they may move up to two-spaces and fire again. This may be repeated multiple times.

Snipers real crippling aspect comes from the fact that they are completely exposed on the enemy-phase, yet have no utility other than combat. A sniper that can quickly and reliably pick-off player-phase foes would be a lot more useful.

Maybe only one time. This could allow a Sniper/BootsSniper to cover an INCREDIBLE amount of ground while carrying someone, such as a lightweight lord. If the lord can't be rescued by Sniper design, then it's probably better. Innes/Eirika comes to mind.

Point-blank: If an Archer/Sniper does not move they may attack/counter at 1-range.

Should help with that pesky 1-range issue as well as making simply rushing in for a kill not ALWAYS applicable.

This promotes not moving your archer/sniper, which seems counterproductive, as you WANT your bow user to keep up with battle to actually see battle. You'd have to really plod along to see a benefit of this, and if the enemy is awaiting you to enter their aggro range, it only makes an impact if they survive for more than one turn anyway.

Armor Knights/Generals: +1 movement.

Cool

New Skill: Rolling Stone. An armor knight may have one of the two bonuses.

1) For every individual attack received, gains +1 AS until the end of the next player turn. Note: getting doubled counts as 2 attacks.

2) 50% of DEF gets added to the armor-knights STR on the EP.

These two bonuses can be toggled once per player-phase before moving. Bonuses do not apply to bosses.

This will allow armor-knights a bit of utility. Other foot-soldiers will be more reliable and double consistently, but if an armor knight can take a bunch of attacks, then switch to his second mode, a unit is about to be flattened.

I like where this is going, but feel that the ability to toggle gives them too much to micromanage.

Probably needs a lot more, but does it sound like a good start?

It's a good start, but the effects are either incredibly minimal, or extremely impactful. Early game axe users get a heavy shaft, and archers/snipers get such strange benefits (unlimited move if kill) / (one-range counter if camping). Magic users see little to no benefit in this setting, unless staff "walls" are just that big of a deal. Sword users get a nice bonus overall, and promotes mounted sword use more than axe, but it puts Heroes in a tight spot, because promoting to Hero drags you out to having a low Axe rank and good Sword rank, where you're already getting more benefits for having a sword to begin with, The curve to use axes is even harder on early game units gaining a new weapon type. HP change is negligible, and Spd/Luk are on par with what could work out, but in terms of balancing, things seem too minimal to make a noticable change, especially by endgame.

[Snowy_One]

The axe nerf is a really bad idea because you presumably want to nerf axe-using paladins and the like- this is very easy; take away axes like in FE8. All the hit nerf does is penalize Fighters, because mounted units can just switch to lances anyways, which are only slightly worse, whereas Fighters already face hit issues in the earlygame and are generally a mediocre class anyways.

Actually, it's sort of the opposite. Fighters will have a large amount of HP from the get-go (Boyd starts with 30 HP, so he'd only lose 10 hit at the beginning, and would be even and heading uphill as soon at he hit 15 for example) and would be able to overcome and surpass the hit penalty while units who did not have a sizable HP pool would need to... consider their weapon choice more. A sword would be weak, but offer crit, a lance is meh-ish but can be good with a large amount of movement, and an axe is potentially potent, but best-off in the hands of units with high HP and iffy elsewhere.

The SPD thing is rather pointless because games prior to Awakening all had x2 SPD in the AVO calculations and there was no real difference? I think you're trying to nerf mounts here with 'units don't outright excel in SPD but can still dodge reliably' but in reality it's a very minor nerf that probably affects actual dodge-tanks more because they're much more reliant on dodging than mounts, even if they have more avoid.

Actually, it's meant more to reward dodge-tanks by making it harder for units who don't specialize in avoid to dodge (as well as making speed less of an overwhelming force), though that is a potential outcome.

For the wall staff I think you mean that units need MORE than that amount of RES to pass through? Rewarding low-RES units doesn't really make sense to me. In any case, mounted healers' main advantage over infantry healers is rescue-drop stuff, not really staff shenanigans because most (not all) of the time you're warping at the start of the map.

Yea. Typo'd there. Anyways, I don't want to nerf mounted healers so much as I want to nerf rescue-dropping from being, basically, a chopper-drop. The point here is more to give infantry healers something really distinct that they can do while still being in a support-role.

5% means 1-2 HP in the long run, if at all. How exactly does this balance anything? If anything, something like a +/- 15% per level with above/below average to make a more noticable difference. For a unit that's gaining +1HP in every levelup but only has a 60% growth, a +15% helps her odds much more, while a -15% means that once every 5 levels she is assured a non-HP levelup. 1-2 HP won't make much of a difference by endgame unless the game really breaks down combat to needing to survive by that little bit.

It doesn't. Not in that manner at least. As I mentioned the goal is more too keep units from getting hit too hard, though I do like the 15% more.

