Should Reclassing Return / Unit Identity

[Slumber]

2 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

This is just me, but if I may be honest, bringing up archetypes doesn't really mean much these days since with the exceptions of the obvious ones, most archetypes are little more than a distant memory... like the Bord and Cord archetypes you mentioned. The last time those could claim to be a thing was in Blazing Blade, which was released in 2003.

I just used archetypes as broad examples, not as the main point of defining unit identity. I'd argue Nolan and Boyd sort of count as Cord/Bord, since they have similar color schemes and stat distributions, but they don't follow it to the T, since they don't join together and are miles off from one another. So if you want to say Dorcas/Bartre is the last example of that, sure. 

Regardless, I used archetypes as a very familiar way to describe unit identity. Most people will get the kind of unit a Jeigan is, or the Christmas Knights, and the roles they play in the game. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Slumber

[Jotari]

22 minutes ago, MyBoyHector said:

Which is why weapon durability probably should return, and return silver weapons to how they were, but that is a topic for another place.
Hopefully people have cooled down a bit, looks like things were getting Alvis level of heated back there. Rather then just have reclassing, I think it might be better to allow more diversity with promotion branches, or even have a third promotion brought back. You'd have plenty of options that way and more then enough replay-ability just by going down a different branch path.

Well I obviously agree with you there. Over all, I'd like them to constantly try new things. Fire Emblem isn't an iterative franchise, like Pokemon. Each game is distinctly different to the last, even when they have the exact same mechanics, like Binding Blade and Blazing Blade. Fates did a good job of building off of Awakening, but I hope they don't grow too cautious due to the success of the DS games and just keep repackaging the same experience over an over. They should have the freedom to throw out things like reclassing and children characters for a game or two and try things like the biorhythm and fatigue again. Give us something completely different like Gaiden and Holy War every now and then. I don't really care what they do specifically, I'll buy the games regardless, so long as the series doesn't become static and I know exactly what kind of experiencing is waiting before I even buy the game. In particular, I hope they do away with the Awakening/Fates style of skill acquirement in the next game. It's fine, but it's definitely not something I want to permanently keep.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Jotari

[Lewyn]

Not a fan of reclassing.  I do like class promote options, limited to fit the character's personality.  I like the idea that perhaps two units that start in the same class can promote to different ones cause of their personality and what is important to them.

This isn't a typical SRPG, or JRPG or whatever.  I don't think that is a good argument.  Fire Emblem is a series with each game having a large cast of characters all of which are individual personalities, characters, in addition to their stats and skills.  Just making a log power lifter Effie into a troubadour is absolutely ridiculous and makes no sense, even if she is close with Elise.  Which brings back what others have said, the supports can often reflect what motivates the said character/personality it doesn't match up.  

It also hurts replay value more than helps it.  Yeah you can use that x powerful character more times, but you also ignore other characters.  Sometimes characters because of their class and skill set are worth using, even if their stats aren't top tier.  Through playing with these lesser characters, you learn more about them through supports and such.  

 

[Interdimensional Observer]

6 hours ago, Slumber said:

There's more of a meta-identity outside of the moment to moment gameplay that has taken over and defines characters now. Whereas it used to be "Oh is this the right unit for the job at this moment?", now it's more "Oh, what can I do to make this unit good at everything down the road?", and the latter tends to be a lot more same-y in the long run when you're just reclassing everyone into their best jobs with their best skills, which is why people are saying unit identity is "gone". 

Admittedly, Xander does have a notable number of chapters where he is best forsaking Paladin for Wyvern Lord. Without reclass here, he wouldn't be quite as good, if still good.

15 hours ago, Slumber said:

I don't know what makes any of the Butler/Maids all that different from one another besides when they show up. 

I'll say that is going too far. Jakob and Felicia are clearly different characters. Jakob has Str and physical durability, but tapers off in the long run, while Felicia is horrible at the beginning without a magic weapon, if better in the long run. Flora is just utility because she's statistically poor outside of Skill. The two kids- well they're "customizable" within certain boundaries. Dwyer only does really well if recruited early with a nice skill from daddy, Forrest is a Warrior except with Magic instead of Str.

