Is the Weapon Triangle necessary or effective?

[Ronnie]

I can't help but find the weapon triangle to be rather useless in terms of what has an advantage over another weapon. From what I've played, you only really get minimal extra points worth of damage. It's not like Pokémon where a type advantage grants a 2x multiplier (or even the case with Bows and Fliers). If a sword user is facing a great knight with an armorslayer and the knight has a lance, the weapon triangle wouldn't matter since armorslayers are more effective in this scenario. In the same vein, I find breaker skills to be rather useless as well since there should be no reason to put a unit that is vulnerable so close to an enemy with an effective weapon (bow, wind magic, hammers, etc.). If anything, the classes are what's more effective when it comes to weapon wielding such as the speedy/dodgy myrmidons or the inaccurate but powerful berserkers.

Of course I could be totally wrong about my assessments but feel free to chime in your thoughts or changes to the mechanic.

[Weeping Dalek (MK)]

21 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

I can't help but find the weapon triangle to be rather useless in terms of what has an advantage over another weapon. From what I've played, you only really get minimal extra points worth of damage. It's not like Pokémon where a type advantage grants a 2x multiplier (or even the case with Bows and Fliers). If a sword user is facing a great knight with an armorslayer and the knight has a lance, the weapon triangle wouldn't matter since armorslayers are more effective in this scenario. In the same vein, I find breaker skills to be rather useless as well since there should be no reason to put a unit that is vulnerable so close to an enemy with an effective weapon (bow, wind magic, hammers, etc.). If anything, the classes are what's more effective when it comes to weapon wielding such as the speedy/dodgy myrmidons or the inaccurate but powerful berserkers.

Of course I could be totally wrong about my assessments but feel free to chime in your thoughts or changes to the mechanic.

In the early game, you need to pay attention to the Weapon Triangle, more solely for the hit bonus, but by the end, the Weapon Triangle barely matters anymore

[Armagon]

After playing Shadows of Valentia, i feel like the Weapon Triangle doesn't actually do that much. Now of course, Shadows of Valentia is very different when it comes to Fire Emblem games but even so, when i played Mystery of the Emblem, a game that also didn't have the Weapon Triangle, i noticed that there wasn't really much of a difference between having and not having the Weapon Triangle.

The argument could be made that the Weapon Triangle actually takes away from the strategy aspect in Fire Emblem. Let's say, lance-users are coming at you. A lot of the times, i feel that our "strategy" for handling them is sending an axe user or two to deal with them. But in games without the Weapon Triangle, you can't really do that. I mean, you could, but you have to be more careful about it.

Of course, Heroes has made the best use of the Weapon Triangle imo. I feel like that's the one game where it truly matters.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Armagon

[Magical Glace]

The hit rate bonuses/penalties can mean quite a bit, especially early in the game, in my experience.  In Fates especially. 

And then there's Heroes where it's pretty much the center around which all of the gameplay is built.  Ignoring the WT in Heroes will get you killed, there's no avoiding that.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Glaceon Sage

[Enaluxeme]

SoV showed that it's not necessary. The team behind the game decides to use the weapon triangle or not and balances the game accordingly, it's as simple as that.

[Shadow Mir]

I'd say that the hit rate bonuses and penalties (and in the case of Shadow Dragon onwards, negating the weapon rank bonus) can be pretty meaningful. And for Heroes... well, Glace said it.

[Darros]

31 minutes ago, Enaluxeme said:

SoV showed that it's not necessary. The team behind the game decides to use the weapon triangle or not and balances the game accordingly, it's as simple as that.

Bar in mind FE15 had no playable axe users though. With the hit rates in that game it would be absolutely brutal for an axe user on your side to work with no weapon triangle.

[Rezzy]

32 minutes ago, Enaluxeme said:

SoV showed that it's not necessary. The team behind the game decides to use the weapon triangle or not and balances the game accordingly, it's as simple as that.