.5 May make a more significant difference. If you have somehow capped your luk out at 30, then an enemy unit with 8 luk completely negates your crit boost from Luk. I don't know how heavily you value the reliability of crits, but remember that Luk is undervalued as it is, and most units naturally aren't rolling caprammed luck. You're probably seeing units with a boost of 4 crit on average, which is pretty insignificant, don't you think? Remember, you're trying to balance things out. 4 crit isn't balancing much. 11 or so makes more of an impact than one hand's-worth. Combined with your Sword thing, this might be powerful, but for Tome users feel minimal benefit to this, and Bows feel the same benefit.

I do not disagree. However, remember that, as this is a stat-effect, enemies gain this edge too. While it will be good to see units with decent luck finally really have a solid edge since they won't get crit, it would also be very frustrating to see enemies potentially critting characters that have a bit less luck. Is that worth it?

This makes Axe users worse by comparison, as Sword users only get better (and mounted Sword users feel the benefits even more), while Lances still get the boost. It's not exactly common to see. Axe users, on the other hand, have

Not quite. Units who specialize in axes tend to have high HP and would be overcoming the axe-penalty before long and get a little extra nudge on-top of that. Units who rely on multiple weapon-types (of which one is the axe) would see a minor reduction in power though, which is good, as they should not be fighting on the same/similar levels.

This doesn't benefit early game fighters. In fact, it makes units like Wade, Lott, Dorcas, Bartre, Dart, Garcia, ROSS and arguably early promoted Heroes like Raven worse off, making them less desirable. Raven at least has swords to his name, but you'd really need to retool Fighters/Brigands to make this remotely balanced. If you changes the HP from 40 to 20 or 30, then it'd make a difference even. but 40 is far too much for the traditional early-game axe user to climb out of, when they already have the most inaccurate weapon in the game.

That inaccuracy has proven to be of iffy reliability as a balance, especially since, later on, axes tend to have more MT and most units have 100% (or very near it) hit anyways. Yes, it will penalize early-game fighters, but it also rewards late-game fighters and makes picking axes as a secondary a bit more of a question as opposed to a clear upside.

This seems sort of impactical. I'd propose a Hit decrease in spaces moved, since logically, you're going to have a harder time hitting a target while running/riding at higher speeds. Maybe -5 Hit per tile moved.

This is more of a nerf to movement and to players who enjoy having their units rush forwards than anything. If you desire to run forwards there will be a cost, and it's not a cost that can be wagered/lucked out. Clear and defined and not about to be negated by a unit with overkill hit. Plus that suggestion really hits foot-soliders hard since they lose out on the hit as well and have not really proven to be a problem in the balance of thrown weapons.

Mounted healers aren't that great though. Why can't this be usable by all kinds of staff users?

Firstly, that would include ALL staff users, including things like Sages who picked up the staff or Awakening Falcon-Knights who really don't need a boost (in this manner at least). Secondly, the point is to give healers, who usually are limited to staves, are weak, can't keep up easily, and potentially other things, something unique to them so that they can have an edge over the faster mounted healers.

Move 6 or 7 spaces, and you get to double? In LTC settings, mounted units tend to charge ahead as fast as possible. If anything, this rewards maxmove turns and benefits LTC more. Also, you contradict your above statement with "move 5 or less spaces".

Sort of the opposite. If a mounted unit moves too much they can't use 1-2 ranged weapons, if a mounted unit doesn't move enough they will suck at melee combat. Either way it's a penalty that gives them an accented edge (high-movement combat) without allowing them to become overly-exceptional to the point of outshining other units.

Not sure how to interpret this. It sounds neat, but in my head I can't quite make sense of it as a logical event. Please clarify if "Has rescued" a unit refers to "has a unit in tow" or simply "rescued a unit on the current turn

Both. If a Unit A rescues Unit B, then so long as Unit A holds Unit B Unit A is auto-doubled. When unit A drops off unit B both units A and B are auto-doubled till the start of the next player-phase. Not only does this limit rescue-dropping for turncounts and accent it's use as a redeployment tool (since you don't want those units getting doubled), it rewards units with better defensive stats since they have to take a beating till the start of the next turn.

Maybe only one time. This could allow a Sniper/BootsSniper to cover an INCREDIBLE amount of ground while carrying someone, such as a lightweight lord. If the lord can't be rescued by Sniper design, then it's probably better. Innes/Eirika comes to mind.

The number of circumstances that would have to fall into place for a sniper to constantly have targets within range that it is capable of doubling and killing reliably while carrying a unit would seem suspect at best. I have no real objection to a limit, just one to the circumstances that would lead to the scenario you are proposing.

This promotes not moving your archer/sniper, which seems counterproductive, as you WANT your bow user to keep up with battle to actually see battle. You'd have to really plod along to see a benefit of this, and if the enemy is awaiting you to enter their aggro range, it only makes an impact if they survive for more than one turn anyway.

Archers are almost always iffy on durability and it is almost always better to attack from 2-range, if only to negate the counter, than 1. If you're seriously dangling your archer out there and relying on this skill for kills there are probably bigger problems going on with your team than the balance of this. It's more to keep players from rushing in on snipers consequence-free and help player snipers who get surrounded entirely (who will need the help).