And you certainly can't say the same of the Dark Mages and Diviners: Odin is durable and accurate, but weak in Magic and kinda slow. Nyx can't hit a jetliner but can with training double and kill what she does hit. Leo is a bit slow, but overall good despite questionable bases and starts promoted. Orochi hits hard and accurate, but is doubled by everything. Hayato can double and is decently durable for a magic unit, but has average Magic and low Skill. Izana is the Pent to Orochi's Erk.

Benny is a pure wall with a notable amount of Res for mixed tanking, but will never ever double. Effie is more a tank, less durable but still durable, and outside of General might be able to double one day, which should be a ORKO given her massive Str which Benny very much lacks.

Unit variety within a class still exists in Fates. There are some balancing issues, Subaki and Hinata are trash and Hinoka and Ryoma are just better, but this is true of every game. Part of this is statistical, part of it is actually classes. 

If I took Effie and turned her into a Mercenary right away and compared her to Selena and Laslow, let's see the difference at 20/20.

Spoiler

Effie: HP 40.75 Str

35 Mag

0

Skl 31.15 Spd

31.45 Lck

28.15

Def 25.85

Res 15.6

 

Selena HP 43.4

Str 28.05 Mag

4.45 Skl

28.05 Spd

34

Lck 20.15 Def

28.95

Res 17.2

Laslow HP 49.1

Str 33

Mag 0

Skl 36.55

Spd 27.15

Lck 31.2

Def 24.15

Res 14.15

 

So, what do we see? Effie is marginally stronger (2) than Laslow, and 4 Spd faster, while practically the same in Def, Res, and Lck. Laslow has more HP and Skl.

Selena is significantly weaker than Effie, marginally faster, less lucky, less accurate, and slightly more durable and faster.

I think Effie however obsoletes Selena here, and Laslow too overall, which wouldn't happen if she couldn't reclass to Mercenary.

Are the differences too small for you, or are they big enough?

And don't mistake me for being a supporter of a reclass-heavy game. I'm not. FFT-style is much slower than FE, it isn't terrible, but it isn't FE and I want FE in my FEs. I like mostly fixed class teams.

1 hour ago, Altrosa said:

Also, I have so many Awakening files from different avatar and army builds

Maybe on the first reclass the characters are different, but by the time I've spent 2, 3 at the latest, seals on them, their stats are approaching the "bonkers I'm a broken unit outside of Lunatic" barring for something like Maribelle's Def or Vaike's Res or Donnel's Magic. By the time you finish collecting all the skills a character may want to use and then put them in the right class, they're a "Glowing Green Broken Unit Like Anyone Else" owing to massive growths. A trophy unit.

Personal stat caps barring on min-maxed children are overwhelmingly flavor numbers, not at all important really.

Now in Fates, things are better due to lower growths and no level reset. Although loading up on lots of skills without any grinding likely means dealing with E ranks semi-frequently.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Interdimensional Observer

[Jotari]

12 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I just used archetypes as broad examples, not as the main point of defining unit identity. I'd argue Nolan and Boyd sort of count as Cord/Bord, since they have similar color schemes and stat distributions, but they don't follow it to the T, since they don't join together and are miles off from one another. So if you want to say Dorcas/Bartre is the last example of that, sure. 

Regardless, I used archetypes as a very familiar way to describe unit identity. Most people will get the kind of unit a Jeigan is, or the Christmas Knights, and the roles they play in the game. 

Nolan and Boyd do illustrate what you were trying to say, even if they're not seen as a CordBord. Most classes in Radiant Dawn have 2-3 characters in it with one focusing on power and the other focusing on skill/spd, and maybe a third that balances between the two. It's actually impressive how diverse the cast is given how large it is. The big thing holding it back, however, is that most characters are either completely screwed or blessed by their level of availability (and the difficulty curve between the Mercs and Dawn Brigade being completely screwed, oh and peasant laguz sucking).

4 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

And you certainly can't say the same of the Dark Mages and Diviners: Odin is durable and accurate, but weak in Magic and kinda slow. Nyx can't hit a jetliner but can with training double and kill what she does hit. Leo is a bit slow, but overall good despite questionable bases and starts promoted. Orochi hits hard and accurate, but is doubled by everything. Hayato can double and is decently durable for a magic unit, but has average Magic and low Skill. Izana is the Pent to Orochi's Erk.

