Do Bows have any place in the Weapon Triangle

[Jotari]

So Fates did something slightly odd for the series and lumped Bows into the weapon triangle. It seems Heroes revert back to Bows being apart so it's kind of up in the air how they'll be treated in future installments. Next game might not even have a weapon triangle. So how do you feel about bows and their place in combat?

Edited February 28, 2017 by Jotari

[Dragrath]

I found the decision in fates to be... greatly odd as it upset a long standing view of Bows as threatening units to mages due to hitting mages where it hurts their low defense.

The triangle fates forced honestly makes no sense whatsoever I hope it goes away never to return...

[NekoKnight]

With an additional ranged weapon type (hidden weapons) I think they deserve their own triangle. I think it is silly that Knights get a WTA on mages (not that they are likely to dodge).

[Ycine]

If possible I would like Bow to get their own WT.

But, I will say Bow as Neutral weapon is the best option.

[Vaximillian]

I actually like the Heroes version of the triangle.

But yeah, bows should be neutral.

[bethany81707]

I did my own fiddling on an 'inspired-by-Tellius' triangle that lumped bows, knives and strikes (laguz) into one triangle, and between that, traditional, and magic, I made a triangle of those.

I'm not sure how well-thought out the triangle itself is (if only because I don't remember which weapons beat which), but if IS really wants to experiment with making bows part of the triangle, that is an option.

[Jotari]

10 minutes ago, phineas81707 said:

I did my own fiddling on an 'inspired-by-Tellius' triangle that lumped bows, knives and strikes (laguz) into one triangle, and between that, traditional, and magic, I made a triangle of those.

I'm not sure how well-thought out the triangle itself is (if only because I don't remember which weapons beat which), but if IS really wants to experiment with making bows part of the triangle, that is an option.

I could see bows getting an advantage over magic to help distinguish them from mages but making them weak against sword/lance/axes would be too big a trade off. On the other hand making them effective against sword/lance/axes but weak to magic might work but then you're nerfing your mages by making it harder for them to fight typical units. Overall I think there's just too many classes that use the standard three weapons to make such a system viable. Whoever loses against swords/axes/lances will be facing wtd a disproportionate amount of time.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Jotari

[Magical Glace]

Keep them separate.  I've said this before, but I like the Heroes Triangle (Sword/Fire beats axes/wind beats lances/thunder beats swords/fire, with bows and shurikens separate)

[Kyne]

The only way I see bows being part of an effective "triangle" is not having them in a triangle and simply giving them the weapon triangle advantage when attacking from afar, given that they are specialized ranged weapons, and disadvantage when used to defend from melee. This would give them an edge against mages and hand axes/javelins. It would also make it clear that an archer belongs at the back.

Also, Fates making them able to attack in melee with shit like pointblank pisses me off. IT'S A BOW. If the only way you can make bows good is by making the other ranged weapons worse (tomahawks and shit) and making the bows capable of melee, there's something wrong with bows, and your weapon system basically devolves to: "Can it attack in both ranges? If yes it's good if not it's not as good unless it's stats are much better." IMHO, bows should all be 2-3 range or something, so they can be the most EFFECTIVE ranged weapons in the game, as they SHOULD BE by virtue of being bows. I've tried to hack this into fe7 but these games are designed around bows having 2 range so the game just wasn't built for that. If the game were balanced around the bows with 3-range, I think the archers can fulfill their actual purpose of sniping people. It might also help them kite a little better with the use of stuff like mountains.

Rant: Over.

[bethany81707]

@Kyne, Radiant Dawn implemented something similar to that, but when the unit promoted into a Marksman. I hear it made them pretty good, and add that to Shinon and Rolf being halfway decent units themselves...

At any rate, as you said, it all depends on the game's balance. If you give the average Archer longbow range, you could either give them the edge in combat they need or break the system over your knee. I don't know for certain which end Marksmen fit into.

[SpearOfLies]

I don't feel that fates made a poor jobs here. Sniper learn certain blow which basically don't care about aim penalty. Give them the anti-mage bow and they destroy mage. Outlaw have good amount res, give them the reaven bow and they can take care of mage. Kinshin knight have good res too and have lance. Mechanist and merchant may suffer but they have hidden weapon and lance.

