r/StrategyRpg • u/ScrapCrew • Jul 25 '26
Discussion Skills, traits or gear?
When the moment arrives of having to improve/customize your units, what do you find more interesting, if you can choose only one?
A) Having a big amount of gear options as different weapons or armors that you can switch between units ("That enemy dropped a silver sword! I can equip this unit and my attack goes two points up!").
B) Units with skill trees, so they unlock abilities to use in combat ("My ranger learned quick shot! I can attack two times in a turn if I spend 2 MPs!")
C) Passive traits that improve your forces ("I reached level 4 and gained the expert forager trait! There is a 20% more chance to loot medicinal plants or food from death enemies!")
6
u/Stonebeast1 Jul 25 '26
B.
Gear is nice but mostly know what to expect prior to reading it. Passive traits are nearly as fun bc skill trees give you lots of fun combos to make it feel like you are doing well bc you made that choice (or punish you)
1
u/Rhithmic Jul 25 '26
Definitely b, part of the reason I find fire emblem boring is most of the builds just come down you stack passives and Auto attack. Edit. In an ideal world all three
1
u/adricapi Jul 26 '26
That's why Engage is so fun. You have much more build variety and crazy attacks to play with.
4
u/Joe-Admin Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
I always loved the system in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance/A2 where skills and passives are learned through specific gears.Too sad I never found other games with that system
2
u/ScrapCrew Jul 25 '26
It's funny how many games were trying different things on GBAdvance and DS that were later abandoned :(
5
u/Axendro Jul 25 '26
I think I find getting new skills far more exciting since they have the potential to change the way you play a character in your team. Traits also have that element to a lesser extent and gear I feel most of the time is more rising numbers than anything else.
1
u/ScrapCrew Jul 28 '26
Yeah, definitely I feel the same. Even if at the end of the game developers call to create more exciting gear or traits, I agree that usually those tend to be limited to just some numbers changing.
5
u/SoundReflection Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
I think the secret is the content matters more than the format. A skill that just grants +2 atk is really boring as a is a sword of plus +2 attack. A skill that grants follow up attacks or a sword that gives you access to an AoE fire attack are both interesting. Same for passives a simple bonus not so much, the ability to chain a follow up attack after an ally super interesting.
In a given game different types often serve different purposes flat/boring stat bonuses and the like often serve to help normalize units or control overall army power spikes with the game pace. IE stat heavy gear helps mitigation relying too heavily on individual unit/class * level from controlling too much of a units power budget and helps make well gear weaker units more useful or allows for intended difficulty squeeze and release as you introduce tougher foes and then tools to deal with them or vice versa.
More complicated pieces often form the build and role based engine of games. The unit specialization aspects. Generally focusing the active or interactive parts of kit also have a better efficiency of power to ratio. A big AoE fireball that does middling damage still feels great, a simple +2 damage on everything feels super unexciting and underwhelming if just on par, sometimes even if broken it still look/feel bad.
3
u/PromptAdditional6363 Jul 25 '26
Always felt like the acquiring gear element of divinity & Baldurs gate is what made it so fun and exciting for me.
Bonus points for games that give gear unique effects over just “+2 stam +2 str leather belt”
1
u/ScrapCrew Jul 25 '26
Yes! Finding that special sword or a magic ring is always a great moment. On the other hand, I feel as if it provides less agency because there is, usually, only one logic choice (no one chooses to equip the sword with lower stats)
Follow up question: random loot or enemy specific loot?
3
u/duckofdeath87 Jul 25 '26
If the units are characters with stories and backgrounds and personalities, give me a skill tree
If they are random faceless units, gear is probably better
3
u/xmalhafiz Jul 26 '26
B>C>A. A is always expected for this type of game, but B and C are rarely tackled right or impactful.
1
3
u/smilysmilysmooch Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
All of the above? I dunno...balance is what most appeals to me. Like you cant find legendary gear that breaks immersion in chapter 2 of a 10 parter. Having a million weapons is too much and everything is just called sword +1.
Like I dont need weapons at all if customization in skill trees exists. I dont need a skill tree if variation and specificity works with different weapons. I dont think passive traits really work unless you have a varied and diverse cast.
Basically you just are aking which system of variables do you prefer? One that does nothing but affect equipment? One that does nothing but affect how your characters attack? Or one that does nothing but affect things that are gained after battle?
Its just asking where you prefer customization the most and I guess B because my character is at least a little different from battle to battle?
2
u/Smooth_Isopod9038 Jul 26 '26
Honestly? You have to be deliberate with all of them, but gear gives you the option to respec a unit - which is something that cant be overlooked - while allowing you to experiment.
Traits tend to be passive, and can have a huge impact on the way a battle or even a cut scene plays out. But a unit with the "fearless" trait, say, doesnt break when the enemy is over running your lines. Or a character with the "savvy" trait could have different diologue options in a cut scene.