Wait is the jetliner stationary or in flight? Because that makes a huge difference.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Jotari

[Interdimensional Observer]

5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Nolan and Boyd do illustrate what you were trying to say, even if they're not seen as a CordBord. Most classes in Radiant Dawn have 2-3 characters in it with one focusing on power and the other focusing on skill/spd, and maybe a third that balances between the two. It's actually impressive how diverse the cast is given how large it is. The big thing holding it back, however, is that most characters are either completely screwed or blessed by their level of availability (and the difficulty curve between the Mercs and Dawn Brigade being completely screwed, oh and peasant laguz sucking).

At the same time, the part system makes some more useful than they would be without it. It takes from Fiona (who would like P3 GMs with its bigish open maps), but gives to Devdan, who wouldn't likely be used if Aran and Nephenee were available on the same team all the time.

 

5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Wait is the jetliner stationary or in flight? Because that makes a huge difference.

Taxing on the ground waiting for its time to take off. Nyx is trying to use Fimbulvetr on a wing to disable the plane just before it hits V1 speed and becomes unable to abort the takeoff, but the hit to the wing would ideally cause it to make it unable to fly for long and thus crash with no recourse otherwise. 

I watch too much Air Disasters. But in short, she is inaccurate.

[Jave]

My opinion regarding the whole "Just ignore it!" discussion is that I feel people aren't being very fair. There's quite a difference between ignoring a feature and flat out choosing not to use it.

In my first playthroughs of Awakening and Fates, the only characters I reclassed were... Donnell and Mozu. Yup, the characters that needed reclassing to be playable were the only ones I reclassed. I THINK I reclassed Robin at some point just for fun, but I probably ended up going back to Grandmaster since that's how I remember beating the game. I didn't reclass anyone else in Awakening and Fates until post-game and second playthroughs. Why? Honestly... I just didn't feel like it. I just wanted to beat the games the first time.

My point is that the feature can exist, and can choose not to use it WITHOUT ignoring it. I do this with games all the time, even in pre-Awakening FE games. I don't think I bothered with Lyn mode in the majority of my FE7 playthroughs. I have yet to forge a weapon on any FE that isn't FE10. I didn't use BEXP at all in my first FE9 playthrough (maybe just two levels on one random unit, I don't recall, but I definitely left a lot unused).

Choosing not to do or use something in a game is also part of the experience. It's going to be different for everyone, but I doubt there will ever be a consensus on how an FE game "should" be played. However, in regards to reclassing, I do think the best compromise is for it to exist to some extent. (And yes, I think it should be in the base game. Fun classes like Bride are fine for DLC, but putting it entirely on DLC is just begging for trouble)

[Ivy Wife Supremacy]

1 hour ago, Lewyn said:

Not a fan of reclassing.  I do like class promote options, limited to fit the character's personality.  I like the idea that perhaps two units that start in the same class can promote to different ones cause of their personality and what is important to them.

This isn't a typical SRPG, or JRPG or whatever.  I don't think that is a good argument.  Fire Emblem is a series with each game having a large cast of characters all of which are individual personalities, characters, in addition to their stats and skills.  Just making a log power lifter Effie into a troubadour is absolutely ridiculous and makes no sense, even if she is close with Elise.  Which brings back what others have said, the supports can often reflect what motivates the said character/personality it doesn't match up.  

It also hurts replay value more than helps it.  Yeah you can use that x powerful character more times, but you also ignore other characters.  Sometimes characters because of their class and skill set are worth using, even if their stats aren't top tier.  Through playing with these lesser characters, you learn more about them through supports and such.  

 

It is a good excuse its just YOU don't personally like it, it doesn't obviously apply to everyone FE is not a unique case when it on paper still applies to stats, rng, job changing and growths as a usual JRPG goes if others enjoy it and getting options that's fine.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Blade Lord Lyn

[MyBoyHector]

7 minutes ago, Blade Lord Lyn said:

It is a good excuse its just YOU don't personally like it, it doesn't obviously apply to everyone FE is not a unique case when it on paper still applies to stats, rng, job changing and growths as a usual JRPG goes.

