Thoughts on the Hunter class?

[CatManThree]

In the Archanea games, the Hunter was a bow locked class acting as a counterpart to the Archer class.

For those unfamiliar with what sets them apart and as a general reminder, here is what set the two classes apart generally speaking:

Hunter:

• High HP, Strength, Skill, Speed
  • Note that the two recruited Hunters (Castor and Warren) have a lower Skill base but high Skill growth
• Very low Defense
• Can't use Longbows
• Promotes into Horseman class
  • Gains mount and ability to use swords
    • Note that there is no canto in the Archanea games
  • Lower bases and in turn lower promo gains
  • FE3 dismounting has them revert to the hunter class during indoor maps

Archers:

• Decent defense
• Terrible Skill (FE1 and FE3 book 1 only)
• Decent-High Skill (FE3 book 2, FE11, and F12)
• Low Movement (Exact same Mov as an Armor Knight)
• Can use Longbows
• Promotes into Sniper
  • Higher all around bases than horseman and therefore higher all around promo gains
  • Movement improved to be the same as all other 2nd tier infantry classes
  • Overall solid or high stats
  • Higher base Bow rank (FE11 and 12)

So, what are your thoughts? Would you like to see a dynamic like this return in a future title?

Edited April 27, 2020 by CatManThree

[X-Naut]

If the split returns like this, then archers' longbow niche needs to be better capitalized on and I feel like they should get a better Strength stat. Hunters focus more on agility, may go rogue and typically go after lighter targets (animals, unarmored foes) with lighter weapons; archers were meant to fight in squads and longbows required a lot of upper-arm strength. Besides having higher in all the offensive stats and mobility is seriously overdoing it.

Also you neglected to mention the Jugdral incarnation of the class, where they were enemy-only and had more HP, less skill/speed and the same strength/def.

[Gregster101]

Hunters are basically better than Archers in every meaningful way. Sniper is probably a stronger promotion than Horseman though.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Not a fan of duplicate archer classes. Fates had three base, unmounted archer classes, though I allow the second, since every hoshidan class typically has a nohr counterpart. But hoshido had archers and apothecaries which felt very extra, though I don't recall anybody even having access to that class change.

As for the horsemen, well, we just call them bow knights now. They were also rangers and nomad troopers during gba era. In FE1, horsemen weren't even the promotion for hunter. Just like how General wasn't the promotion for armor knight. In that game, Gordin was supposed to match up to Kashim's superior stats/growths through his ability to promote to sniper. That's just sort of how they balanced things in the first game. And then they added reclassing in Shadow Dragon which necessitated more classes having a promotion, and units like Wolf Sedgar needing insane stats to justify losing twenty level ups compared to other units.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Glennstavos

[Gregster101]

11 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

Not a fan of duplicate archer classes. Fates had three base, unmounted archer classes, though I allow the second, since every hoshidan class typically has a nohr counterpart. But hoshido had archers and apothecaries which felt very extra, though I don't recall anybody even having access to that class change.

As for the horsemen, well, we just call them bow knights now. They were also rangers and nomad troopers during gba era. In FE1, horsemen weren't even the promotion for hunter. Just like how General wasn't the promotion for armor knight. In that game, Gordin was supposed to match up to Kashim's superior stats/growths through his ability to promote to sniper. That's just sort of how they balanced things in the first game. And then they added reclassing in Shadow Dragon which necessitated more classes having a promotion, and units like Wolf Sedgar needing insane stats to justify losing twenty level ups compared to other units.

Midori is the sole unpromoted Apothecary, and she's a Child unit. Outside of the child units, technically Yukimura is a promoted Apothecary, as Mechanist is a promotion option for the Apothecary class.

If that's why they gave Wolf and Sedgar insane growth rates in Shadow Dragon, why didn't they do that for every other pre promoted unit in Shadow Dragon as well?

[AnonymousSpeed]

I think a dichotomy between a slow archer and a fast archer...you know, it could work, but I'm not entirely sure. There's some similar with the difference between Myrmidon and Mercenary, and I usually end up feeling that one is somewhat redundant with the other being there. If mono-promotions are a thing, then I think it could work. With split promotions, however, such a dichotomy would be better handled with character stats and the differences between the promotion options.

I do think Fates had a lot of cool distinct Archer classes, but one of them was a thief analogue which probably helped.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

1 hour ago, Gregster101 said:

If that's why they gave Wolf and Sedgar insane growth rates in Shadow Dragon, why didn't they do that for every other pre promoted unit in Shadow Dragon as well?

