Should magic triangles return?

[arvilino]

By that token why not go all the way and only have the generic A-E rank weapons for each type and some basic staves and call it a day? Do away with anti-mount and anti-armor weapons as well as the Killer family, ect.

Naturally, any increase in complexity should be done with the intent of increasing the variety of possible gameplay scenarios. This will in turn enrich the strategic aspect of the game. The point of the games is planning things out so I don't think more options to use in your plans has to be a bad thing.

Personally I don't see the point on making anything complex if it doesn't give the mechanic any impact. For example the Magic Triangle in the last few games before it was removed did make the game more complex but was just +1/-1 attack, +/- 10 hit. To put this into equivalent terms having WTA amounted to +1 Magic, +1 Resistance and +10 Accuracy/Avoid, the attack bonus itself being smaller than the might difference of certain tomes(Thunder and Wind in PoR for example).

The problem is that Mage vs. Mage confrontations are brought to a crawl by the mages of similar stats inability to get past each others high resistance stat(Common in RD). Or if your mage is strong enough he or she is demolishing the opponent regardless of WTA/WTD(E.g. Pent vs an enemy Shaman). A weak magic user will never the turn the tables or be a threat due to WTA and the ones that are a threat like Luna wielding enemies ignoring RES would threaten magic users whether they have WTA or WTD. I felt while it added complexity didn't make the game any deeper.

It might be a bit extreme in practice but I think a simple change to punch through high resistance could be that while equipped with a Tome the user has a weakness to another tome type almost like a Knight being weak against Hammers. So Light Magic would have triple might against a Magic user who is currently equipped with a Dark Tome.

Edited February 23, 2015 by arvilino

[Baldrick]

What you listed was in general the fatal flaw of the magic triangle - why swear fealty to it when in general one magic type is superior to the others (Case in point: FE4)???

It's also the fatal flaw of the physical triangle - why swear fealty to it when in general swords are superior to the others (Case in point: FE4)???

I'm only in favour of the magic triangle if magic classes and weapons are given more variety.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Baldrick

[X-Naut]

I'll agree that magic triangles aren't as necessary as making the magic types more distinct. I've been thinking on it myself and have a few ideas on it...

1. Anima Magic- This discipline has three different types of magic at their disposal, and while there are some variations they're still rather weak. I think Fire and Wind are fine as they are, with Fire being the go-to type and Wind being the anti-air support (maybe it could stand to have Might and Hit against non-fliers nerfed a bit). I thought about making Thunder a magical Longbow tree that can't double, but I feel like even with the drawback it would encroach on archers too much. Instead, it could have the best all-around stats but with a crippling drawback: no 1-range, no double attacking, or both. All run off the same rank and receive the same weapon rank bonuses. Anima triangle is an optional add-on with some justification (Thunder out-powers Fire which out-powers Wind which disrupts Thunder).

2. Dark Magic- Same as always, it's the straight-up power magic, with less Hit than general Anima spells but Might that rivals or even surpasses Thunder. All weapon rank bonuses give it more power. The result is something that will hurt everything but will have Hit issues against physical targets.

3. Light Magic- I'm taking a new approach with this one because the way it's been done so far renders it pointless. It's weak like it's always been and only gains Hit from weapon ranks, but all Light spells are effective against magic-using targets aside from other Light users (triple Mt for Bishops, double for anything else). It's outclassed against physical units by other types, but it'll rival Dark in power against other mages, and with fewer Hit issues! Bishops in particular will be able to do more than just sit there unless they're fighting another Bishop.

The Magic Triangle would not be a triangle, but would follow the Jugdral version where both Light and Dark beat Anima and are neutral to each other. Leaving it as a triangle is counter-intuitive when the anti-magic type is weak to the common magic. Unlike the Jugdral series however reaver tomes can exist to level the playing field.

[NekoKnight]

Naturally, any increase in complexity should be done with the intent of increasing the variety of possible gameplay scenarios. This will in turn enrich the strategic aspect of the game. The point of the games is planning things out so I don't think more options to use in your plans has to be a bad thing.

If you can elaborate on specific changes you'd like to see, it'd be easier to discuss your viewpoint beyond "more complexity, guys!".

I'll agree that magic triangles aren't as necessary as making the magic types more distinct. I've been thinking on it myself and have a few ideas on it...

1. Anima Magic- This discipline has three different types of magic at their disposal, and while there are some variations they're still rather weak. I think Fire and Wind are fine as they are, with Fire being the go-to type and Wind being the anti-air support (maybe it could stand to have Might and Hit against non-fliers nerfed a bit). I thought about making Thunder a magical Longbow tree that can't double, but I feel like even with the drawback it would encroach on archers too much. Instead, it could have the best all-around stats but with a crippling drawback: no 1-range, no double attacking, or both. All run off the same rank and receive the same weapon rank bonuses. Anima triangle is an optional add-on with some justification (Thunder out-powers Fire which out-powers Wind which disrupts Thunder).

