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!)
Hah, that's neat.
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 
Dawww, no problem. :3
> Is there some kind of template for class-making? How did Haspen make his Alchemist? Or that Tactician?
Not that I know of, and no idea. When in doubt, copying and then modifying whatever class is closest to what you're going for is a good bet.
> I'm unsure what's a situational ability and what generally isn't D: Are there any general parameters for one to consider?
It's just a matter of how often and how obviously it comes up, and how well it fits into someone's mental image of the character. Though come to think of it, I guess you'll be the one needing to remember rather than the players... but then, if they forget they have an ability then it's hard to take advantage of it.
For instance, bonus defense on forest tiles is situational, but forest tiles are fairly common and standing on them to be tougher is fairly common, so it's probably easy for everyone to remember. The player will most likely be thinking "Okay, where's some forest tiles? It's
really good to get on forest tiles where possible." The GM will most likely be thinking "Okay, his turn. Right, he's on forest tiles again, so he gets the bonus." It becomes a part of his character, especially if it matches really well thematically.
On the other hand, consider a bonus to attacking priests on forest tiles. Well... it's still situational, but it's also
rare. You're probably not gonna fight too many priests, and the priests you do fight probably aren't going to be on forest tiles a lot, and there's only so much you can do to encourage that to happen... so the player will most likely not be stalking the map, thinking to themselves "Okay, I'm good at attacking priests on forest tiles. Time to find the priests on forest tiles." The GM will likewise probably not be thinking "Okay, his turn. Ah yes, is he attacking a priest on a forest tile?" It's not really a part of his character, especially if it doesn't fit all that well thematically.
So there aren't any hard and fast rules, but you should consider how often a trait is likely to come up, how often players can influence when it comes up, and how thematically it's going to fit their characters. If sand is a really common terrain type and the players are all Arabian themed, Sandwalking is likely to be an easy to remember ability. If sand is fairly rare and the characters are all European-looking, it's likely to be the kind of thing you forget about except in rare circumstances.
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!
The world map thing sounds interesting. Good luck refining everything out.
> @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 )
Ah. Well, careful that you don't end up trying to solve complexity with more complexity.
It's a bad idea because it's almost impossible to balance it, plus characters tend to be overpowered enough as it is by the end. As has already been pointed out, just the difference in the two that you've already suggested are huge. And then some are very map specific (ignoring desert tiles) vs some that are always around (disarm is a free skill/gets a 5% chance to disarm) so either you need to work *very* hard to balance things or you need to reduce the amount of bonuses because it's going to be unbalanced.
Everything in here is always true. It's not like FEF is super balanced, it just works because it's good enough and interesting. Endgame characters being really overpowered isn't going to be made much worse by a few free statups. There's no point avoiding something interesting just because "it might be unbalanced" or "it'll take work to make balanced." You don't get an actual
game like that, and you certainly don't get FEF.
Really, the issue is that while +2 HP is one possible stat in 2 levels, +15 starting stats is like three good levels. And two of those stat points can be put into HP. Really, +2 HP can't be compared at all. The closest bonus would be an extra +2 to spend in a addition to the +4 everyone gets under the same restrictions. And even then, the fact that you can choose which stat or stats it goes into makes it so that there's literally no reason to pick the +2 HP over the other one.
Oh. ._. I didn't consider any of that. There goes my narrative hook.
What about +5 HP?
...Maybe I should run a test-FEF to iron out the creases?
edoot:
You might want to try and run a short unedited game first to get a better understanding of the effort required and a better understanding of the balance of the game. There's some stuff you can really get a better understanding of when you run a game.
Yaaaaaay
Testing is good. Testing is also time-consuming. Absolutely do it if you think it'll give you good data, but don't let it turn into a substitute or obstacle to planning or running your actual game.
So, much to my chagrin, I have been informed (and provided logs of) yet another argument on the IRC channel as of late. I don't like this at all, especially because I like all you guys and I don't want to take sides.
It seems that with real-time conversation some pretty cool peeps from around here can go crazy with insults and such on a moment's notice only to defend themselves with snark and whatever.
I will have to re-consider if official FEFgames IRC channel should still be maintained or if we should go back to individual OOC topics. I remember that in the latter arguments were less frequent and less severe.
I don't really go in there, but this makes me sad.
Poll
Author
Topic: The Fire Emblem on Forums Hub! 10 Years of FEF! (Read 304383 times)