Oh boy, I feel Alvis heating up the BBQ again and sending out the invites.....

Yes it is a good excuse, yes he doesn't like it, and yes it doesn't apply to everyone, because it was his opinion, and you'll find on average 50% of people will be on that side, For the most part I am on that side, though ultimately its half a dozen one way, half of dozen the other, just remember that this is a discussion, lets keep it friendly rather then going "YOU" to people.

[Kammaru]

Quote

1 hour ago, Lewyn said:

It also hurts replay value more than helps it.  Yeah you can use that x powerful character more times, but you also ignore other characters.  Sometimes characters because of their class and skill set are worth using, even if their stats aren't top tier.  Through playing with these lesser characters, you learn more about them through supports and such.

 

 This statement, which is completely subjective and has little to no merit, actually contradicts itself when in the context of re-classing. The whole point of re-classing is to find suitable or aesthetically pleasing classes for Units, thus using them more, thus getting the same supports, thus actually having a wider variety of supports, conversation, base talk and other character exposure. After all, it's not as though any of the character elements are hidden if the character changes class. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Kammaru

[eclipse]

Never thought I'd end up arguing both sides.

1 hour ago, Lewyn said:

It also hurts replay value more than helps it.  Yeah you can use that x powerful character more times, but you also ignore other characters.  Sometimes characters because of their class and skill set are worth using, even if their stats aren't top tier.  Through playing with these lesser characters, you learn more about them through supports and such.  

My favorite game is Shadow Dragon because of how free the reclass system is.  How "replayable" the game is depends on who's playing it, and why.  Drafts are a great way to force yourself to use units you normally wouldn't.

14 minutes ago, Blade Lord Lyn said:

It is a good excuse its just YOU don't personally like it, it doesn't obviously apply to everyone FE is not a unique case when it on paper still applies to stats, rng, job changing and growths as a usual JRPG goes if others enjoy it and getting options that's fine.

And if someone doesn't enjoy it, that is fine, too.  No need for these kinds of statements.

[Lewyn]

22 minutes ago, Blade Lord Lyn said:

It is a good excuse its just YOU don't personally like it, it doesn't obviously apply to everyone FE is not a unique case when it on paper still applies to stats, rng, job changing and growths as a usual JRPG goes if others enjoy it and getting options that's fine.

Well I never said it applied to everyone, what I stated was my opinion.  Just as what you state is your's.  

6 minutes ago, Kammaru said:

 This statement, which is completely subjective and has little to no merit, actually contradicts itself when in the context of re-classing. The whole point of re-classing is to find suitable or aesthetically pleasing classes for Units, thus using them more, thus getting the same supports, thus actually having a wider variety of supports, conversation, base talk and other character exposure. 

Most statements in this thread are subjective, including your's.  Including what you said.  I guess what we all say has little merit.  Also the 'whole point', well that is as subjective as it gets.  Some people like to reclass powerful/favorite characters into different classes and just ignore weaker statted characters completely.  

As for the whole 'freedom' argument.  The more freedom, the harder it is to balance characters and the harder it is to make them distinct gameplay wise.  

Anyways the general problem with this argument is a large amount of people like free reclassing, and a large amount of people don't.  One side is not going to convince the other.  It is like one person likes hamburgers and the other person likes hot dogs.  There is that third group that is flexible and wants reclassing but very restricted.  How restricted?  I guess that is the conversation that can be had.

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Lewyn

[MyBoyHector]

Quote

Anyways the general problem with this argument is a large amount of people like free reclassing, and a large amount of people don't.  One side is not going to convince the other.  It is like one person likes hamburgers and the other person likes hot dogs.  There is that third group that is flexible and wants reclassing but very restricted.  How restricted?  I guess that is the conversation that can be had.

To answer that, most likely restricted to the point it makes sense, either magic classes for the magically inclined, or classes that growths generally appeal to that characters own stat growths. like having a giant brute who's magic growth is 0% going into a cleric would be just be stopped period.