Magic users see little to no benefit in this setting, unless staff "walls" are just that big of a deal.

Being able to attack and move through enemy-placed walls as well as being able to put up some amount of crowd-control seems like it would be a decent addition to strategy. Have a priest put down a wall on one entrance and stick a general in the other, use a ward to let a combat-unit pass through, and the like, all seems like a decent addition. Even the simple ability to make a unit waste movement seems like it would be potentially saving another units life.

because promoting to Hero drags you out to having a low Axe rank and good Sword rank, where you're already getting more benefits for having a sword to begin with,

Even without the nerfs using a steel or silver sword is usually better than an iron/steel axe and, if you're in a position where the iron/steel axe is actually stronger/better than the higher-graded sword, than your axe needs a nerf.

[Elieson]

Actually, it's sort of the opposite. Fighters will have a large amount of HP from the get-go (Boyd starts with 30 HP, so he'd only lose 10 hit at the beginning, and would be even and heading uphill as soon at he hit 15 for example) and would be able to overcome and surpass the hit penalty while units who did not have a sizable HP pool would need to... consider their weapon choice more. A sword would be weak, but offer crit, a lance is meh-ish but can be good with a large amount of movement, and an axe is potentially potent, but best-off in the hands of units with high HP and iffy elsewhere.

Dart starts with 34, Geese with 33 Dorcas starts with 30, Lott & Bartre with 29, Wade & Garcia with 28, Hector with 19 and Ross with 15. In Mounts, you have FE6 Marcus with 32 and FE7 Marcus with 31, Zealot with 35, From the getgo, you have Swordusers getting no change at all at the absolute worst, while you have units like Hector starting the game with -21 Hit, while archers get to counter at one range depending on their Aggro AI and lancers even out the Weapon Triangle by having their own exploitable movement cancel out their MT weakness against Axe users. I clearly don't want to hand 28HP Isadora axes mid-way through the game when she's already sorta frail. (If I didn't mention them, they're either prepromotes with enough HP to barely outweigh the boon, or ok enough in their own right). Considering more FE games start in Axe heaven, your swordusers are only skyrocketing towards better crit rates while your Axe users are even more likely to whiff than they were to begin with, even against other axe users. Hector with a -21 to Hit, and Ross with even more than that, put them at some extreme challenge to overcome. Even the other early game axe users need to gain no less than 10 levels (or say, 7+Promotion) just to even out their own natural accuracy. Lancers and Sword users are the ones with more benefit than not, as no matter what, 2/3 of your natural axe users (read, units that have an actual axe rank, and join before midgame) are facing an uphill battle even with WTA.

Actually, it's meant more to reward dodge-tanks by making it harder for units who don't specialize in avoid to dodge (as well as making speed less of an overwhelming force), though that is a potential outcome.

You see the pros and cons here, and that's ok.

Yea. Typo'd there. Anyways, I don't want to nerf mounted healers so much as I want to nerf rescue-dropping from being, basically, a chopper-drop. The point here is more to give infantry healers something really distinct that they can do while still being in a support-role.

It doesn't. Not in that manner at least. As I mentioned the goal is more too keep units from getting hit too hard, though I do like the 15% more.

The +/- 15%, or just the +15%?

I do not disagree. However, remember that, as this is a stat-effect, enemies gain this edge too. While it will be good to see units with decent luck finally really have a solid edge since they won't get crit, it would also be very frustrating to see enemies potentially critting characters that have a bit less luck. Is that worth it?

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here, then. You're attempting to have a stat boost crit, and yet achieve balance by mitigating crit all together? I admit I'm a little lost.

Not quite. Units who specialize in axes tend to have high HP and would be overcoming the axe-penalty before long and get a little extra nudge on-top of that. Units who rely on multiple weapon-types (of which one is the axe) would see a minor reduction in power though, which is good, as they should not be fighting on the same/similar levels.

Read the above. Even with the assumed +1HP per every levelup for Axe Users bar Jeigans, you're disuading players from using axes to build axe rank, which means that by the time a player has approached comfortability with the game's enemy design and weapon layout, as well as enough in stats to take advantage of cancelling out their own penalty for holding axes, they're at a lower rank. Cavaliers will have spent much time playing with S/L, and have little interest in typical axes if they've got both better ranks, enough CON to use weaponry that outdamages axes, and good enough WTC to deal with lances by simply using other lances. I'd be more apt to see a nerf to the way WEXP is handled for multi-weapon users than a nerf to the principle of gaining a weapon type upon promotion that would be rarely, if at all, used.

That inaccuracy has proven to be of iffy reliability as a balance, especially since, later on, axes tend to have more MT and most units have 100% (or very near it) hit anyways. Yes, it will penalize early-game fighters, but it also rewards late-game fighters and makes picking axes as a secondary a bit more of a question as opposed to a clear upside.