The only one "suck" against mage is mercenary-based bow knight.

I feel fates give to the mage the short stick.

[Emeraldfox]

5 hours ago, Dragrath said:

a long standing view of Bows as threatening units to mages due to hitting mages where it hurts their low defense.

They still did even with the disadvantage. Most folks with bows in Fates has good resistance.

 

I actually liked the dual triangle Fates did. Bows were part of the triangle and still kept their main thing of shooting down fliers.

[RedEyedDrake]

Bows, daggers and another type of utility weapon definitely deserve to become their own weapon triangle. Or not "their own" actually. For example, have swords get advantage over axes, bows and what ever else ends up in that corner of the overall weapon triangle but have the bonuses against axes be greater than the bonuses against the other things that are in that corner. In the same way bows would get an advantage over lances, daggers and what ever else is in that corner but the bonuses against daggers will be higher than the bonuses against the other things. Oh, and different elements of magic would also get their own parallel-but-not-separate weapon triangle in the same fashion.

[Extrasolar]

7 hours ago, Kyne said:

Also, Fates making them able to attack in melee with shit like pointblank pisses me off. IT'S A BOW. If the only way you can make bows good is by making the other ranged weapons worse (tomahawks and shit) and making the bows capable of melee, there's something wrong with bows, and your weapon system basically devolves to: "Can it attack in both ranges? If yes it's good if not it's not as good unless it's stats are much better." IMHO, bows should all be 2-3 range or something, so they can be the most EFFECTIVE ranged weapons in the game, as they SHOULD BE by virtue of being bows. I've tried to hack this into fe7 but these games are designed around bows having 2 range so the game just wasn't built for that. If the game were balanced around the bows with 3-range, I think the archers can fulfill their actual purpose of sniping people. It might also help them kite a little better with the use of stuff like mountains.

Rant: Over.

That actually started in Gaiden, where Fates drew a lot of its mechanics from. There, bows by default had 1 - 2 range, and could go up to 3 with a special skill.

All things considered, bows should be able to attack from far further away than 2-range or even 3 range - archers in the series wait till they're within 20 feet or so of the enemy before even taking their shot. If things were realistic, they'd be able to attack from 5 or 6 squares at the least - and then, they'd have to be arcing their shots like actual archers have to do.

So bow realism is already screwed to begin with.

Though as for bows in the weapon triangle, they don't have a logical trump the way the magic and the melee weapons do; swords are swifter and less clumsy than axes, a lance's superior reach beats a sword, etc. For bows...it doesn't make any sense that they'd have an advantage over axes. If it's just range, they should have an advantage over all of melee, which would be a little dubious. Not a fan of them having an advantage over magic, because most archers tend to have poor resistance, meaning that archers in FE aren't naturally resistant to magic or anything.

Neutral like Heroes is the way to go with them, imo. Same with shurikens and strike weapons, as other people have said.

[Dragrath]

38 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

That actually started in Gaiden, where Fates drew a lot of its mechanics from. There, bows by default had 1 - 2 range, and could go up to 3 with a special skill.

All things considered, bows should be able to attack from far further away than 2-range or even 3 range - archers in the series wait till they're within 20 feet or so of the enemy before even taking their shot. If things were realistic, they'd be able to attack from 5 or 6 squares at the least - and then, they'd have to be arcing their shots like actual archers have to do.

So bow realism is already screwed to begin with.

Though as for bows in the weapon triangle, they don't have a logical trump the way the magic and the melee weapons do; swords are swifter and less clumsy than axes, a lance's superior reach beats a sword, etc. For bows...it doesn't make any sense that they'd have an advantage over axes. If it's just range, they should have an advantage over all of melee, which would be a little dubious. Not a fan of them having an advantage over magic, because most archers tend to have poor resistance, meaning that archers in FE aren't naturally resistant to magic or anything.

Neutral like Heroes is the way to go with them, imo. Same with shurikens and strike weapons, as other people have said.