I think it's mostly since it was a remake of Gaiden and the complete lack of playable Axe users would have required to much of an overhaul to implement the Weapon Triangle properly.

 

I personally like the WT, since it adds an aspect of uniqueness to Weapon types.  As stated above, the benefits/drawbacks of weapon type varies by game.  I actually prefer it where it's more pronounced.

[The Baroness of Blainswal]

It's all about the hit rate bonuses. An Armour Slayer won't be very effective if it can't land a hit.

[maybe]

the only thing the weapon triangle really does is make axe users suck

the only game where it's really meaningful is heroes, and that's because it's literally the game's central mechanic

i'm glad they didn't try to add it into echoes, but I don't think they can really get rid of it at this point

[TheWill]

Eh, I'm on the fence. Personally the weapon triangle does add some uniqueness to the series. But compared to other SRPGs that often utilise the 'hitting from behind' mechanic (Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea), as people said outside of early game, the weapon triangle becomes much more negligible. I wouldn't mind if they explored with some more unique mechanics, but with the division from pair-up, I'm not sure.

[Nobody]

The weapon triangle is pretty useful on higher difficulties while fighting bosses. Fighting Kotaro on Conquest Lunatic with anything that isn't an axe or a bow is sort of problematic. Good luck beating Kotaro or Fuuga while having Weapon Triangle Disadvantage.

 It also turns 95%s into 75%s or something, which might make you decide to attack an enemy with an unit rather than with another one.

I think it's a nice addiction and I hope they never remove it. 

And as people mentioned, it's pretty important on early game.

4 hours ago, Ronnie said:

In the same vein, I find breaker skills to be rather useless as well since there should be no reason to put a unit that is vulnerable so close to an enemy with an effective weapon

Breaker skills are quite good. They give you 50% avoid. That is huge, it means you basically won't be hit by anything that uses that weapon type.

Oh, and Shurikenbreaker turns Conquest's chapter 25 (if you go the full way, not beating it with Corrin) on Lunatic/Classic from almost impossibly hard to very manageable.

That said, I saw your post about finding Conquest on Normal/Classic very nerve wrecking, so I imagine you only play Fire Emblem on normal modes or something. Yeah, the weapon triangle is very ignorable on those modes, but you have to make use of all the tools you have at your disposition on higher difficulties.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Nobody
shuriken breker, not bow breaker

[Interdimensional Observer]

The series wasn't born with the Weapon Triangle, and in a number of games it could be fairly unimportant, and thus nonstrategic. While I don't see the triangle disappearing any day soon, I will say IS shouldn't be afraid to go without it and take advantage of the opening it makes in experimenting with new weapon types and other forms of integrating strategy.

[Ronnie]

18 minutes ago, Nobody said:

That said, I saw your post about finding Conquest on Normal/Classic very nerve wrecking, so I imagine you only play Fire Emblem on normal modes or something. Yeah, the weapon triangle is very ignorable on those modes, but you have to make use of all the tools you have at your disposition on higher difficulties.

Yeah pretty much. I played Awakening and Birthright on Hard/Classic so once again the weapon triangle wasn't all that significant. I imagine lunatic is when it becomes a lifesaver.

[sirmola]

1 hour ago, Ronnie said:

Yeah pretty much. I played Awakening and Birthright on Hard/Classic so once again the weapon triangle wasn't all that significant. I imagine lunatic is when it becomes a lifesaver.

In lunatic conquest, the game sttarts spaming ninjas with S ranks and a skill that causes debuffs to stack. You want to get hit as little as possible whenever they show up. WTA and kunaibreaker are really usefull if you want to avod having zero in all your stats for almost the whole chapter..

[MadJak91]

6 hours ago, unique said:

the only thing the weapon triangle really does is make axe users suck

Mm. I think the WT is heavily stacked against axe users most of the time or axes just plain suck in a particular game in terms of Hit and the WT further exploits the fact.

I think the usual idea is to have the sword using Lord capable of leveling up on inaccurate early axe users but then it becomes a problem in general. Again, depends on the game but I usually found it to be the case.