Because unit balance was a half measure. Because reclassing was only half considered. Because they split FE3 into halves to make more money

Sorry, my brain is never civil when it comes to Shadow Dragon's game design. And I'm missing a step anyway with my explanation. It was actually FE3 that turned existing classes into promotions for the Hunter and Armor Knight, not Shadow Dragon. And I have no idea how they handled it in that game compared to Shadow Dragon.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Glennstavos

[BakanGin]

Hunter better then archer more. The horseman is a good class but sniper will beat it later game

[CatManThree]

4 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

As for the horsemen, well, we just call them bow knights now. They were also rangers and nomad troopers during gba era.

Horsemen are more comparable to Nomad Troopers than Rangers and 3DS Bow Knights. 3DS Bow Knights and Rangers can have more bulk where as Nomad Troopers are generally made of paper like Horsemen.

Edited April 27, 2020 by CatManThree

[CatManThree]

4 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

And then they added reclassing in Shadow Dragon which necessitated more classes having a promotion, and units like Wolf Sedgar needing insane stats to justify losing twenty level ups compared to other units.

3 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

Because unit balance was a half measure. Because reclassing was only half considered. Because they split FE3 into halves to make more money

Sorry, my brain is never civil when it comes to Shadow Dragon's game design. And I'm missing a step anyway with my explanation. It was actually FE3 that turned existing classes into promotions for the Hunter and Armor Knight, not Shadow Dragon. And I have no idea how they handled it in that game compared to Shadow Dragon.

They didn't split FE3 apart to make money. If they combined FE11 and 12 they would have to cut units and entire chapters again. Also we wouldn't have gotten as much content in FE12.

Regardless, SD is weird in most aspects. Its kinda hard to discuss it in regards to a topic like this, especially with shit like Wolf and Sedgar's growth rates which aren't even really relevant towards the class' quality to begin with.

6 hours ago, X-Naut said:

If the split returns like this, then archers' longbow niche needs to be better capitalized on and I feel like they should get a better Strength stat. Hunters focus more on agility, may go rogue and typically go after lighter targets (animals, unarmored foes) with lighter weapons; archers were meant to fight in squads and longbows required a lot of upper-arm strength. Besides having higher in all the offensive stats and mobility is seriously overdoing it.

Also you neglected to mention the Jugdral incarnation of the class, where they were enemy-only and had more HP, less skill/speed and the same strength/def.

I totally forgot about the Longbow thing and should probably add that to the summery...

I did not mention Jugdral's Hunters because are totally unrelated barring the shared name. Hunters in FE4 and 5 are enemy-only bow locked Brigands that don't even have no 2nd tier class.

[Kenaoto]

Honestly, can't say I'm a fan of Hunters, but I feel like it is a better route than promotable bow horsies like in GBA who are usually better than normal archers and make them more useless than they were. 

[Mylady]

In future games, I can see Bow knights turning a promotion to Hunter, higher  moviment, skill and speed, lower strength and defense. 

 

Archer and Sniper being of the same class tree, foot locked bow user, but stronger and can use long bows. I think bows should always reach more than two spaces but longbows could get an even wider range but lower accuracy. 

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

Regarding Hunters:

I would think that Hunters should be the weaker, faster and especially in terrain more mobile unit. The weaker part stemming from them not having to constantly pull and release the bowstring, as archers would have to, when in battle, the faster and more mobile part on account of them having to “follow” their prey. Perhaps a little less accurate than the Archer, who in theory only has to hit a target amongst many.

Contrasting the Archer, the Hunter should play his role as the bow user who has to hit vital points to deal serious damage, in other words critical hits and should have skills to enhance this role.

For their promotion I can see the Nomad (?) as the horse-riding Hunter work, but with the aforementioned emphasis on landing critical hit, I would consider the Assassin to be their second possible promotion.

As for Archers:

The Archer should be a very hard-hitting bow-user, who perhaps also gets a bit more range than the Hunter, seeing as they may be used on grand - that is wide open fields – battlefields. I would not give them anything else, aside from maybe a damage modifier based on how close they are to their enemies.

As for their promotion I think the Sniper as the extremely accurate bow-user is fine – and has already become a staple? Combining their Accuracy once again with increased crit chance, along with the bigger range of the Hunter path should give them some sort of niche?