So units like Hawkeye, who gain between 10-20 hit from base, up face a boost versus swordusers who gain crit due to the LUK mechanic + Sword mechanic. Swordies are looking at only a crit boost on top of their critboosts because your new AVO formula makes swordies even more accurate against axe users. Axe users against other axe users face a neutral battle in that the only differences in HIT are based on max HP. It doesn't seem like very much. The rest of the game is handled a bit well, but I feel that this empowers swordusers to the levels of Rutger!FE6, and thus your new design will flow that way.

This is more of a nerf to movement and to players who enjoy having their units rush forwards than anything. If you desire to run forwards there will be a cost, and it's not a cost that can be wagered/lucked out. Clear and defined and not about to be negated by a unit with overkill hit. Plus that suggestion really hits foot-soliders hard since they lose out on the hit as well and have not really proven to be a problem in the balance of thrown weapons.

I meant to say that Mounts who travel farther should suffer the HIT penalty (while infantry do not). There's enough realism to assume that you're riding at speeds on a horse which are fast enough to screw up your throwing arm, meanwhile boosting the piercing ability of your pike. Footbound soldiers aren't attempting to approach those speeds, so aren't impacted.

Firstly, that would include ALL staff users, including things like Sages who picked up the staff or Awakening Falcon-Knights who really don't need a boost (in this manner at least). Secondly, the point is to give healers, who usually are limited to staves, are weak, can't keep up easily, and potentially other things, something unique to them so that they can have an edge over the faster mounted healers.

If nonmounted staffers are weak, can't keep up easily, and more, then give them a purpose that isn't casting a spell to replace Armorknights in walling capabilities for a few turns.

Sort of the opposite. If a mounted unit moves too much they can't use 1-2 ranged weapons, if a mounted unit doesn't move enough they will suck at melee combat. Either way it's a penalty that gives them an accented edge (high-movement combat) without allowing them to become overly-exceptional to the point of outshining other units.

They're still seeing more combat, which means that they're gaining more levels and more exp, thus more stats and more WEXP to use better weapons, better.

Both. If a Unit A rescues Unit B, then so long as Unit A holds Unit B Unit A is auto-doubled. When unit A drops off unit B both units A and B are auto-doubled till the start of the next player-phase. Not only does this limit rescue-dropping for turncounts and accent it's use as a redeployment tool (since you don't want those units getting doubled), it rewards units with better defensive stats since they have to take a beating till the start of the next turn.

Interesting. Would you maintain the Spd/Skl decrease, too?

The number of circumstances that would have to fall into place for a sniper to constantly have targets within range that it is capable of doubling and killing reliably while carrying a unit would seem suspect at best. I have no real objection to a limit, just one to the circumstances that would lead to the scenario you are proposing.

The only real circumstances I can see with this are having your Snipers rescuing someone on Turn1 with MaxMove, then on Turn 2 (the turn that usually starts combat) having the Sniper maxmove and get two-three turns ahead of the rest of the team. Or, if the Sniper has say, a Killer Bow, having the Sniper run exploit on the Move method (zigging and zagging) to sweep an entire group of enemies that say, might have been weakened by the rest of your team. I don't dislike this idea, but I can find minor exploits that make the game easier by handing you what breaks out to be an overpowered earlygame archer/sniper while the rest of your team just eats a hit, camps while the healer heals, and repeats for enough ChipEXP to make game progression easy enough, while also bringing up the possibility of the Lord Saddlebag Shuffle.

Archers are almost always iffy on durability and it is almost always better to attack from 2-range, if only to negate the counter, than 1. If you're seriously dangling your archer out there and relying on this skill for kills there are probably bigger problems going on with your team than the balance of this. It's more to keep players from rushing in on snipers consequence-free and help player snipers who get surrounded entirely (who will need the help).

If your archer has done the above, then they're probably capable of doing so at this point. Otherwise, the alternative is that you're still stuck with archers hoping that the AI targets them (when suddenly, the AI knows it can be countered, and might go for a different unit all together depending on stats), or that your archer is chipping, stuck gaining chip Exp, and not leveling up fast enough compared to the rest of the team's powerhouse lancers who are gaining actual statboosts for using lances, for instance. It's a delicate mechanic to balance, and your Sniper will have to have incredible payout to be used in a method that's not what I posted just above

Being able to attack and move through enemy-placed walls as well as being able to put up some amount of crowd-control seems like it would be a decent addition to strategy. Have a priest put down a wall on one entrance and stick a general in the other, use a ward to let a combat-unit pass through, and the like, all seems like a decent addition. Even the simple ability to make a unit waste movement seems like it would be potentially saving another units life.

I still don't get why you want priests to replace armorknights as your Walls-that-don't-gain-exp. It's nice for clutch, but reduces the need for armor knights even more

Even without the nerfs using a steel or silver sword is usually better than an iron/steel axe and, if you're in a position where the iron/steel axe is actually stronger/better than the higher-graded sword, than your axe needs a nerf.