2. Dark Magic- Same as always, it's the straight-up power magic, with less Hit than general Anima spells but Might that rivals or even surpasses Thunder. All weapon rank bonuses give it more power. The result is something that will hurt everything but will have Hit issues against physical targets.

3. Light Magic- I'm taking a new approach with this one because the way it's been done so far renders it pointless. It's weak like it's always been and only gains Hit from weapon ranks, but all Light spells are effective against magic-using targets aside from other Light users (triple Mt for Bishops, double for anything else). It's outclassed against physical units by other types, but it'll rival Dark in power against other mages, and with fewer Hit issues! Bishops in particular will be able to do more than just sit there unless they're fighting another Bishop.

Interesting ideas.

1. Lightning strikes me (pun unintendo) as something that would have a high critical rate but lack the ability to double. The killing edge of magic, if you will. You could explain it with "lightning never strikes the same place twice". Alternatively, it could be effective against armored targets. A little overkill perhaps, considering those unit types already have low res but the same can be said for Wyvern riders and wind magic. I think it would be cool if all anima magic did effective damage to some kind of unit, just as it did in Tellius. Wind vs Air, Lighting vs Armor, Fire vs...Horses? It would have to be more limited.

2. Dark Magic doesn't need to change much.

3. I like the idea behind Light Magic being the magic type to tackle other magic users. I don't think Light Magic users should curbstomp other magic users but they should have a healthy advantage in both damage and hit/avoid. You could have the Purge spell do effective damage to magic users to make it a long range mage killer.

[Refa]

Magic triangle is something I wouldn't mind returning, though I have to say that it's execution prior hasn't exactly been optimal.

In Jugdral, for instance, the triangle didn't impact much since wind was still by far the strongest of the elements, other than perhaps slightly hindering the reliability of killing Arvis with Forseti, which you probably weren't intent on doing anyways.

It actually did make a difference since you had limited Wind tomes and not everyone could use Wind magic. Additionally, the massive hit/avoid buffs/nerfs were important in the arena as well. Also it didn't hurt that the mages in FE4 didn't have crazy good RES like they usually do, so you could, you know, actually kill them with magic.

Also not surprisingly, I'd prefer a system like FE4. I don't really feel strong about a magic triangle either way, but it just seemed sloppy how they stuffed all of the magic types into one catch all magic type in Awakening despite having more magic using classes than ever (which would make them redundant, but skills helped in that area at least).

Edited February 24, 2015 by Refa

[Original Alear]

I don't care about the weapon triangle at all, I'm ok with it returning.

Lightning strikes me (pun unintendo) as something that would have a high critical rate but lack the ability to double. The killing edge of magic, if you will. You could explain it with "lightning never strikes the same place twice". Alternatively, it could be effective against armored targets. A little overkill perhaps, considering those unit types already have low res but the same can be said for Wyvern riders and wind magic. I think it would be cool if all anima magic did effective damage to some kind of unit, just as it did in Tellius. Wind vs Air, Lighting vs Armor, Fire vs...Horses? It would have to be more limited.

I also liked making different anima elements effective against different kinds of units. I wouldn't mind seeing that again.

Considering that criticals are x3 damage if they hit and doubling is x2 damage if both strikes hit, getting rid of doubling capability wouldn't be that great unless the unit wouldn't double anyway. That might be a nice compromise for slow units, I guess.

[Shadow Mir]

I don't really think the magic triangle really adds that much to the strategy of the game though, that's the problem. I think rather than creating the arbitary triangles, making magic more distinct by making it have more varied effects (it's goddamn magic after all) is the way to go.

Personally I don't see the point on making anything complex if it doesn't give the mechanic any impact. For example the Magic Triangle in the last few games before it was removed did make the game more complex but was just +1/-1 attack, +/- 10 hit. To put this into equivalent terms having WTA amounted to +1 Magic, +1 Resistance and +10 Accuracy/Avoid, the attack bonus itself being smaller than the might difference of certain tomes(Thunder and Wind in PoR for example).

The problem is that Mage vs. Mage confrontations are brought to a crawl by the mages of similar stats inability to get past each others high resistance stat(Common in RD). Or if your mage is strong enough he or she is demolishing the opponent regardless of WTA/WTD(E.g. Pent vs an enemy Shaman). A weak magic user will never the turn the tables or be a threat due to WTA and the ones that are a threat like Luna wielding enemies ignoring RES would threaten magic users whether they have WTA or WTD. I felt while it added complexity didn't make the game any deeper.