As for the second promotion, perhaps something along the lines of a “Master Bowman”. Capable of dealing high damage while remaining accurate, their special thing might be something like being able to attack twice – not in the form of a Brave Effect, but two separate attacks, as that may highlight the Archers capability to fire many times in a short amount of time.

I see no reason for bow-users to be particularly tanky.

21 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

But hoshido had archers and apothecaries which felt very extra, though I don't recall anybody even having access to that class change.

Oboro, Azama and Orochi have access via second seal. Why ever one would do that. Also (Yukimura and) Izana?

[X-Naut]

As an addendum, I feel like the split between Sniper and Horseman/Ranger doesn't add much, especially with recent games. Why have the bow-lock specialist be infantry, and why give the bow cavalry a sword when they're using their bow most of the time? We already have precedent for high-range bow cavalry, just let the Bow Knight the bow-lock specialist, with Sniper as a dismounted form or a mid-tier milestone. Warrior and Assassin can handle our infantry bow needs.

[Alastor15243]

Honestly, unless you add in some kind of system like extra range, making archers dump defense in favor of high player phase power in str skl and spd is pretty much the only way to make traditional archers good. So I don't think this split as described can really work, because archers really have no business having defense.

[𝐅𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐥]

On 4/26/2020 at 8:28 PM, CatManThree said:

So, what are your thoughts? Would you like to see a dynamic like this return in a future title?

classes variety is always good, as long as it's done properly and has an actual meaning behind.

nowdays, it's mostly all about wich characters you like the most, and stick with them while benching anything else you don't really want or need to use.

i played almost all of the titles in the franchise, starting from the NES era, and sadly it has become quite visible to me that the element of strategy itself has lost a part of its meaning past the GBA era, simply because there's way less tactics involved regarding units deployment based on the parameters written below here, when you can just pick whatever character/class you want(and even stack them in some cases) while playing the game without many risks or drawbacks.

is that for better or for worse? i guess it depends on the point of view. but that's a story for another time, surely not for this thread.

 

to stay on topic: older titles also had their own approach to the gameplay compared to other most recent games.

back in the days, each single title had unique mechanics that led you to make different choices based on what was currently available in terms of units, and the map you were playing on.

those can be resumed in the following:

-type of unit and its role(damage dealer, tank or healer - melee or ranged - physical or magical - on foot or mounted - on ground or flying);

-type of enemies on the map(classes and weaknesses, such as aerial units being weak to arrows, armored being weak to magic, etc);

-type of the map itself(plain, desert, forest, etc);

-overall unit's stats and equipment available;

-and last, characters preferences.

the main difference has always been that mounted units were more reliable in open fields due to movement range, therefore using on-foot units mainly for indoor maps was the other most logical choice.

then mages could travel easier in deserts compared to other classes, and flying units had no issues flying over seas or mountains, therefore each class had their own advantages depending on the kind of map.

anyway, long story short: yes, it would be nice to have different classes and promotions with their own unique traits.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Fenreir

[CatManThree]

On 4/27/2020 at 2:41 PM, Imuabicus said:

The Archer should be a very hard-hitting bow-user, who perhaps also gets a bit more range than the Hunter, seeing as they may be used on grand - that is wide open fields – battlefields. I would not give them anything else, aside from maybe a damage modifier based on how close they are to their enemies.

I really really like this idea. Making archers slow but with higher might and extended attack range would not only properly reflect the nature of an archer or "sniper", but also provides a niche differentiating the class from hunters (or any other possible bow class really) while also continuing to be viable. Kinda makes me sad that they aren't like this in any of the games now.

Overall I honestly thing your ideas are absolutely perfect.

[anikom15]

I agree that for the older games you can't really just look at classes in a vacuum. You have to look at the units, the maps, the enemies, the mechanics.

For Shadow Dragon and New Mystery you just reclass good units into good classes and don't need bows anyway.

Honestly, I would literally get rid of bow-using classes completely. Just give everyone access to bows like Three Houses. Maybe throw some bow-centric skills to a 'bow knight' style cavalier charater. Let's embrace a new era of Bow Emblem as a follow-up to Horse Emblem and Waifu Emblem.

Edited April 28, 2020 by anikom15

[AnonymousSpeed]

7 minutes ago, anikom15 said:

Honestly, I would literally get rid of bow-using classes completely. Just give everyone access to bows like Three Houses. Maybe throw some bow-centric skills to a 'bow knight' style cavalier charater. Let's embrace a new era of Bow Emblem as a follow-up to Horse Emblem and Waifu Emblem.