So in what world are you giving Raven or Isadora axes then? If you're in a position that chump axes are better than high-grade swords, then yes, axes themselves need a nerf (which is where I'm going with my rant against your Axe thing).

Personally, I think that the weapons need a bit more tweaking in this design, the WEXP formula needs a kick in the tush, and enemies need a buff in general, regarding mostly defensive parameters. You shouldn't constantly be able to OHKO/2HKO an enemy cavalier, while yours is 4-5HKO'd in return. Something like having mounts require twice as much WEXP to balance out the fact that they already have a bigger arsenal. I feel like fliers will be handled well enough with the new Rescue mechanic, but still face an overall benefit of recieving their +1MT boost from the very first chapter that they appear, while Axe users WTA against all unpromoted fliers is practically negated by their own lower HP early on.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Sara.

[Axie]

This isn't as much of a rebalance as it is Nerf Mounts At Any Cost: The Game, is it?

*prepares big answer*

Dynamic HP: The thing with HP is that it doesn't have value by itself as much as it defines the value of everything else. For example, in FE4, where both allies and enemies have stupid high HP, one point of an offensive stat matters less because you need more than that to achieve ORKOs, and one point of a defensive stat also matters less because it doesn't make you survive many more attacks than you already do. My point here is that if you want everyone to have better chances at a good HP value by creating this mechamic, you need to consider what this means in the long run. Do you want stats to matter more or less?

Speed and Avoid: Like Elieson said, this is a very minor nerf. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think 1 RN for Accuracy would downplay the value of Avoid a lot more than simply reducing Avoid in 2 RN. While it actually makes you dodge high Hit rates more often, you can't just rely on a dodgetank to avoid everything in the lower Hit rates like you can in FE6 and beyond. Of course, this also means your high Hit rates miss more often but I honestly don't mind that.

Luck: I actually don't mind Luck being a less valuable stat than the others because it helps in many things. They could give more Critical but it wouldn't be a big deal and that's fine.

Accuracy: I agree that Skill (and therefore Accuracy) needs to be more useful; 1 RN for Accuracy probably already goes a long way because then every point matters equally, but excess Accuracy becoming Critical also rewards high Skill units, which doesn't happen currently. I even think the bonus could be bigger, like 1 Crit for every 5 or even 2 excess Hit.

Weapons: Axes are currently the best weapon type because they have the most Might while having less Hit matters less. If Accuracy mattered more they'd already be more balanced. The -40 Hit idea is honestly atrocious, the 1 HP = 1 Hit idea does not even remotely make up for it, and this only makes training axe people harder (specially if they have shit bases like most of them do). The Sword and Lance ideas are actually good, but Axes could have the 1 HP = 1 Hit mechanic without any additional Hit penalty. Maybe -10 Hit at most.

Thrown weapons: Wouldn't it just be easier to have them not doubling, period? You've set some pretty complex conditions that consist of most situations where you'd use a thrown weapon, anyway. Failing that, they are the ones who could afford to have a Hit penalty, like Longbows did in FE10, but probably not with the already terrible initial Hit of FE10 Longbows.

Wall Staff: The foot restriction is completely pointless, the effect only existing in the side squares is weird, and it kinda makes Knights obsolete (the staff is even ranged!), but I like the idea of Resistance being more useful somewhere. I can't come up with any other uses for Res, though.

All the mount nerfs: No stat boosters is both too punishing and too irrelevant (stat boosters are rare), only doubling when moving a lot sounds particularly pointless because mounts are most useful in LTC where they use all of their Mov every turn probably while losing thrown weapons doesn't really nerf them enough, and the auto-doubled after Rescue thing might be interesting but the dropped unit being auto-doubled too just screams "limiting strategy for the sake of nerfing mounts".

Mounts can be balanced in many ways - having less stats than foot units, movement restrictions, having less Mov when carrying an ally (this one is particularly great; someone suggested it in this board a few years ago and I never forgot it because it's so good), etc. None of your ideas quite work for that, to be honest.

Rapid Fire: It's broken pls nerf. Even if it worked only one time it would still be Galeforce with a small restriction.

Point blank: Good idea but no movement is a bit too much, maybe if they moved less than 3 squares or something. Also, enemy archers wouldn't need this at all, they are good as is.

More Mov for Armors: Yes.

Rolling Stone: I like Def becoming Str on EP. +1 AS after every attack, not so much. I think the priority should be to make their defensive capabilities more important rather than improving their combat, though.

[dondon151]

replying to this thread is pointless because snowy has me blocked, but it's far more desirable to have simple, impactful mechanics changes than it is to have needlessly complex mechanics.

[Chiki]

I don't understand how any of these things rebalance the game.

[Snowy_One]

Dynamic HP: The thing with HP is that it doesn't have value by itself as much as it defines the value of everything else. For example, in FE4, where both allies and enemies have stupid high HP, one point of an offensive stat matters less because you need more than that to achieve ORKOs, and one point of a defensive stat also matters less because it doesn't make you survive many more attacks than you already do. My point here is that if you want everyone to have better chances at a good HP value by creating this mechamic, you need to consider what this means in the long run. Do you want stats to matter more or less?

