Jump to content

Why not give Knights two weapons?


Jotari
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours 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.

Let me see about how true this statement is...

3-12 has Falcoes, Generals, Halberdiers, Warriors, and Swordmasters, so it should be a good general fit for it.

Generals, depending on their level, 13-16 Res, compared to 16-19 for Falcoknights. Halberdiers have 13-15 Res, so nearly General level. Snipers, Paladins, and SMs 10-11, Warriors have the lowest at 9. Sages have 16 and Bishops 20-22 for comparison. Cats and Hawks in the following chapter have 10-12, Tigers 6-7.You're reading that right, Sages have equal Res to Generals. Dragonmaster have in 3-F 9-10 Res.

So you're correct.

Generals have 23-26 Def by the way, so it isn't like Magic doesn't have an advantage on them.

 

But at the same time, if Generals are going to be doubled continually and be rather immobile, and be unable to double a lot, they might as well be magically resistant for stacking on the durability. It's why I like Benny in Fates, his good Res makes him a bit better than other Generals in the series at taking magic hits, able to soak in an extra hit that way. And his Str being much lower than Effie's made them distinct. Effie is built as a tank- able to take some hits and deal them too (drop Wary Fighter and go GK and with some Speed stacking she might even double), while Benny is a wall- able soak up hits better than a tank, but not as good at dishing them out.

 

 

20 hours ago, Emperor Hardin said:

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.

This is just a guess, but given FE1 had all Lance users armed also able to use Swords, the original idea was Lances were an accessory to Swords? Paladins and Pegs/Wyverns keeping Sword use in FE3 might have been a coincidence of dismounting existing and not intentional. However, FE4 would contradict this since Cavs use Lances and Swords and so do Pegs.

Edited by Interdimensional Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why knights are considered bad in the first place is because offense and mobility is usually more valuable, several games having only seize objectives, and others having mostly seize/rout with the occasional defence chapter. Enemies also tend to be quantity over quality so a middling defense stat can be good enough to survive.

The solution isn't necessarily more defence chapters, but more situations in which you need to hold position or absorb the enemy's momentum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2018 at 5:30 PM, Interdimensional Observer said:

This is just a guess, but given FE1 had all Lance users armed also able to use Swords, the original idea was Lances were an accessory to Swords? Paladins and Pegs/Wyverns keeping Sword use in FE3 might have been a coincidence of dismounting existing and not intentional. However, FE4 would contradict this since Cavs use Lances and Swords and so do Pegs.

True, but no other game gave Armor Knights that ability?

Bs_fe04_enemy_knight_lance.pngBs_fe04_arden_armored_sword_sword.png

In FE4, Armor swords are separate from regular Knights, Yet Pegasus knights got lances+swords as did Cavaliers.

Similarly in TS, Pegasus Knights and Cavaliers are both swords+Lances, while Knights are just swords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎16‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 5:12 PM, Interdimensional Observer said:

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.

So the Mercenaries/Myrmidons will be doing 1x2 damage, instead of 0x2 damage. Big deal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

So the Mercenaries/Myrmidons will be doing 1x2 damage, instead of 0x2 damage. Big deal!

That could be really troubling if they have an Armorslayer, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

That could be really troubling if they have an Armorslayer, though...

Which are uncommon enough, that you wouldn't need to worry all that much about.

On ‎07‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 1:45 AM, Baldrick said:

The reason why knights are considered bad in the first place is because offense and mobility is usually more valuable

So why are Pegasus Knights always considered so highly then? Sure they have fantastic mobility, but most of them have poor strength, which leaves them with the offensive capability of a blunt pencil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Which are uncommon enough, that you wouldn't need to worry all that much about.

So why are Pegasus Knights always considered so highly then? Sure they have fantastic mobility, but most of them have poor strength, which leaves them with the offensive capability of a blunt pencil.

How often they've handed out armorslayers in the past has no bearing on what they would do in later games. They could give tons of units armorslayers as the game goes on as a method to counter them.

Pegasus Knights typically don't have high strength but they can still rescue drop stronger units, provide chip damage and then run away with canto, they aren't impeded by forests or deserts like cavaliers. Being able to rack up kills isn't all it takes for units to be considered good or useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've figured that the best way to design armors is to simply make their terrain costs low as opposed to the opposite. They should keep low base move, but situationally be more mobile by being able to pass through terrain (typically forests or forts), or climb ledges better than others.

Then you just adjust the difficulty/map design to accommodate for their strengths. Then they're fine, even with limited weapon types.

Difficulty is a major factor actually. Usually they're fairly overkill in terms of what the game throws at you, so a high mobility unit is more than sufficient to 'tank' in the first place. Why bother with Oswin (past early game) when Lowen can perform the exact same role sufficiently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Dunal said:

I've figured that the best way to design armors is to simply make their terrain costs low as opposed to the opposite. They should keep low base move, but situationally be more mobile by being able to pass through terrain (typically forests or forts), or climb ledges better than others.

I never got all the terrain restrictions with Armor, yet every game I can think of has done it. Doesn't the class already have bad enough move already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...