Well, it's pretty much the same but it was much more constraining in the 1st games. If you forget to do that precise protection during the turn, you're dead.
There are some other subtle means but it wasn't as easy as in this game.
I prefer their breaths to be random but to not have a single-turn defensive option. Having to use Antis every turn isn't that fun. The set-and-forget buff (that can, and does, get dispelled as part of their rotation) just ultimately frees things up. You can make the breath devastating AND random AND improve all their other options just by virtue of giving a better tool to deal with it. And it still seems fair this way!
The problem of Alchemist in the 1st game is that his efficiency drops pretty heavily toward the end of the game. At the beginning you rule everything with poison but the more you progress into the game the less Alchemist is efficient damage-wise.
It's the same problem for EO2, really. EO3/EO4 solved this by having their "Spell Power" scale with something instead of being tied to the skill itself.
It's fair enough you can use that as a subclass for a Fortress but still, it doesn't make much sens.
I don't even use a Fortress; Arcanist / Runemaster to cover the Elemental Runes. If Antis were the goto route for it, I'd probably sub for it as well. That's basically how I see it. They took a route this time where you can use subclasses to deal with the situation and scaled the numbers such that the main class has an advantage still.
I guess I just like it from a "flavor" view: Of course the "Master of the Elements" Runemaster can deal with elemental damage. The Fortress is more of a bodyguard!
Regarding the Troubadour, you could use its skill in a subtle way if combined with the burst equivalent (forgot its name) you can pretty well reduce a devastating attack (it saved me many times against Primevil).
Boost for those took it to 90% Reduction, if I recall. Combined with how Armor worked (flat reduction after percentage reduction), it's essentially nullifying damage.
My big issue in IV is how easy they made things.
Honestly, I don't really agree. Well, sort of. If anything, EO4 has the most threats across the board for random encounters, FoEs, and boss design. There's exceptions here and there, sure, but a lot of the bosses in EO4 have more complexity to them than anything in previous games.
The "problem" is you're also given better tools. EO1 is a very straightforward game: Things deal damage so you need to deal with it. %Reduction, in conjunction with how Armor worked, basically trivializes everything. Your damage output is so-so at best so it's about the long grind for fights. The difficulty of the game stems from the fact that there's only a small amount of answers.
EO4 just gives you more options. You have better ways to deal with everything the game throws at you so the encounter design tries to get away with more since you can deal with it better. The game is more interactive, for lack of a better way to put it. You actually have to adapt to the fights rather than just knowing to deal with damage.
I do think that they could've done a little bit more with the difficulty but they're certainly trying more now than before. So, no, I think EO4 is a harder game in terms of enemy design but I do agree that it's ultimately easier because player power is higher too.
With that said, thanks for the discussion. I really enjoyed debating this, even if I know it's the trend, we can't do much against it, but something inside me refuses that
It's fun to discuss. I'm still waiting for my Hard Mode option so don't think that I'm "satisfied" with the game difficulty or anything ;__;
