Why not give Knights two weapons?

[Jotari]

So Cavaliers have traditionally gotten both Lances and Swords at tier 1. This is...kind of super unfair. They (generally) have early accessibility, good to great stats and two weapons to start off giving them complete weapon triangle control. Knights on the other hand are characterised as impossible to get anywhere due to their low move, weak to magic and just generally not that desireable as units Fates fixed this by making them nigh on invincible, which was good, but I think maybe a little too extreme. How about we give knights access to both lances and axes at tier 1? This wouldn't solve all their problems, but it give them quite a bit more utility. Additionally, once they promote to Great Knight and get three weapon ranks, you could actually have two of them resaonbly levelled already (jumping from one weapon to three always seemed a bit weird to me). General lacking a mount and an extra weapon type always seemed unfair to me too, so I'd throw Bows onto them like in Shadow Dragon. So what do you think? Just an idea I was tossing around in my head. In my experience Generals useually turn out to be pretty good, it's just hard to train Knights since if they're not at the level they should be, then they start dying pretty easily and that makes it really hard to catch up.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Jotari

[Logjam]

I think giving bows to knights would be a good addition. A lot of time they're just too easily outclassed, I'm thinking specifically about FE4, GBA games, FE9 (they're usable here, but still not great), and FE13. You have a million other units with better movement (and better access to the weapon triangle commonly), so it seems like a no brainer to drop them early. Sometimes I use them as a wall, and in the case of FE10 I still used Gatrie and Brom (and Gatrie was pretty good).

I think giving bows would be a really good idea because it wouldn't give triangle advantage, but it would give them variety to 1) bypass the triangle, and 2) be able to take out fliers; early wyvern knights can often be difficult enemies and giving that early knight a bow would make them easier to deal with and would make knights more useful early on (and all throughout).

[Jotari]

1 minute ago, Logjam said:

I think giving bows to knights would be a good addition. A lot of time they're just too easily outclassed, I'm thinking specifically about FE4, GBA games, FE9 (they're usable here, but still not great), and FE13. You have a million other units with better movement (and better access to the weapon triangle commonly), so it seems like a no brainer to drop them early. Sometimes I use them as a wall, and in the case of FE10 I still used Gatrie and Brom (and Gatrie was pretty good).

I think giving bows would be a really good idea because it wouldn't give triangle advantage, but it would give them variety to 1) bypass the triangle, and 2) be able to take out fliers; early wyvern knights can often be difficult enemies and giving that early knight a bow would make them easier to deal with and would make knights more useful early on (and all throughout).

Hmm. I question then what use would archers have? Why would you bother using an archer at all when a knight can do the same job (with a 1 range option too I assume you're proposing) with higher defense and attack. It might work if Archers had an extra move over the other infantry units or if Longbows were exclusive to them and more commonplace.

[Interdimensional Observer]

I'd rather they go back to mono-weapon on the Cavs like RD and partially Jugdral (Cavs mixed with monotypes). Therefore removing that advantage (which historically has made Cavs good in the axe-heavy earlygame and solid come the lance-heavier mid and late games), would make them closer to Knights. 

Although adding a second weapon type to Knights wouldn't be a bad idea alongside the reduction of Cavs to 1 weapon type. 

I wouldn't give Generals Bows though, the idea of someone in so heavy and restrictive armor using one is a little strange. But I'd be perfectly fine with bringing back Crossbows and letting them use them (1-2 Range would be perfect for these enemy phase tanks). Full Sword-Lance-Axe would be perfectly reasonable. 

As for complaints about enemy Knights being able to use two weapon types as too strong, this isn't the same as giving Archers 2-3 range. Programming enemy archers not to shoot from 3 range would be odd from a player perspective. Furthermore, the developers wouldn't always have to give both weapons to a Knight. They don't always give GBA Cavs both a Lance and a Sword, the developers could just decide when making the maps the ratio and locations of Lance to Axe to Axe & Lance Knights.

[Jotari]

3 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

As for complaints about enemy Knights being able to use two weapon types as too strong, this isn't the same as giving Archers 2-3 range. Programming enemy archers not to shoot from 3 range would be odd from a player perspective. Furthermore, the developers wouldn't always have to give both weapons to a Knight. They don't always give GBA Cavs both a Lance and a Sword, the developers could just decide when making the maps the ratio and locations of Lance to Axe to Axe & Lance Knights.