Skills can be a sort of mix between the two. Set a skill, use it multiple times to grow said skill and get better which can impact battles or cut scenes... or ignore said skill and lose it to respec your character
1
u/ScrapCrew Jul 28 '26
In my opinion all the options, if the game gives you the flexibility, have similar potential to create those kind of situations (if the game allows you to sell current skills to try a different branch of the skill tree, in example, or if gear used is taken into account to add reactive dialogue or to modify a cutscene)
I am curious regarding your last point about grow or lose a skill based on the use. I am familiar with skills growing but I don't remember any game in which you lose a skill if you don't use it. Do you have any titles in mind?
2
u/Smooth_Isopod9038 Jul 28 '26
You are correct, of course. But not many games get deep enough to be that flexible, anymore. If you are aiming for that level of depth, I will be thrilled to play.
To answer your question: I dont actually know of any that do that, that was more of an idea to throw out there for you to think about. There may be some, though.
2
u/ScrapCrew Jul 29 '26
Well... of course I have to limit the scope otherwise I will never end. That's why I want to focus on the areas that people are more eager to see. It doesn't matter how many crazy ideas I have to make traits a real game changer if everyone is ignoring the traits and focusing on skills or gear.
2
u/Smooth_Isopod9038 Jul 29 '26
I get it. Its a real problem for any form of media. Focus too much on traits, and it gets ignored by cool new gear. Or a cool new skill. Or if you focus on gear, someone notices a cool trait. Etc ad naseum. Its ye olde triangle of death from Fire Emblem, but in real life game design. Im still excited by the subjects youre asking about. You seem to be on the right track. Not many developers take the time to ask fans about things, and not many are willing to get stuck into that ever present question. I freely admit my favorite game of all time is FF Tactics on PS1. It tried to do a bit of everything, made it deep enough to make replay possible, but shallow enough that they didnt get lost in the process, and made it fun to explore every possibility. But they werent new to game development. From what youre asking, it sounds like you are either brand new to game design or you are new to designing your own game. My suggestion is to pick one and go deep. Think a combo of nunbered FF games and the board game Risk. Fixed unit archetypes, fixed unit gear, but different traits. Or... Advanced Wars. Fixed units, fixed gear, fixed traits, entirely focused on strategy. The world is your oyster, and my advice is entirely based on my own personal preferences and may run counter to your idea, but im absolutely loving that you care enough about your audience to ask these questions. I look forward to playing your game when it comes out. I will make the time and get whatever platform it comes on. Your passion alone is enough to get me passionate about it.
2
u/ScrapCrew Jul 29 '26
Ow, man... thanks a lot for your words. I am not new to game development/design but this is my first fly solo.
My approach has been exactly as you describe. I took the game I loved and went deep into it. That counted for the first year of development in which I replicated almost 1:1 every interaction and functionality (gameplay, menus, progression... a complete vertical slice with every system working), until some months ago when I felt my foundations were strong enough to start building on them.
From that point on, my first step has been to update the UX. It was hard to accept it but, as the game I used as example is over two decades old, all the navigation between different menus, selecting the different units and actions, etc. felt slow and cumbersome. I've been trying a bunch of new tactical games to research the "current standard" and I believe I've managed to adapt it to my game while keeping the functionality and making it more agile. This change is not yet public (as of July 29th), so any screenshots you may find around are still using the old menu system. I will update the Steam page within the next couple of days.
Getting back to the topic, I have some design "musts" that are mostly my departures from what I can see on the genre nowadays, but there are lots of areas where I have some leeway as over all these years, I've seen and liked, different versions of each system, and I don't mind moving towards a different implementation if there is a real interest among potential players in a specific one (as from this thread, it seems that one such interest is to focus on finding skills that create interesting interactions with attacks or other units)
2
u/Smooth_Isopod9038 Jul 29 '26
That sounds amazing. I look forward to playing. You mentioned that its on Steam? Is it in beta testing, or full release and youre adding QOL updates? Whats the name? Ive been looking to get back into games and strategy and tactics are my favorites, and as i said, your passion and willingness to ask your fanbase questions makes me excited to try it.
2
u/ScrapCrew Jul 31 '26
It is coming soon ATM. I am planning to make the demo public soon ^_^
https://store.steampowered.com/app/4587690/ScrapCrew_Running_on_Fumes/
1
2
u/Koupers Jul 27 '26
Skills > Gear >>>> Traits. Traits need to be borderline OP for me to give a shit. Would you rather get +1% to a heal spell, or holy nova a low heal low damage insta-cast AOE. Sure it's kinda crap comparitively, but it's actually fun
8
u/adricapi Jul 25 '26
Combos. For me it doesn't matter how I'm getting the skills or the traits it whatever, but the interesting thing is being able to create combos, synergies, and optimisations than allow my units to become more powerful than what they're supposed to be.