I want HP to not be as... screwable. The problem with HP is that it's the one stat that can't be easily made-up-for by crossing your fingers.

Speed and Avoid: Like Elieson said, this is a very minor nerf. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think 1 RN for Accuracy would downplay the value of Avoid a lot more than simply reducing Avoid in 2 RN. While it actually makes you dodge high Hit rates more often, you can't just rely on a dodgetank to avoid everything in the lower Hit rates like you can in FE6 and beyond. Of course, this also means your high Hit rates miss more often but I honestly don't mind that.

I dislike the the idea of an RN switch as it doesn't really fix the problem. The problem here is that it's simply too easy to render enemy attacks useless through dodging on TOP of having sizable amounts of DEF. This seems like something that should-not be. There is nothing wrong with average-ish units dodging a hit every once-in-a-while, but the rate just seems too high for the reward for units who don't focus heavily on dodge-tanking.

Luck: I actually don't mind Luck being a less valuable stat than the others because it helps in many things. They could give more Critical but it wouldn't be a big deal and that's fine.

There is a big difference between 'less valuable' and 'nigh-useless'. A unit has to be seriously lacking in luck for it to have a noticeable impact on performance and, to my memory, the only unit where it's made a real difference to have excessive amounts of luck is on Mist. While there is nothing wrong with it being less-valuable, it seems to hold simply too little value ATM.

Weapons: Axes are currently the best weapon type because they have the most Might while having less Hit matters less. If Accuracy mattered more they'd already be more balanced. The -40 Hit idea is honestly atrocious, the 1 HP = 1 Hit idea does not even remotely make up for it, and this only makes training axe people harder (specially if they have shit bases like most of them do). The Sword and Lance ideas are actually good, but Axes could have the 1 HP = 1 Hit mechanic without any additional Hit penalty. Maybe -10 Hit at most.

That's sort of the idea though. Mono-axe users, like warriors, have a ton of HP so the nerf wouldn't affect them and they'd even get extra hit from it after a bit of a rough start, but meanwhile units who just picked up the weapons on the side would likely have an uphill struggle to get the 'better' weapon.

Thrown weapons: Wouldn't it just be easier to have them not doubling, period? You've set some pretty complex conditions that consist of most situations where you'd use a thrown weapon, anyway. Failing that, they are the ones who could afford to have a Hit penalty, like Longbows did in FE10, but probably not with the already terrible initial Hit of FE10 Longbows.

Not doubling renders them almost useless outside of a select few situations. Generals already struggle because they don't double at lot despite having otherwise-great stats, so why would there be much of a difference with a weapon that has even less going for it besides the 2-range counter? The idea is to offer a trade-off. You can move less and double, or move more and not double, which do you value more?

Wall Staff: The foot restriction is completely pointless, the effect only existing in the side squares is weird, and it kinda makes Knights obsolete (the staff is even ranged!), but I like the idea of Resistance being more useful somewhere. I can't come up with any other uses for Res, though.

I think I need to clarify. It turns the target square and two of the squares on the side into walls as well to make a bar-shape, not spawn walls around the target area. The point to the extra walls when targeting the caster is so that it can serve as an impromptu defense. It's not likely to make knights obsolete since it requires a staff-user to constantly re-cast the spell, can't kill units, and can be bypassed by enemies with decent RES, and is easily controlled by limiting the amount available. Sure, there will be situations where the staff is better than a general, or at least capable of the same job, but then the bonus goes to magic users whom already seem to be a bit wobbly on the whole in terms of balance.

All the mount nerfs: No stat boosters is both too punishing and too irrelevant (stat boosters are rare), only doubling when moving a lot sounds particularly pointless because mounts are most useful in LTC where they use all of their Mov every turn probably while losing thrown weapons doesn't really nerf them enough, and the auto-doubled after Rescue thing might be interesting but the dropped unit being auto-doubled too just screams "limiting strategy for the sake of nerfing mounts".

I fully disagree. In LTC runs the use of a unit for optimal strategy is going to trump any amount of buffs or nerfs, but this penalty cuts them a clear role as high-movement strikers, cuts foot-soldiers a role as the 'backbone' of the army, and doesn't rely on something as iffy/delicate as a stat-balance to do so. Think of it like mounted units in Total War. They have a clear role and they can excel when they fit in that role, but remove them from that role and they've got some clear problems. You want them flanking and striking at unprotected areas, not doing the bulk of the fighting.

As for the auto-doubling, the point is to make it focused on actual rescue and redeployment, not as a cheap and quick way to rush through a level. It will still have its uses, even in bypassing things or flying past mountains/difficult terrain, just makes it so that dropping a unit without some serious defense behind enemy lines is a strategy that will only be considered by people focusing on LTC.

Rapid Fire: It's broken pls nerf. Even if it worked only one time it would still be Galeforce with a small restriction.

