• Post New Message
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Fire Emblem: Three Houses
  3. There are no bad chara
Not only is everyone 100% viable (even on NG Maddening), but every single character has the capacity to do considerable work and completely demolish enemies by endgame. Optimization is nice, and obviously some characters are better at certain roles than others, but no one is unusable, or even bad for that matter. As long as you aren’t building an entire team that’s strictly spec-ing into roles that the characters are intentionally designed to be weak in, then any team is strong and able to carry you to victory. Simply keep everyone well trained and all the characters are great.

EDIT: Title is meant to say “characters”
To be the voice of reason is to be unheard.
IX > VII = VIII = X = T > XII = VI = IV > X-2 > XV > I > XIII-2 > XIII > II. The rest? Idk.
(edited 1 week ago)
#2
(message deleted)

User Info: Panthera

Panthera
1 week ago#3
Good and bad are relative terms. Being able to kill enemies isn't a sign you're good if everyone else can do the same but better, more easily and/or bring more to the table besides.
Meow!

User Info: LadyNihilist

LadyNihilist
1 week ago#4
When people argue that characters are good or bad, they tend to do character vs. character comparisons, not character vs. game ones. The former are more interesting and lead to more meaningful conclusions than 'well, yeah, you can beat the game using them.'

But some characters struggle even by that metric, I think. Ashe and Caspar have really rough in-house early games, and Anna has too many deficits to be worth using except as part of a self-imposed challenge.

Three Houses isn't Radiant Dawn, though. The viability difference between Edelgard/Dimitri and Anna is a lot smaller than the difference between Haar and Lyre.
N3DS Friend Code: 2680-9925-9550 ~ Pokemon UltraSun IGN: Yoko
FE:Fates MyCastle address (NA): 04178-51483 18998-23259

User Info: EdeaCreamer

EdeaCreamer
1 week ago#5
The open class system and lack of segregation between attack and utility magic pretty much ensure nobody sinks below an actual B Tier in 3H. The tradeoff is that most characters can feel a bit same-y unless they have a Combat Art or spell of note (as they are amongst the few things that can't just be used by anybody).

In-house Caspar is probably the closest you'll get to a unit who's genuinely frustrating to use. I sincerely believe they flipped his Speed and Luck stats by accident.
Fifth of cognac, add some triple-sec...

User Info: bookwormbabe29

bookwormbabe29
1 week ago#6
Some people take the ratings too seriously. Dumping on Caspar and Ashe, for example. I've used Caspar a lot and he's an amazing unit, yet he's trashed on so often on these boards. Caspar ties for the 2nd highest base STR of the black eagles and 2nd highest STR growth, and his ranking is better in defense; that's not the makings of a bad start.
3DS Friend Code: 0920-2538-1864 Pokemon Sun IGN: Kala
Switch friend code: SW-4557-7874-3781, Pokemon Shield IGN: Vicky

User Info: Elite_HT_Soljah

Elite_HT_Soljah
1 week ago#7
Panthera posted...
Good and bad are relative terms. Being able to kill enemies isn't a sign you're good if everyone else can do the same but better, more easily and/or bring more to the table besides.
Good and bad may be relative, but they still suggest that one thing essentially can not do what the other things does. Better and worse are more relevant terms here. And yes, some characters are better than others, but my point is that none of them are actually bad or unusable (like a lot of posters here imply) since they all can do their jobs well, even if others do it marginally better.

LadyNihilist posted...
When people argue that characters are good or bad, they tend to do character vs. character comparisons, not character vs. game ones. The former are more interesting and lead to more meaningful conclusions than 'well, yeah, you can beat the game using them.'
Yeah I agree that you definitely get more interesting discussion comparing the characters. I just think it’s weird that people call characters bad or consider them unviable when the margins of comparison are considerably minor.
To be the voice of reason is to be unheard.
IX > VII = VIII = X = T > XII = VI = IV > X-2 > XV > I > XIII-2 > XIII > II. The rest? Idk.

User Info: Panthera

Panthera
1 week ago#8
Elite_HT_Soljah posted...
Good and bad may be relative, but they still suggest that one thing essentially can not do what the other things does. Better and worse are more relevant terms here. And yes, some characters are better than others, but my point is that none of them are actually bad or unusable (like a lot of posters here imply) since they all can do their jobs well, even if others do it marginally better.

If everyone else does everything you do better, even if the difference is only marginal you're still bad because using you is literally always the worst choice
Meow!

User Info: Ridelwofr

Ridelwofr
1 week ago#9
Manuela is genuinely bad.

User Info: MonadoGuy25

MonadoGuy25
1 week ago#10
Ashe is pretty much as bad as you can get in 3H. He has no real niche that sets him apart from any of the cast, and he'll never have good combat until he masters Sniper.
  1. Boards
  2. Fire Emblem: Three Houses
  3. There are no bad chara
  • Post New Message

GameFAQs Q&A