It might be a bit extreme in practice but I think a simple change to punch through high resistance could be that while equipped with a Tome the user has a weakness to another tome type almost like a Knight being weak against Hammers. So Light Magic would have triple might against a Magic user who is currently equipped with a Dark Tome.

You two both hit the nail on the head.

It's also the fatal flaw of the physical triangle - why swear fealty to it when in general swords are superior to the others (Case in point: FE4)???

I'm only in favour of the magic triangle if magic classes and weapons are given more variety.

Nice try, but physical classes in general are more varied than magical ones. And the weapon triangle actually manages to stay relevant, which is more than can be said for the magic triangle, which never managed to see relevance again after FE4... Also, what Refa said about wind tomes applies to swords there as well.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Levant Caprice

[Baldrick]

Nice try, but physical classes in general are more varied than magical ones. And the weapon triangle actually manages to stay relevant, which is more than can be said for the magic triangle

If magic classes were more distinct, the magic triangle would be more relevant, no? Is there any good reason not to make them more distinct.

Also, what Refa said about wind tomes applies to swords there as well.

Nice try, but you get like a dozen swords and many sword-users before your first wind tome, so it really doesn't.

[Shadow Stalker X]

I'm all for the magic triangles returning, though I'd like for Light Magic to have its own niche to distinguish from the other types. My own personal preference would be for Light Magic to be exclusively long-range magic. There hasn't really been any long range units since the ballisticians since FE11, and I'd like to see them return. Making Light magic long-range would satisfy both points for me.

[NekoKnight]

I don't care about the weapon triangle at all, I'm ok with it returning.

I also liked making different anima elements effective against different kinds of units. I wouldn't mind seeing that again.

Considering that criticals are x3 damage if they hit and doubling is x2 damage if both strikes hit, getting rid of doubling capability wouldn't be that great unless the unit wouldn't double anyway. That might be a nice compromise for slow units, I guess.

And there you go. It might be a gamble to pick Thunder over Fire or Wind if you are able to double, but it would undoubtedly be superior if you cannot double. A situational weapon, but that's the essence of a strategy game.

[Baldrick]

My own personal preference would be for Light Magic to be exclusively long-range magic.

That'd be neat. Even if they just had superior range in general, light magic strikes me as being the preference of more refined magicians who wouldn't want to engage in something as barbaric as direct combat, or something along those lines.

[Shadow Mir]

If magic classes were more distinct, the magic triangle would be more relevant, no? Is there any good reason not to make them more distinct.

Maybe, but still, the main reasons why the magic triangle is irrelevant are scarcity of mages in the enemy army, and high resistance. Both of those would need to be addressed before it can even lay claim to relevance. I just don't see the point of the magic triangle if it won't have any impact, which is pretty much always the case, if you ask me.

[arvilino]

If magic classes were more distinct, the magic triangle would be more relevant, no? Is there any good reason not to make them more distinct.

Would it? Some of the examples in this thread are pretty interesting but when you consider the triangle I think they'd make it less relevant. If like X-Naut's suggestion Thunder would have a higher critical but be limited to one attack per round.

Depending on the magic stats if they're distinct it creates more situations where you're better off using one type of tome regardless of WTA or WTD. If there's an enemy Fire user and you're fast enough to double you'd have less reason to use Thunder unless its stats made the difference between defeating the enemy which is more to do with the tome itself than the +1 attack the WTA gives you.

I'd say it's arguable the more distinct the Tomes are the less influence the traditional Magic Triangle is going to have on your choice compared to the Tomes stats. The only way the existing Magic Triangle(+/- 1 might, +/10 hit) could be more relevant to the choice of tome is if each rank of tome is identical in every stat regardless of the element because if not for the high resistance stats making mage vs mage combat something usually to avoid distinctions as small as Thunder having 2 more might than Wind(PoR) can kind of defeat some of the purpose of the system.

The physical weapon triangle is different because the variety of bonus points for weapon rank being removed emphasises the strong points of the classes that usually wield the advantageous weapon type.

[lonelyVoxel]

Maybe, but still, the main reasons why the magic triangle is irrelevant are scarcity of mages in the enemy army, and high resistance. Both of those would need to be addressed before it can even lay claim to relevance. I just don't see the point of the magic triangle if it won't have any impact, which is pretty much always the case, if you ask me.

What if there were more mages?

[TheCaptain]

There needs to be a magic triangle because if there is only one type of magic, you probably won't need more than one or two magic users in your main party, and that makes physical weapon users more dominant than mages. A magic triangle will give us more variety and balance between magical and physical units. There should NOT be an anima triangle, though. I liked it, but it put light magic at a serious disadvantage due to the sheer number of anima mages, and vice versa for dark mages. GBA style is probably the way to go here.