Eh...who said anything about enemy knights being too strong? Are you preempting complaints here?

[Interdimensional Observer]

Just now, Jotari said:

Eh...who said anything about enemy knights being too strong? Are you preempting complaints here?

Pretty much. Since if you give enemies access to two weapon types, they potentially have more WTA over you, which in a game where WTC matters, is important. Plus, if Knights have Axes + Lances, well if one is presently equipped with an Axe, the Mercenary/Myrmidon, the traditional enemy Knights perfectly counter, would have the advantage. While Fighters, the supposed perfect physical counter to traditional Lance using Knights, lose a little of their usefulness.

But besides what I said before, IS could do plenty of things to balance this. Such as making Fighters not so-so units.

[Logjam]

25 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Hmm. I question then what use would archers have? Why would you bother using an archer at all when a knight can do the same job (with a 1 range option too I assume you're proposing) with higher defense and attack. It might work if Archers had an extra move over the other infantry units or if Longbows were exclusive to them and more commonplace.

I think maybe 4 move on knights and 5/6 on archers with exclusive and more easily accessible longbows might be cool. If skills make a comeback on Fire Emblem switch there could be variation in class skills too to make archers' use of bows have advantage over knights. And, if knights had lance/bow, I wouldn't necessarily say general would need another weapon type. Maybe just a stat boost and better skills.

20 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I'd rather they go back to mono-weapon on the Cavs like RD and partially Jugdral (Cavs mixed with monotypes). Therefore removing that advantage (which historically has made Cavs good in the axe-heavy earlygame and solid come the lance-heavier mid and late games), would make them closer to Knights. 

Although adding a second weapon type to Knights wouldn't be a bad idea alongside the reduction of Cavs to 1 weapon type. 

I wouldn't give Generals Bows though, the idea of someone in so heavy and restrictive armor using one is a little strange. But I'd be perfectly fine with bringing back Crossbows and letting them use them (1-2 Range would be perfect for these enemy phase tanks). Full Sword-Lance-Axe would be perfectly reasonable. 

As for complaints about enemy Knights being able to use two weapon types as too strong, this isn't the same as giving Archers 2-3 range. Programming enemy archers not to shoot from 3 range would be odd from a player perspective. Furthermore, the developers wouldn't always have to give both weapons to a Knight. They don't always give GBA Cavs both a Lance and a Sword, the developers could just decide when making the maps the ratio and locations of Lance to Axe to Axe & Lance Knights.

Yeah I think getting rid of cavaliers' weapon triangle dominance would be good too. I liked the Jugdral approach because some of your sword/lance cavs had worse combat performance than the others (Noishe with no pursuit, Alec with almost no strength), but they have access to triangle advantage to try and compensate.

[Shadow Mir]

1 hour ago, Logjam said:

I think giving bows to knights would be a good addition. A lot of time they're just too easily outclassed, I'm thinking specifically about FE4, GBA games, FE9 (they're usable here, but still not great), and FE13. You have a million other units with better movement (and better access to the weapon triangle commonly), so it seems like a no brainer to drop them early. Sometimes I use them as a wall, and in the case of FE10 I still used Gatrie and Brom (and Gatrie was pretty good).

I think giving bows would be a really good idea because it wouldn't give triangle advantage, but it would give them variety to 1) bypass the triangle, and 2) be able to take out fliers; early wyvern knights can often be difficult enemies and giving that early knight a bow would make them easier to deal with and would make knights more useful early on (and all throughout).

I find this very questionable - for one, it'd devalue archers, and they already have it bad enough in most games. Second, outside of Mystery, wyverns pretty much never show up early (Sword of Seals is literally the only instance of early wyverns I can think of that isn't Mystery; there's Awakening, too, but the main character in said game eats wyverns for breakfast).

Edited January 16, 2018 by Levant Mir Celestia

[Phantom037]

I think a simpler answer would just be to give them the same movement as other footsie units. Giving them partial wtc is only so helpful if they can't reach the enemy to begin with.