Yo, you know what be really cool? If there was a game where Fire Magic was actually really good. In Horse Emblem, the most important thing about a unit is that they have movie. In this game, the most important thing would be access to fire magic. Wouldn't that be crazy? Man, it'd be insane. You could call it "Fire Emblem" or something.

[Mylady]

16 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Yo, you know what be really cool? If there was a game where Fire Magic was actually really good. In Horse Emblem, the most important thing about a unit is that they have movie. In this game, the most important thing would be access to fire magic. Wouldn't that be crazy? Man, it'd be insane. You could call it "Fire Emblem" or something.

Stone Age Fire Emblem. They are are all grunting cavemen discovering Fire. Dragons are now dinosaurs. 

[anikom15]

20 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Yo, you know what be really cool? If there was a game where Fire Magic was actually really good. In Horse Emblem, the most important thing about a unit is that they have movie. In this game, the most important thing would be access to fire magic. Wouldn't that be crazy? Man, it'd be insane. You could call it "Fire Emblem" or something.

I do appreciate you can at least now set trees on fire in Three Houses. Can't remember if that was possible in any other game.

I'm surprised fire arrows were never a thing, considering they actually exist, especially in Fates where Hoshido was just Japan and Japan had fire arrows. Maybe IS has a strict 'no gunpowder' policy, but don't the ballista weapons have explosives? And then there are the javelins of light....

[NolanBaumgartner]

On 4/26/2020 at 2:05 PM, AnonymousSpeed said:

I think a dichotomy between a slow archer and a fast archer...you know, it could work, but I'm not entirely sure. There's some similar with the difference between Myrmidon and Mercenary, and I usually end up feeling that one is somewhat redundant with the other being there. If mono-promotions are a thing, then I think it could work. With split promotions, however, such a dichotomy would be better handled with character stats and the differences between the promotion options.

I do think Fates had a lot of cool distinct Archer classes, but one of them was a thief analogue which probably helped.

Mercenaries are typically well-rounded units who can later opt into classes with more weapon options (Hero being the most common promotion), while Myrmidons focus heavily on speed and mastery of the sword (hence being groomed for the Swordmaster class). The dynamic works OK because these classes are melee and there's value in being a jack-of-all-trades who can dish some damage here, tank some damage there and pull out a different weapon if necessary. It doesn't work as well for bow-based classes because they are ranged, meaning there isn't as much value in withstanding hits from melee units and it's always tricky to add weapon flexibility to archer units from a gameplay balance perspective (you don't want them to be too good in melee range).

Because FE units rely heavily on the doubling mechanic for damage, a "slow" archer is simply not a good archer unless their growths in most other stats are way out of whack. And you can't take away too much Strength from the "fast" archer either or else they will double for 0 damage more often than not. Which is why the direction from IS as of late has been to make players choose between the range and better stats of the Sniper or the mobility and weapon choice of the Bow Knight., rather than picking between different buckets of stats.

Edited May 1, 2020 by NolanBaumgartner

[Hawkwing]

I've completed Shadow Dragon and tried the original Mystery of the Emblem before getting bored with the game, and in both cases I barely noticed a difference between archers and hunters. The stat distinctions only mattered on a handful of occasions, and their promotions were really the only reason the two classes were separate. Even in Shadow Dragon, having archers and hunters be separate came off more so each reclass set would have at least one unpromoted bow-weilding class than than anything else, similar to how the dark mage class was added to have another magic option.

Unless a Fire Emblem game reverts back to linear class promotions (and doesn't take the Gaiden/Echoes route of having snipers promote into bow knights) I don't really see much reason for hunters to return. The option for archers to promote into snipers or bow knights gives the player the choice of which niche they want a unit to fulfill, which would make hunters redundant unless they changed up the promotions like Fates did.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

I like having more than one first-tier bow class. In a hypothetical Sacred Stones style class system, you could have Hunter promote to Ranger or Sniper, whereas Archer promotes to Sniper or Warrior. Hunters have more speed, strength, and mobility (ex. 1 movement cost through forest, 2 through mountains). Archers have better skill, bulk, and innate 2-3 range (like in 3 Houses). Hunters come from a commoner or mercenary background, while Archers are nobles and/or knights.