[Shadow Mir]

What if there were more mages?

I said, and in the very statement you quoted at that, that alone ain't enough.

There needs to be a magic triangle because if there is only one type of magic, you probably won't need more than one or two magic users in your main party, and that makes physical weapon users more dominant than mages. A magic triangle will give us more variety and balance between magical and physical units. There should NOT be an anima triangle, though. I liked it, but it put light magic at a serious disadvantage due to the sheer number of anima mages, and vice versa for dark mages. GBA style is probably the way to go here.

I seriously doubt that.

[NekoKnight]

What if they lowered the resistance of magic users a bit and increased the hit/avoid bonuses of the triangle? If a physical fighter can take off 50% health off of another physical unit in a favorable engagement, magic user vs magic user should be the same.

[Radiant head]

Not a bad idea, though I think the reason mages are so impervious to other mages is to balance how squishy they are when attacked by physical units

.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Radiant head

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

sure why not? it doesn't hurt anything

[Shadow Mir]

sure why not? it doesn't hurt anything

Maybe not, but it won't help anything either. It's just... there.

[DualMix]

Maybe not, but it won't help anything either. It's just... there.

They're just standing there.... Menacingly!

I'm sorry, I just had to...

Edited February 25, 2015 by DualMix

[Zasplach]

Maybe not, but it won't help anything either. It's just... there.

I didn't despise no magic weapon triangle in Awakening, leastwise there were things I disliked more, but the lack of it made all of the magic users in my mind so interchangeable. They all basically wanted get the tomb with the most might to power through enemies with low resistance.

At least with a magic weapon triangle the magic users feel different.

Take my favorite game, Genealogy, where the weapon triangle was executed HORRIBLY, just awful. Wind is just plain better, but at least with the triangle, you feel the difference between Azel and Levin. Or look at Radiant Dawn, I can name off magic users that did different things, like Soren, Sanaki, Cahil, and Illyana and they were off the top of my head. All the mages just felt the same in Awakening.

[BrightBow]

I didn't despise no magic weapon triangle in Awakening, leastwise there were things I disliked more, but the lack of it made all of the magic users in my mind so interchangeable. They all basically wanted get the tomb with the most might to power through enemies with low resistance.

At least with a magic weapon triangle the magic users feel different.

Take my favorite game, Genealogy, where the weapon triangle was executed HORRIBLY, just awful. Wind is just plain better, but at least with the triangle, you feel the difference between Azel and Levin. Or look at Radiant Dawn, I can name off magic users that did different things, like Soren, Sanaki, Cahil, and Illyana and they were off the top of my head. All the mages just felt the same in Awakening.

What did Soren, Sanaki, Calill and Illyana do differently in Radiant Dawn?

From my experience, there are only two kinds of mages in that game: Mages who only deal scratch damage to everything and never double, and mages who also never double but can at least drain more then half of the HP of enemy Generals with Thani. The Magic Triangle is never significant in that game.

If anything, Awakening is the game that did the best job with having distinctive offensive magic, at least when it comes to separating Dark Magic from anything else.

They made Dark Magic superior to regular magic but made it so that the only class who can access these tomes looses the ability to use staffs. So it's a significant choice between pure power and flexibility. Or at least it would be if (among other things) Dark Magic wasn't available to a first-tier class already, seeing how regular mages can't use staffs anyway.

Of course, the Magic Triangle has nothing to do with that either way.

Edited February 25, 2015 by BrightBow

[Shadow Mir]

I didn't despise no magic weapon triangle in Awakening, leastwise there were things I disliked more, but the lack of it made all of the magic users in my mind so interchangeable. They all basically wanted get the tomb with the most might to power through enemies with low resistance.

At least with a magic weapon triangle the magic users feel different.

Take my favorite game, Genealogy, where the weapon triangle was executed HORRIBLY, just awful. Wind is just plain better, but at least with the triangle, you feel the difference between Azel and Levin. Or look at Radiant Dawn, I can name off magic users that did different things, like Soren, Sanaki, Cahil, and Illyana and they were off the top of my head. All the mages just felt the same in Awakening.

I'm sure that weapon specializations and growths are what made them so different (well, ignoring the part where mages in RD weren't all that great). The magic triangle has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Levant Caprice

[Zasplach]

The magic weapon triangle does the same thing that the regular weapon triangle does. It gives each character differentiation, different reasons to attack enemies. Yes, in POR, unlike Holy War you could grind up weapon rank, but using the different types of magic against the individual types of magic users made for more layers of strategy.

The difference between the characters from POR was what weapons they would use, they all are pretty ineffectual end game, and what end game would they would likely be able to use.

The regular and magic triangle have never been perfect, but their differences allowed for varying strategy and differentiated characters.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Zasplach