Inspiring. I think we may know to fix the knights. Lmao.
Might as well propose my design.
For my playable Armor Knights I give them swords and lances; and the first and only unpromoted one is like Oswin where his stats are fantastic compared to your other level 1 scrubs but not high enough to obliterate everything since speed is still a problem. Armor Knights are also 5 mov so theyâre effectively more specialized infantry, trading speed for bulk and a second weapon type. Itâs also important to give player armor knights an actual speed base to double enemy armors and other goomba enemies like Soldiers
It works pretty well and makes them still feel like the slow, bulky, but strong characters we all know and love like Arden.
Hereâs an idea: Make em actually tank something and have a defence. Their ââhighââ (which isnât really high) getâs negated because they get doubled by everything that moves and get even more physical damage in the end than frail units. Not to mention frail units can actually dodge tank.
(30-15) x 2 > 30-5
99% hit > 17% hit
Armour unit Def only really starts to fall off as Atk scales higher. I think giving them more bulk to the point where theyâll still be taking less damage than units that arenât doubled is a sufficient solution. Mechanics like Shields can work as a counterweight to the increasing Mt of Weapons.
FEH does Armor Knights good.
-Nearly receive 0 damage all the time
-Guaranteed doubles on some instances
-Insane BST
Combine that with the fact that armor knights only has 1 Mov difference from infantries in normal FE games, youâll have a class that is somewhat more preferrable than infantries; only losing in term of Mov by 1 and has a weakness to armor-effective weaponries (that can sometimes be negated by their high BST).
Having a class with few meaningful drawbacks and absurdly broken power that can be haphazardly thrown into most situations without consequences does not really strike me as an example of good balance.
Zelgius was so fun until the red Myrrh showed up
Like I said it is a good unit it just lacks strategic need usually. I never feel like I need a knight and in turn based runs you might as well not have them at all. When I played Valencia I dominated everything with Faye and Sonia. I made her a golden knight and their level ups for me were absurd. But it is like that in most games. A cav and a mage can pull most of the weight. Maybe you use some others a decent amount like Gonzales Gerik Hector Raven but the knight is really not special. It does itâs job well. Now I just wish I needed to employ them as plenty other units get decent defense or dodge tank growths to go with their better offensive potential. I almost never wish I had a knight.
Honestly i would just give them 1+ move and make the enemies hit hard enough to where a tank is useful
Like with everything, the answer is to just give them actual base stats. +1 move also helps so that theyâre not lagging behind regular infantry, but even with 4/5 move, if they have high bases, theyâll be useful at least temporarily (Oswin is a good example of this). Having rescue/movement skills also helps, especially if theyâre actually worth moving around because of their strong bases. Donât need to overcomplicate how to make armors good. You make them good in the same way to make other units good.
Well, after reading the short list you made, I can agree with making them better, not like regular infantry, but a tank of tanks. The main problem with characters who are this class are:
1.- How good their skill is, not speed
2.-How big a map is.
Finally, 3.- What is the mapâs objective.
With these 3 main problems from my perspective view, can determinate if your armored knights suck , do good, or are just that great like Oswin.
Growths arenât anymore a issue with skills around to patch some problems, not to solve them.
Movement is not a big issue if you give them +1 move and have the armor march or something skill. thatâs why I wrote how big a map is.
And finally the objective one; if you make defend for X turns or defend X unit, this class is useful to have around.
Thatâs it.