Yeah I feel it is just easier to have them separate from the triangle. rather than 

 

That said I am somewhat interested in seeing how range dependent effectiveness would be (such as bows having disadvantage at 1 range and advantage at 3 for instance) Factoring in Knives and I could see some sort of bonus for initiation versus getting attacked  however those could turn out horrible just as much as it could be useful I think testing would be needed before hand in any given case.

[Azz]

I personally like Heroes WT and I do like how they are neutral.

While I did likes Fates' WT, I thought it was weird bows were weak to magic, especially considering that was bows schtick, being able to take down mages from range while other units can't.

[Night Zap]

I liked Fates' weapon triangle a lot. Being strong against lances helps archers fulfill their role as anti-air units, since most fliers use lances. Their advantage over hidden weapons makes them good against their users, who tend to be hard to hit, but fragile. If hidden weapons return in future games, the current triangle will hopefully stay too.

I also never saw archers as designated mage killers. Pre-Nerf, Hand Axes and Javelins could be used for the same purpose, and wouldn't fail their wielder if the enemy mage walked right up to them.

[Shadow Mir]

11 hours ago, Jotari said:

I could see bows getting an advantage over magic to help distinguish them from mages but making them weak against sword/lance/axes would be too big a trade off. On the other hand making them effective against sword/lance/axes but weak to magic might work but then you're nerfing your mages by making it harder for them to fight typical units. Overall I think there's just too many classes that use the standard three weapons to make such a system viable. Whoever loses against swords/axes/lances will be facing wtd a disproportionate amount of time.

That reminds me, Yggdra Union had bows in a triangle with the melee 3 (said game has other weapons, but you don't see the wielders of those other weapons all that often in comparison, HOWEVER, the nastiest unit in said game uses one of those other weapons) and rods, and whilst bow attacks couldn't be countered, they themselves couldn't counter; all told, that didn't really help them much against melee weapons, which they were disadvantaged against (save for the part where the units what used them were good at certain times - hunters at noon, assassins at night; in those cases, if they got a hold of you on offense, they pretty much have you dead to rights. Also of note, swords, lances, and axes are all neutral against bows).

Edited February 28, 2017 by Levant Mir Celestia

[Kyne]

13 hours ago, Night Zap said:

I liked Fates' weapon triangle a lot. Being strong against lances helps archers fulfill their role as anti-air units, since most fliers use lances. Their advantage over hidden weapons makes them good against their users, who tend to be hard to hit, but fragile. If hidden weapons return in future games, the current triangle will hopefully stay too.

I also never saw archers as designated mage killers. Pre-Nerf, Hand Axes and Javelins could be used for the same purpose, and wouldn't fail their wielder if the enemy mage walked right up to them.

Yeah but didn't Wyverns start using axes instead? if so, then it really starts mattering a little less, especially when you keep in mind that the Pegasus knights generally have low physical defense and high res (at least they did in the GBA games, I haven't played Fates, only watched let's plays) while the Wyvern Lords are the ones with basically flying armorknight status, in which case, the new-found WTA helps them very little.

In Fates in particular, with new stuff like the kinshi(Kishin? don't remember. Flying ostrich thing.) knight that can also use bows,  and the wyverns switching to axes, I believe the WTA on Lances wouldn't matter much.

You also have to keep in mind that the archer would be the one initiating on the mage and generally one-rounding them because the mages' physical defense is paper. In fact, the archers would generally have to engage themselves on anything because they always have that "problem" of having no melee option. That was kind of what I liked about them, in a game where I can get away with placing one guy with a hand axe in a bush and just murdering waves of enemies that way, the archer allowed me and NEEDED me to do something with him on my turn. It gives me agency, so to speak. If he needs to get into throwing axe range just to shoot one arrow, with the exception of the longbow which happens to be REALLY BAD in the way of might and weight, that kinda turns me off from using the archers.

As an unrelated issue, Fates made archers good at the game, (but not in a way that I like, sue me) and Takumi makes all other obsolete, and not even because of his stats.

[BANRYU]

While I like Fates' weapon system and for the most part bows are balanced internally pretty well, it's hard to ignore the obvious factor that is Takumi's brokenness, a large part of which is owing to his weapon type. 