[Kammaru]

17 minutes ago, Lewyn said:

Most statements in this thread are subjective, including your's.  Including what you said.  I guess what we all say has little merit.  Also the 'whole point', well that is as subjective as it gets.  Some people like to reclass powerful/favorite characters into different classes and just ignore weaker statted characters completely.  

As for the whole 'freedom' argument.  The more freedom, the harder it is to balance characters and the harder it is to make them distinct gameplay wise.  

Fair enough. I don't agree with your last statement either though. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Kammaru

[Shadow Mir]

3 hours ago, Slumber said:

I just used archetypes as broad examples, not as the main point of defining unit identity. I'd argue Nolan and Boyd sort of count as Cord/Bord, since they have similar color schemes and stat distributions, but they don't follow it to the T, since they don't join together and are miles off from one another. So if you want to say Dorcas/Bartre is the last example of that, sure. 

Regardless, I used archetypes as a very familiar way to describe unit identity. Most people will get the kind of unit a Jeigan is, or the Christmas Knights, and the roles they play in the game. 

I see. Still think unit identity is better reserved for Pokémon discussion, if I may be frank.

3 hours ago, Lewyn said:

Not a fan of reclassing.  I do like class promote options, limited to fit the character's personality.  I like the idea that perhaps two units that start in the same class can promote to different ones cause of their personality and what is important to them.

This isn't a typical SRPG, or JRPG or whatever.  I don't think that is a good argument.  Fire Emblem is a series with each game having a large cast of characters all of which are individual personalities, characters, in addition to their stats and skills.  Just making a log power lifter Effie into a troubadour is absolutely ridiculous and makes no sense, even if she is close with Elise.  Which brings back what others have said, the supports can often reflect what motivates the said character/personality it doesn't match up.  

It also hurts replay value more than helps it.  Yeah you can use that x powerful character more times, but you also ignore other characters.  Sometimes characters because of their class and skill set are worth using, even if their stats aren't top tier.  Through playing with these lesser characters, you learn more about them through supports and such.  

 

Unique promotions is something I'm no fan of, if I may be honest... the disparity between classes being why.

I suppose I can see where you're coming from with this. One that really bothers is Elise having Wyvern Rider as her alternate class option.

The alternative sounds no better, if you ask me... I don't want to see any more Marisas, Sophias, etc. (ergo, units that wind up being pointless and obsoleted because an earlier joining unit does what they can better, and they have nothing to their name to help them stand out from said unit) - it honestly comes off as questionable design. Just look at Binding Blade. Most units wound up being virtually useless because they were either too much hassle to raise, they came underleveled, or they were outclassed by an earlier joiner.

1 hour ago, Lewyn said:

Most statements in this thread are subjective, including your's.  Including what you said.  I guess what we all say has little merit.  Also the 'whole point', well that is as subjective as it gets.  Some people like to reclass powerful/favorite characters into different classes and just ignore weaker statted characters completely.  

As for the whole 'freedom' argument.  The more freedom, the harder it is to balance characters and the harder it is to make them distinct gameplay wise.  

I can see where you're coming from, but honestly, I can't agree with your last statement, knowing that the aforementioned Binding Blade has pretty lousy balance, and both the Jugdral games are not much better balance wise.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Levant Mir Celestia

[Tsak]

I'm a fan of reclassing but i feel like it ruins some FE games with it being in the game.

Maybe add it to the game after the first playthrough on each difficulty? Best of both worlds, you can get reclassing but you beat the game first without it.

[Alkaid]

I enjoy relcassing and hope it stays. In Awakening/Fates, I had a lot of fun changing classes on units to get new skills to build them up how I liked and/or to try other playstyles with certain characters. It also made me more interested in replaying the game knowing I could try something new next time if I wanted.

When I played Echoes it felt restrictive to go back to a game without the freedom of reclassing. Granted, I'm rolling the lack of a skill system and such into that thought as well. In the end it was one of the things that hurt some of my enjoyment of the game and why I'm not as interested in replaying it. Yes, you can choose a new path for the villagers each playthrough, but.. eh, that wasn't really enough to me. I guess I similarly enjoyed liberal class changing in games like Bravely Default and such too.

