Jump to content

Your definition of a good FE character


Recommended Posts

After seeing 57834739 debates in the forest recently about FE characters, I just want to ask....

What is your definition of a good Fire Emblem character? Mine is how well he/she does against enemies that are near or at his/her level. I could care less about how hard or easy it is to raise due to enemies being at significantly higher/lower levels. I also care less about ranks either, unless I'm doing a ranked run (which I hardly do anyways).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well as long as the FE character is able to kill many enemy units without, needing constant healing or attention then I would say that is a good unit, regardless of stats.

Edited by Dark Sage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reliability. If I can count on them to live, kill, and possibly help others, they are good. I don't care what level they start at. If I can consistently rely on that unit, s/he is good.

This

I HATE opening the attack menu and not seeing a 2X next to Dmg.

Same here. That's why Gatrie (RD) is my favourite general, as he can actually double sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utility, support list and affinity, join time/level he/she is at, and good fighting ability, for those who fight, of course

For the level thing, there are exceptions. For example, Gonzales, if you took the good route, is level 5, but has amazing stats for a level 5 unit. I like how in Hard Mode he can have up to 43 HP, ten more than Geese! The up to 17 strength and extra skill and resistance (those two being his weak points) is swell, too. Same thing for Fir and Zeiss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My standards when it comes to determining whether or not a character is "good" aren't very high. If a character can do the job they're supposed to do, then that character is good in my eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I play the game just for fun, I don't really care (unless it's a hard game like Genealogy of the Holy War or Thracia 776). As long as they're not uber ugly.

If I play the game with ranks, max BEXP, or fastest completion in mind, I keep a lot of things in mind. Supports, joining condition, average stats (not who is likely to get RNG blessed and who not) and when the character turns out to be RNG screwed, I replace him with a character that's slightly worse overall. I also keep things such as movement, weapon usability, availability and mounts in mind.

For example, a very good FE9 team would be:

Titania

Oscar

Boyd

Jill

Kieran

Reyson

Ike

Makalov

Marcia

Tanith

Mist

Rhys

Ilyana

Mordecai

Zihark

That'd possibly be the best team, with good support chains and a good amount of mounted characters (which are very good in FE9).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever is actually benefitting the team.

By this logic, anyone who is trained is a good unit. Therefore, you've just shoved your own beliefs into a pile of shit. >_>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol at Genealogy being hard. Not the easiest, but it wasn't hard.

It's possibly the second hardest game...

But I can't tell for sure because I haven't played Radiant Dawn or New Dark Dragon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...