[X-Naut]

While swords or axes would help with certain matchups, Phantom's is the best solution to making Knights better. At best have their lower movement manifest as increased terrain costs. I also agree with Observer's point about bows seeming silly on armored classes, or at least 1st tier armored classes.

As far as making armor have strengths instead of just weaknesses, I propose giving them innate damage reduction from weapons when an enemy attacks them. Cut down the damage they take by 25% and they have a concrete advantage over other classes that isn't tied to the Defense stat.

[Jotari]

10 minutes ago, Phantom037 said:

I think a simpler answer would just be to give them the same movement as other footsie units. Giving them partial wtc is only so helpful if they can't reach the enemy to begin with.

I'd agree with that (in fact, that's even how I treat them in my class tree), but I thought a plain old "How to make Knights better," topic would be boring compared to analyzing this specific fix.

[Kalken]

The Knight Tree is always going to be bad to meh as long as IS refuses to actually rebalance them as playable units instead of just enemy units.

Knights and Generals, like the Archer and Dark Mage trees, are obviously designed around being roadblocks for the players. Since the play is more often than not on the offense then this works. When playable, they fall behind since the player more often than not isn't in the position where being on the defense is better than going offsensive. This is made worse by access to more mobile yet still durable in a pinch units (Wyverns, Cavaliers).

[Shadow Mir]

10 minutes ago, Kalken said:

The Knight Tree is always going to be bad to meh as long as IS refuses to actually rebalance them as playable units instead of just enemy units.

Knights and Generals, like the Archer and Dark Mage trees, are obviously designed around being roadblocks for the players. Since the play is more often than not on the offense then this works. When playable, they fall behind since the player more often than not isn't in the position where being on the defense is better than going offsensive. This is made worse by access to more mobile yet still durable in a pinch units (Wyverns, Cavaliers).

...aaaand what about Fighters? Because archers and knights actually felt like I could get some mileage out of them in Fates. Fighters, on the other hand?? lmfao no.

[Phantom037]

49 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I'd agree with that (in fact, that's even how I treat them in my class tree), but I thought a plain old "How to make Knights better," topic would be boring compared to analyzing this specific fix.

Fair point. As for giving armors axes, it would kind of depend on the context of which FE game you'd want to talk about. After all, lances aren't exactly a bad weapon type to be stuck with most of the time. So while giving them axes would probably help them a little, I think a buff like that would largely be missing what makes armors bad in the first place. After all, earlygame where maps are smaller and tanky units are scarcer tends to be where armor knights shine the most.

[Logjam]

1 hour ago, X-Naut said:

While swords or axes would help with certain matchups, Phantom's is the best solution to making Knights better. At best have their lower movement manifest as increased terrain costs. I also agree with Observer's point about bows seeming silly on armored classes, or at least 1st tier armored classes.

As far as making armor have strengths instead of just weaknesses, I propose giving them innate damage reduction from weapons when an enemy attacks them. Cut down the damage they take by 25% and they have a concrete advantage over other classes that isn't tied to the Defense stat.

 

1 hour ago, Phantom037 said:

I think a simpler answer would just be to give them the same movement as other footsie units. Giving them partial wtc is only so helpful if they can't reach the enemy to begin with.

@Both of these points: Yeah that sounds better. Give normal movement but maybe make them move extremely slow through terrain, kinda like cavs but with 5 movement instead of 7.

[vanguard333]

22 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I wouldn't give Generals Bows though, the idea of someone in so heavy and restrictive armor using one is a little strange. But I'd be perfectly fine with bringing back Crossbows and letting them use them (1-2 Range would be perfect for these enemy phase tanks). Full Sword-Lance-Axe would be perfectly reasonable. 

I agree about bows and crossbows. Historically, knight armour is far less heavy and restrictive than people think, but, even then, they didn't use bows. Crossbows, however, are something they easily could use.

[Shoblongoo]

I'd agree with giving knights access to bows at tier 1; it would certainly make them a more versatile class capable of doing more jobs.

To solve the problem of "but then archers are outclassed and completely terrible," Echoes showed us how to make archers not suck. Give them class-exclusive extended bow-range and the ability to counter with bows at melee range on enemy phase.   

[Refa]

I'd give knights swords and lances at Tier 1.  In practice, bows won't help knights out and cut into the niche of another weaker class (archers).