[Kammaru]

3 hours ago, Tsak said:

Maybe add it to the game after the first playthrough on each difficulty? Best of both worlds, you can get reclassing but you beat the game first without it.

Why should I have to earn a feature? You want to incentivize going through tedium to get choice? This seems...problematic and honestly antagonistic, as it really only serves those that don't want it. I'd just ignore a game that did this.  

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, Levant Mir Celestia said:

I see. Still think unit identity is better reserved for Pokémon discussion, if I may be frank.

Unique promotions is something I'm no fan of, if I may be honest... the disparity between classes being why.

I suppose I can see where you're coming from with this. One that really bothers is Elise having Wyvern Rider as her alternate class option.

The alternative sounds no better, if you ask me... I don't want to see any more Marisas, Sophias, etc. (ergo, units that wind up being pointless and obsoleted because an earlier joining unit does what they can better, and they have nothing to their name to help them stand out from said unit) - it honestly comes off as questionable design. Just look at Binding Blade. Most units wound up being virtually useless because they were either too much hassle to raise, they came underleveled, or they were outclassed by an earlier joiner.

I can see where you're coming from, but honestly, I can't agree with your last statement, knowing that the aforementioned Binding Blade has pretty lousy balance, and both the Jugdral games are not much better balance wise.

Thracia probably has the best unit balance in the series. There are some units with prf weapons that make them more valuable, and if you have a staff your inherently better, but on the whole, every last unit is worth deploying and can hold their own with a unique niche of some sort.

[MyBoyHector]

Just do a FE4 and have all units deployable, fixes the issue.

[Ivy Wife Supremacy]

This topic is definitely showing why the fandom is getting very negative(not some people of course but still especially to a simple mechanic that is not interfering and can be use to players that like a change in experiencing a playthrough)....At the end of the day reclassing will very likely still be present no reason not to especially in case in point when in cipher has reclass base cards on characters, Heroes variants or the consecutive presence from beginning to now I'm fine with it since I love job classing in JRPGS but for those that don't well....*shrugs* thems the brakes.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Blade Lord Lyn

[Kammaru]

1 hour ago, MyBoyHector said:

Just do a FE4 and have all units deployable, fixes the issue.

Kind of? I mean, FE4 made it so that it mattered because of the whole pairing thing. Without that, people will take the most optimal route for the most part, which is to say build the stronger units and leave the weaker ones behind. What needs to happen is a reason for these varied units to exist, something more than..well they've been there for 15 years so let's just keep creating different versions of the same tired tropes. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Kammaru

[Jotari]

31 minutes ago, Blade Lord Lyn said:

This topic is definitely showing why the fandom is getting very negative(not some people of course but still especially to a simple mechanic that is not interfering and can be use to players that like a change in experiencing a playthrough)....At the end of the day reclassing will very likely still be present no reason not to especially in case in point when in cipher has reclass base cards on characters or the consecutive presence from beginning to now I'm fine with it since I love job classing in JRPGS but for those that don't well....*shrugs* thems the brakes.

I wouldn't be pointing fingers. To me, at any rate, you're coming across as the most negative one here.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Jotari

[Ivy Wife Supremacy]

Also forgot how I like Heroes that remix the characters in different roles like just like the main games!

[RedRob]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I wouldn't be pointing fingers. To me, at any rate, you're coming across as the most negative one here.

I agree, you don't see anyone else, beside Kanmaru maybe, accusing others of being self-centered when they say don't want reclassing in the next game, and basically resorting to ad hominem.

Now for the actual matter at hand, I'm not fond reclassing. I like having my options limited because, well to try and make this clear, it's kind of like when you play Dark Souls. Most people play it because it's a challenging game. Same reason I rather reclassing doesn't return, I like something of a challenge. Though I should clarify and say I'm fine with branching classes, like in Sacred Stones, or how Fates did it. It's just Awakening-style reclassing I don't like.

Either way, IS has to have good class balance in the next game. Reclassing would be less of an issue if certain classes weren't so OP. Like in Awakening, Dark Flier was a basically a mage as a Pegasus Knight, and then there's Galeforce. Overall, class balance is something that should be considered relevant to the current disscusion.

Edited April 12, 2018 by RedRob