I don't think it's an issue as long as you don't see in happen in-game. The midquel does seem interesting...
I think it's an issue in that people are directly feeling the perceived problem, but their wording goes along the 'most oriented idea', which may not match that specificity :O
Where I see it--the lore just needs a bit of refining. You can NOT base a race or societal culture fully along a deviant ethic alone, because that makes such a society become a 'flat "character"'. While it does make it a good prop for worldbuilding, it heavily discounts the space for character and behavioral building, unless the perspective is deconstructed.
But yeah. Making it revolve around deviant ethics as if that makes them stand is...a wide-scale no.
Also what swordstar said .-. That wording Hasp. I know you meant more, but...the wording and the responses shown here poke at it.
Hat: I think one part about FEFs that I have extremely enjoyed so far is that there has not been anything involving rape*. Which is what sex slavery is. And that's a huge issue for me.
*as far as I know. There was one backstory that had to be modified because of it and one backstory that wasn't allowed because of it but besides that, yeah.
Uhh, tl;dr: Central point of narrative focus + wording = audience response.
And now that I'm back from my 6 day leave...
==+=+==
+==+==+
==+=+==
Everything I've not mentioned, I assume are mutually ok and acknowledged :O (If anything you remember was of need of mention, please poke! I'm very fatigued at the moment/these past few days, and will most likely miss things!)
1) That didn't really answer - will there be a pegasus equivalent in classes? Will ordinary horse be replaced too, then?
[...]
4) Define "unorthodox actions".
I now notice my unspecifity in reality, compared to my specificity in my thoughts. I am enlightened by your constructive criticism!
The idea of those bird-creatures replace the Pegasus and the Wyvern--horses are alright, since the former 2 seem more context dependent given the FE universe. Otherwise, all roles are generally the same and just up for lore-modifications (you can think of it as 'renamed classes + different sprites, also ostrich-like mounts' in short), along with minor shifts to their stats...but that goes with me learning on class making.
Unorthodox actions like people being creative when they see something by visual design, and working around with it
under bounds of reason. This can be talked about in the OOC anyway if uncertain, but I would like to make things...reward creativity.
(ie You see shallow water nearby. You are a fire-caster. You spend that 1 QL of your weapon and your full turn, to make that pool of water into fog, creating a 2-tile wide fog of war which may block enemy sight and ranged weaponry!)
So long story short, copy the stats from another class and mess with them if you feel like it because it doesn't matter much anyway, and get an expert to advise you on Proficiency. If you want the class to behave in an entirely different way than normal, give them one or more abilities that let them do that. If you want them to be a normal class otherwise, give them a flavorful boost(s) of some kind. In either case, the ability should be handy but not fantastic for First Classes and pretty powerful for Second Classes.
> The Pegasus Rider is removed and changed into a bird-type mount who I lack a name for. (Which is really inspired by the film: Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind. Credit to GUNINANRUNIN for poking me about the existence of Chocobos, and me missing half my life of not playing the Final Fantasy genre :v)
WARK! What's it do, though?
I'd avoid planning on it being really long right from the start. Excessively ambitious works tend to fall apart in that way; smaller, self-contained works tend to have a much easier time branching out and building up than larger works do supporting themselves the whole way through.
I'd avoid making the bonuses too situational, or else the players will forget about them by the time they become relevant. Sandwalking is probably one of those things, unless it's a really memorable connection that fits the character well.
5% Disarm chance is a terrible idea, because it's an extra roll every single time the character is attacked, for statistically very little impact on the game. For tiny benefits like that, either tie them to an existing roll (ie "if the enemy's attack roll before modifiers is 5 or lower, you are treated as having the Disarm skill against that attack") or find a simpler way to give them a minor benefit.
> Warding Items
-- Mini-staffs, useable by anyone, with a linear range of 1:{1/4? SKL}. These consume a full action. Adds a minor amount of HP equal to the character's AID stat. This does not count the bonus stat received by mounted characters. Each give a tiny boost to each statistic (ie +1 SKL for the next turn), with a QL parallel to the Ailment staff category {page 147}.
Interesting, but why? Weaker ranged vulneraries with a minor stat boost in them?
I'm gonna drop this here.
IO, You inspire me a lot by how you work with communication. It is very inspiring and something to look up on, on how your wording gives a very clear-cut meaning (with silly humor). Thankies much
> Is there some kind of template for class-making? How did Haspen make his Alchemist? Or that Tactician?