It's tempered by the fact that it's limited to archers/snipers, a class that's historically proven itself to be underpowered and struggling to function on the same level as almost any other unit that can counter on the player-phase.

Point blank: Good idea but no movement is a bit too much, maybe if they moved less than 3 squares or something. Also, enemy archers wouldn't need this at all, they are good as is.

Fair enough.

Rolling Stone: I like Def becoming Str on EP. +1 AS after every attack, not so much. I think the priority should be to make their defensive capabilities more important rather than improving their combat, though.

I should probably remove the EP requirement... The idea was that you want a general to get a bunch of AS stacks, then shift to his other mode to lay down a whollup on anything that got close. Since the general has to either be constantly taking attacks or be slow and needs to take quite a few to get to doubling they're not going to suddenly become stat-beasts, but at the same time not be rendered impotent by a lack of speed either.

By switching between the two modes you can get a defensive-phase brute. By just sticking them in one mode you can either get a general that can be fast... if they can keep taking attacks, or a general that can pummel but probably won't double and has his pummel limited to the EP.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Snowy_One

[Parrhesia]

I have no idea how any of these are meant to work in flavour terms. Fire Emblem might be a pretty... abstract attempt at mass combat, but c'mon.

Echoing dondon's point that this fucks with the simplicity of FE mechanics in general, too.

Also since when has speed given three avoid lol, is that some Awakening shit? IIRC it bottomed out at 1 in FE11/12, and has been 2 in most.

[Axie]

the Awakening calculation page says Avoid is (Speed x 3 + Luck)/2 which actually means 1 Spd = 1.5 Avoid lol. I don't know why it became an issue.

also I can't address all the points right now so I'll tackle the big ones for me:

The problem here is that it's simply too easy to render enemy attacks useless through dodging on TOP of having sizable amounts of DEF.

That was my point though. With 1 RN you can't just dodge as reliably because facing even 20% hit, for example, means you actually get hit 1 time in 5 attacks; in 2 RN, 20% displayed is 8% true so you dodge a lot more

Mono-axe users, like warriors, have a ton of HP so the nerf wouldn't affect them and they'd even get extra hit from it after a bit of a rough start, but meanwhile units who just picked up the weapons on the side would likely have an uphill struggle to get the 'better' weapon.

Except as Elieson showed they are actually hit hard by the nerf because they lose Hit when it actually matters which is earlygame. Meanwhile the despised Paladins pick up axes upon promotion when they already are closer to 40 HP and can use it with no problems.

Like I said, if Hit is more important then Axes automatically become less dominating. The return of weapon weight would make them less dominating too as long as enemies have noticeable AS.

As for the auto-doubling, the point is to make it focused on actual rescue and redeployment, not as a cheap and quick way to rush through a level.

Why is it cheap to use a mehanic of the game strategically to help you finish chapters more easily? If you are so opposed to mounts having this extra utility then remove Rescue period.

something as iffy/delicate as a stat-balance

Stat balance isn't iffy or delicate, it's the one thing that creates all the lack of balance you are complaining about. Axes are the best because you don't need Skill to hit, mounts are the best because their stats AND movement are great, thrown weapons are the best because their stats aren't bad enough to even remotely offset their usefulness. Etc.

I liked some of your ideas because it adds flavor but if your goal really is balancing then dealing with stats is the way to go because it's the most simple and the most effective solution.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Axie

[BBM]

Axes aren't dominating because they're axes; they're dominating because of the people who use them. If you took axes away from the FE7 Paladins they'd still be awesome because they can switch to lances and just lose a point or two of Mt. Dracoknights/Wyvern Riders still kicked ass before they switched from maining lances to maining axes. If axes were so dominating, you would expect that mono axe-users would be the best infantry units in the game, but this is only true of FE9!Boyd and maaaaybe FE10!Nolan at a stretch. In every other game your Fighters are mediocre at best even compared to other infantry (discounting the reclass games because half the time your axe-users don't stay in that class). Actually your best infantry axe-users are generally Heroes, but they like axes just for the 1-2 range. If you gave them lances upon promo they would be totally fine with it since most of them have good strength.

A small hit nerf to axes would be okay but -40 hit is aimed at all the wrong people.

[arvilino]

Many of these changes make the game a lot more complex overall for some rather small balance changes. Since you're making a change and then implementing a new system to counteract the change in some cases(Axes) I think it would be extremely univiting and tough to understand for new players.

I think the most appropriate Fire Emblem rebalances would try to keep within the current rules of the game more often than not and leave mechanics easy to understand for every player with a focus on uniform changes to what already exists rather than establishing new game mechanics for exceptions to the changes you've made such as changing how doubling works only for throwing weapons rather than just removing it.

My alternatives would be:

• HP is a pretty simple one, decrease the DEF/RES base/growth/cap by a margin(depends on the game) for every class in the game and then increase every classes base HP by slightly more than the base defense reduction. The end result is that more units will survive a single hit from max HP, a consequence is that more tanky units will survive fewer hits per turn but that acts against low manning so is a desirable change.