That said, I think it could go either way. The arrangement of Fates' triangle may not necessarily make sense, but in essence it's solid IMO, where no weapon is exempt to the advantages or disadvantages of the weapon triangle-- that notion, to me, is a sound one. Otherwise, as a standalone/neutral weapon, bows (along with daggers) need to be carefully balanced, IMO. 

[Shadow Mir]

15 minutes ago, BANRYU said:

While I like Fates' weapon system and for the most part bows are balanced internally pretty well, it's hard to ignore the obvious factor that is Takumi's brokenness, a large part of which is owing to his weapon type. 

That said, I think it could go either way. The arrangement of Fates' triangle may not necessarily make sense, but in essence it's solid IMO, where no weapon is exempt to the advantages or disadvantages of the weapon triangle-- that notion, to me, is a sound one. Otherwise, as a standalone/neutral weapon, bows (along with daggers) need to be carefully balanced, IMO. 

Can you really call Takumi "broken"? Because I have trouble seeing it when Shinon is the best archer in the series (imo, at least) and even he doesn't merit being called broken.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Levant Mir Celestia

[BANRYU]

18 minutes ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

Can you really call Takumi "broken"? Because I have trouble seeing it when Shinon is the best archer in the series (imo, at least) and even he doesn't merit being called broken.

I mean.... I guess it depends? For me personally he's not what I would call broken since I have several units who can adequately deal with him in Heroes, but technically in that regard that's just good luck on my part, I think...

I dunno, man. That might just mean that Shinon is balanced better within the context of his own game; another character can be less powerful than him but still be better relative to the environment. I can't make any bold claims as my experience with Tellius isn't THAT extensive, but... yeah...?

[Kyne]

Takumi in my eyes, makes all other archers in his get obsolete, but he doesn't appear to be better than anyone else in the series. He's good, but what makes him better than the other archers in fates is the Fujin Yumi. It's just so strong that there doesn't appear to be much point in using the archers that can't use it unless you just want more archers.

I've even heard that he's not a good statwise as some others but that one bow makes him better.

 

[Extrasolar]

2 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

Can you really call Takumi "broken"? Because I have trouble seeing it when Shinon is the best archer in the series (imo, at least) and even he doesn't merit being called broken.

Shinon is most definitely broken in Radiant Dawn. The guy is a dodge monster with high HP and decent defense, will double everything in the game, and crit on pretty much every attack, if not activating Deadeye and killing the unit he fights instantly anyway with tripled damage (or putting it to sleep if it somehow survives, as it were). He has great availability, starts off strong, and never slows down.

Takumi, though, isn't nearly on Shinon's level.

1 hour ago, BANRYU said:

I mean.... I guess it depends? For me personally he's not what I would call broken since I have several units who can adequately deal with him in Heroes, but technically in that regard that's just good luck on my part, I think...

I dunno, man. That might just mean that Shinon is balanced better within the context of his own game; another character can be less powerful than him but still be better relative to the environment. I can't make any bold claims as my experience with Tellius isn't THAT extensive, but... yeah...?

Takumi in Heroes is stronger and/or more dangerous than Takumi is in Fates, funny enough. And Shinon is definitely not balanced. He's not quite on Haar tier, in all fairness, but that's mostly because of Haar's amazing mobility as a flying unit.

1 hour ago, Kyne said:

Takumi in my eyes, makes all other archers in his get obsolete, but he doesn't appear to be better than anyone else in the series. He's good, but what makes him better than the other archers in fates is the Fujin Yumi. It's just so strong that there doesn't appear to be much point in using the archers that can't use it unless you just want more archers.

I've even heard that he's not a good statwise as some others but that one bow makes him better.

 

Pretty much this. Without the Fujin Yumi, Takumi would be an above average archer in regards to his high skill and good strength, but nothing really all that spectacular. He's honestly not hard to take down, even with the Fujin Yumi, with similarly strong units. But he does 100% make the likes of Setsuna obsolete.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Vaximillian]

13 hours ago, BANRYU said:

Shinon is balanced better within the context of his own game

because his own game is badly balanced