Edited January 25, 2018 by Refa

[Jedi]

41 minutes ago, Refa said:

I'd give knights swords and lances at Tier 1.  In practice, bows won't help knights out and cut into the niche of another weaker class (archers).

I agree with this 100%, Knights and archers both need the help (Snipers at least tend to be decent or better at least). 

But yeah armors having bows would be really dumb, considering they'd have a 2 range weapon with 4 movement, very pointless when their job is tanking.

[Shadow Mir]

On January 24, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Shoblongoo said:

I'd agree with giving knights access to bows at tier 1; it would certainly make them a more versatile class capable of doing more jobs.

To solve the problem of "but then archers are outclassed and completely terrible," Echoes showed us how to make archers not suck. Give them class-exclusive extended bow-range and the ability to counter with bows at melee range on enemy phase.   

I disagree with this - aside from devaluing archers, it also makes no sense whatsoever.

[Emperor Hardin]

In Fire Emblem 1, Knights could wield both Lances and Swords, yet for some reason this disappeared forever afterwards. Not even Tearring Saga brought dual weapon knights back.

I guess the closest we got to it again was FE10 Generals being one of the few second tier classes to get 2 weapons, while Paladins only got one.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Emperor Hardin

[Athena_57]

I'm all up for giving them access to all physical weapons (except bows), let their niche be full weapon triangle coverage.

On ‎16‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 7:22 PM, Phantom037 said:

I think a simpler answer would just be to give them the same movement as other footsie units. Giving them partial wtc is only so helpful if they can't reach the enemy to begin with.

I really hate the idea of giving them more movement though. I'd much rather enhance a class's strengths or give them a niche than eliminate their weaknesses, because in the latter case, why not "fix" other classes by giving fighters actual hit, myrmidons 2 range, archers 1 range and make all classes exactly the same? That seems dumb to me, I prefer each class having their own niche and weaknesses.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, athena_57 said:

I'm all up for giving them access to all physical weapons (except bows), let their niche be full weapon triangle coverage.

I really hate the idea of giving them more movement though. I'd much rather enhance a class's strengths or give them a niche than eliminate their weaknesses, because in the latter case, why not "fix" other classes by giving fighters actual hit, myrmidons 2 range, archers 1 range and make all classes exactly the same? That seems dumb to me, I prefer each class having their own niche and weaknesses.

The thing is, knights already have a lot of weakness. Magic will tear right through them, as will the occasional Hammer or Armorslayer. Not to mention low speed that guaruntees they're going to get doubled. Add to that is the fact that lower movement is a much bigger weakness than most other classes. It takes them completely away from the action, unless you slow down the entire rest of your army to match the knight's pace. Knights have a hard time levelling up since they're lagging behind not fighting things most of the time. I agree that they should keep their niche, and movement is part of their niche, that's why I'd support them getting base infantry movement at tier 1 and then not getting any extra points upon promotion. By the time they're promoted they should have grown into their stats pretty well making them much better at doing their actual job (and probably have access to Weary Fighter however that's implemented in the future). It worked well enough for Hector.

[Emperor Hardin]

13 hours ago, Jotari said:

 Magic will tear right through them.

Awakening making Generals extra weak to magic was a dumb idea.

Radiant Dawn had a good idea in giving Generals/Marshalls very high resistance for a physical class, only falling slightly behind Falco/SeraphKnight.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Awakening making Generals extra weak to magic was a dumb idea.

Radiant Dawn had a good idea in giving Generals/Marshalls very high resistance for a physical class, only falling slightly behind Falco/SeraphKnight.

Oh wow. Tauroneo, at least, has higher RES growth than Defense at a whopping 50% growth. That being said, I do like Knights being weak to magic as it gives the player a reliable method of dealing with enemy knights. If they can tank both physical hits and magic then they just become a slog to take down. Either that or you'd just have to use Armour Slayer/Hammer and I don't particularly like the idea of only one specific weapon (or unit) being the only way to deal with an enemy. FE3 had an unused idea for an enemy called Guardians (who later became a monster in Gaiden) that would be Generals that excel in resistance instead of defense. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that as a promotion option or something, but I think they'd have to take a defense hit to compensate.