> On the bird-thing, it's an in-lore change from Pegasi and probably Wyverns. It's more aesthetic and such than that, and possibly more variant, given the wide utility...in my offline notes...about them x_x
Meaning that I'm not technically removing pegasus riders. Those riders are just riding not-winged-horses! The niche still exists, it's under a different name.
-- I also agree on the long-ish campaign. On deep reflection on myself, I either need: support from friends, or GM-ing confidence, because my anxiety cuts deep given...the state of this response, and...
affecting me meeting deadlines for a game review I promised a very good friend. > I'm unsure what's a situational ability and what generally isn't D: Are there any general parameters for one to consider?
-- You're a genius and I am
eureka'd. That kind of reframing was what I was exactly looking for! I was uncomfortable with how I wrote that and- ohhh thanks a
ton.
> Gonna change Battle mechanics by talking with others
Initially, I envisioned them as a representation to broaden the FE-feel. Like you're really fighting a war, and to emphasize those tiny details which may get lost in the making--(ie like the bodyguards of an elite and important character: If the main character is downed, they get to pull him/her out [at the cost of 1/2 original/dismounted move], and cannot act otherwise (but may still defend) until their leader is revived.)
What I then considered is a difference in MAPS.
...This is most likely where I got the idea of minimaps -_- I have messy horrible wording!
> Tactical map (wherein one can view forts/villages)
It's like an overview or 'zoomed out' notion of the whole world--like Final Fantasy's world overview while you explore the world, or...pretty much many Strategy/RPG games that have that 'main character represented by one dude//flagbearer, walking across the world!' thing.
-- The idea brings in villages/forts acting as static units themselves with their own specified "population" (ie Fortress - 5/5 pop. Village - 2/2 pop. ... where the # unit represents a relative concept of a defender, like a militia, soldier, or guardian force; Defense value (or the relative concept of the area's ability to defend itself from raids/enemy attacks)
-- Perhaps this idea may help others in the future? Think of the SIEGE ENGINES and the expanse of the BALLISTA! :3
> Battle map (original FEF map styles)
-- This is where that bodyguard-idea comes in! Probably cohorts will now be limited and put at the same quality-degree as the Reinforce class skill (ie Very rare and situational.)
-- ...I'm currently very fatigued and my thought-to-Engleesh translator is boggled. But there are more ideas here that are clear-cut!
> @Neat Tricks: Probably as a balance to the Cohort system//additional stuffs I plan to implement. It's more like 'my thoughts are messy-they made sense before and...err. Let me gather them again @_@' wherein it seems to make "a bit more sense" when you begin to expand other details of the battlefield. (and probably help those who are just 'moving along'//are too slow, so they can at least be partly more useful
)
> @Headpats: Yeaaaah this is why you inspire me.
It's even worded very cutely!
...I'm just going to note that +15 starting stats seems incredibly overpowered compared to +2 HP.
How's about +10 to starting stats; cannot be placed in stat potentials over 50%, or in stat potentials below 30%, and cannot exceed a threshold limit of 5 points from the bonus amount in total. {May be messy worded! I'm tired D:}
> Is +2 HP ok though? That's a relative equivalent of 2 successful levels of HP
[...]
Major stat changes for race/nationality are a bad idea. See my race changes: +2 stats, -2 stats. It gives variety without causing major imbalance[...]
Is there a reason you're swapping terrain around so much? Also giving two different things based on a skill is bad but Gig mentioned that already (usually hills/deep forests aren't passable to mounted units I believe)
[...]
Battle formation... some skills already help that like the Sent's spear wall so eh?
Aww. Bad idea D: I was aiming for the theme of 'these dudes seem to be better because of training so...' so there'd be a tiny bit of a shift, but one that isn't *TOO* significant as to really skew the tides of battle. Since...the general idea of the campaign is crossing nations in the end.
I'll be gathering insight along the way, thanks!
{Could I ask more details on why it's a bad idea?}
> Most reasons on terrain swappity's is...because I'm ambitious? .-. I should talk with Xanmy over it x_x
> It was more on the half-baked side as well as the cohorts until I began re-gathering my notes
It sounds good on paper though!
Poll
Author
Topic: The Fire Emblem on Forums Hub! 10 Years of FEF! (Read 298031 times)