Going with a lance against an axe or with a sword against a lance is not AS bad as going with an axe against a sword.

Edited July 10, 2017 by MadJak91

[WyvernLord]

Depends on what they do with it. 

There have been plenty of examples where it just isn't all that effective however. The pitiably small effect is part of why in GBA and Tellius you can pretty much solo the games with a hand axe/javelin user despite there being many "disadvantaged" WTA matchups.

The series could really stand to build on or buff the bonuses that the DS and Fates games had for WTA. Helps give every weapon a proper niche and somewhat stops your Flying lance/ axe just soloing the game if they cant hit something.

If they insist on +10 hit/avoid only, they might as well just drop the system 

EDIT: WTA has never made axes suck btw 

Edited July 10, 2017 by WyvernLord

[bethany81707]

Honestly, yeah, I'm liking not dealing with the weapon triangle. What I'd look for next time they drop it (if ever) is magnifying the individual traits that make weapons different (an example from Echoes is that there is a Brave Sword but no Brave Lance, at least as far as I have encountered). Make using different classes not a question of 'who are these units good at fighting' more as 'what advantages does this unit have over a similar unit who uses a different weapon'.

Preferably, we could get classes that use multiple weapon types again.

[Jotari]

I find that I only ever consider the weapon triangle if there's an axe user involved. I'm not at all dissuaded attacking a lance user with a sword or vice versa but if I see an axe handy brigand I immediately try to get my swordies near it. Likewise when using axe wielders I generally don't attack sword users and try to attack lance users. It's a player aid more than anything really. Probably not strictly necessary but I would be sad to see it go.

[Azz]

Really it only ever started to matter recently. In GBA and Tellius, it never really mattered. However, I felt like in FE4 and 5 it did matter (Especially in 5 because your hit rates only went from 1-99 and not 1-100) and in Fates(Especially in Conquest) it does matter.

Obviously it matters a lot in Heroes though and is pretty much needed if you intend on doing anything.

[Ronnie]

9 hours ago, phineas81707 said:

Preferably, we could get classes that use multiple weapon types again.

You mean in Echoes, each class only gets 1 weapon type? That sounds weird and limiting.

[Armagon]

4 hours ago, Ronnie said:

You mean in Echoes, each class only gets 1 weapon type? That sounds weird and limiting.

In the context of Echoes, it isn't. The game is built with that in mind.

[bethany81707]

6 hours ago, Ronnie said:

You mean in Echoes, each class only gets 1 weapon type? That sounds weird and limiting.

Not, strictly speaking, true. Alm, Celica and promoted female mages have an additional weapon (bow for Alm, swords for the mages). However, because of Echoes's mechanics, you're never really going to use Alm's Sword and his Bow at the same time- if you're wielding a sword, his bow's not that great (only 2 range?) and if you're wielding a bow, there's no point in using the sword (he'll even counterattack with the bow).

The mages using swords is slightly better, in that being attacked at one range means you don't have to expend HP. But the sword slot is mostly there for extra attack.

1 hour ago, Armagon said:

In the context of Echoes, it isn't. The game is built with that in mind.

 

[Jotari]

Personally I still would have liked if dual weapon types were more of a thing in Echoes. If Alm and priestess couldn't use bows and swords it wouldn't bother me all that much but the fact that they do it for a few units and then just treat the idea as impossible for the rest bugs me. What would it hurt to have Gold Knights use Swords (Rudolf could even use a sword then like he's meant to in the lore)? Or have Barons use axes (then that devil axe you pick up would count for something)? At the very least it would give you more options for weapon distribution.

[SpearOfLies]

I feel it have more potential strategically and game design. It's not necessary but I will feel less "fire emblem" if they decide to remove them from not-remake game. It's one of feature than make fire emblem unique than plain regardless its utility.

 

I don't know way but I feel that the WTA scaling with weapon rank or I'm wrong?