• Mounted units could be made some of the slowest classes in the game and slightly weaker(Cavaliers and Dracos, Pegasus Knights are fine) in all other stats than they've been in previous entries. It makes a lot more sense to the player and they'll realize they're weaker but still useful because of their high movement.

• Throwing weapons may as well always be limited to 1 attack per round of combat, this limit could just be established as an inherent feature. In difficult modes avoiding a counter attack from a 1 range enemy or being able to set a ranged enemy up for defeat with a little chip damage is desirable and Axes and Lances are wielded mostly by what are supposed to be the slower classes in the game anyway.

Edited December 6, 2014 by arvilino

[dondon151]

That was my point though. With 1 RN you can't just dodge as reliably because facing even 20% hit, for example, means you actually get hit 1 time in 5 attacks; in 2 RN, 20% displayed is 8% true so you dodge a lot more.

i don't like the 1 RN system because it makes accuracy too infuriating. 1 RN introduces a lot of frustration while not adding much of value to the game.

also, 2 RN doesn't decrease the value of skl. in 1 RN, if you went from 80 to 90 hit, you cut in half your chance of missing. in 2 RN, if you went from 80 to 90 hit, you cut roughly eightfold your chance of missing.

[X-Naut]

Outside of giving enemies competent hit rates and not giving the player too many ways to stack Avoid (both are givens), the best way to balance out the 2 RN system would be to make some bonuses (like terrain) percentage-based rather than static values. i.e. Forests now cut hit rates to 80% of their original value instead of granting 20 Avoid, so hit chances below 40 don't drop off the face of the earth.

[Axie]

i don't like the 1 RN system because it makes accuracy too infuriating. 1 RN introduces a lot of frustration while not adding much of value to the game.

also, 2 RN doesn't decrease the value of skl. in 1 RN, if you went from 80 to 90 hit, you cut in half your chance of missing. in 2 RN, if you went from 80 to 90 hit, you cut roughly eightfold your chance of missing.

But that's because you are already missing a lot less to begin with - in 2 RN, going from 80 to 90 displayed is going from 92 to 98 true, so 6 misses become hits. In 1 RN, 10 misses become hits when you go from 80 to 90. I agree that, the way it was implemented in FE1~5, 1 RN could be frustrating, but Snowy wants to nerf axes and mounts, and make most units dodge less, so I suggested 1 RN because it accomplishes both things without utterly lunatic measures such as -40 Hit for axes. However, FE probably doesn't need all of Snowy's changes (specially the ones against mounts) to become more balanced, and therefore 1 RN is probably not necessary or worthwhile then.

(I do think 1 RN could be used to increase the value of Skill and Luck, though - 1 RN effectively reduces your hit rates since you almost always have 50+% displayed hit on enemies, but if Skill and Luck increased your Hit by more than 2 and 1 per point respectively, you could achieve similar hit rates to 2 RN, which makes Skill and Luck more useful. But like I said, this is probably not necessary to make Hit/Skill more important.)

[Psych]

Outside of giving enemies competent hit rates and not giving the player too many ways to stack Avoid (both are givens), the best way to balance out the 2 RN system would be to make some bonuses (like terrain) percentage-based rather than static values. i.e. Forests now cut hit rates to 80% of their original value instead of granting 20 Avoid, so hit chances below 40 don't drop off the face of the earth.

I like this idea, though I can't remember how Advance Wars does their terrain and if it's similar to this or not

[dondon151]

Outside of giving enemies competent hit rates and not giving the player too many ways to stack Avoid (both are givens), the best way to balance out the 2 RN system would be to make some bonuses (like terrain) percentage-based rather than static values. i.e. Forests now cut hit rates to 80% of their original value instead of granting 20 Avoid, so hit chances below 40 don't drop off the face of the earth.

in post-GBA era FE games, the avo bonuses granted by terrain are pretty small anyway.

[Snowy_One]

Alright. Fair enough on the axe hit nerf. I was hoping to add in some special mechanic for them though to make them actually stand out as more than just another notch on the weapon triangle. Any suggestions?

As to the 1-2 range thing, while I get that their huge use is doubling on mounted units and taking that away would nerf them a lot, I'm worried it will make the weapon useless.

I'm not sure on how to properly balance the mounted units though. Lower stats seems like a good way to go, but it seems like it would be a delicate balancing act to not make them end up OP'ed.

[Irysa]

Have any of you considered the possibility of letting Myrmidons and Swordmasters have an innate skill that means if they have say, twice the amount to double an enemy (so, in most games 8 AS over the enemy) they get triple attacks? How about increasing it exponentially? That might be an interesting way of buffing that class, which is also historically somewhat iffy since they tend to have overkill speed and middling str (and haven't had good critrates in ages).

Edited December 7, 2014 by Irysa

[dondon151]

somewhat related, FE5 SMs had innate adept.

[Axie]

That idea actually sounds pretty interesting but then their Strength would definitely need to be middling - in games with reclassing where you can easily grow Str in some other class it could be broken.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Axie