Editor, expanding witch's hut poll

[Branikolog]

Preliminary checks

• I've checked that there aren't other open issues on the same topic.

Describe the problem requiring a solution

According to the original behaviour not all skills are possible to appear in witch's hut:

Describe the possible solution

Since we're making the editor more flexible, I suggest allowing Leadership and Necromancy skills to appear in witch's hut.
It would be reasonable to have these both skills (I believe, there're only two) disabled on default.

Additional info

No response

[ihhub]

I am against it. We must not change the outcome of the existing object.

[oleg-derevenetz]

But this will happen on fh2m maps only.

[Branikolog]

Hi, @ihhub !

I am against it. We must not change the outcome of the existing object.

Map maker could use such option for expanding a custom map scenario using this feature.
Probably creating a new object that can teach every possible skill is an ideal solution, but does it worth investing time and efforts for drawing a new object just for the sake of adding two skills in the poll? And again, default behaviour should remain as in the original game.

[LeHerosInconnu]

Hello everyone,

In the original game, when the scenario is launched, there's a rule that makes the necromancer cannot learn leadership and that only the necromancer and warlock can learn necromancy.
This has also been taken into account for the secondary skills teached in witch's huts.
This should not be changed.
Now, if the scenario creator wants, for example, a necromancer hero with the secondary skill leadership, it is still possible to edit the hero in the scenario editor.
I'm against a "copy" of the witch's hut that would allow all secondary skills, it would only be redundant and would denature the way the original game works, and for what real benefit.

[Branikolog]

There could be a plot twist, when your hero can get a necromancy on a certain stage of the game (turn to the dark side or smth like that). Since it is still possible to set necromancy for any hero in the editor, inability to grant it within a gameplay seems like a step back for me.
I understand your skepticism regarding the necromancy though. But the leadership is quite a useful skill and in some circumstances it would be nice if the witch could give this skill to your hero. (From a mapmaker point.)

I'm against a "copy" of the witch's hut that would allow all secondary skills, it would only be redundant and would denature the way the original game works, and for what real benefit.

I believe in future some new skills could appear. How would witch's hut perform in that case? The more new skills could be granted visiting this object, the more unfair it seems that leadership is not in the list.
If a special object for all new (including old leadership and necromancy) skills is going to be introduced - then OK... 👍

My main idea is to give a little more choice to map creators within the basic game mechanics.
Let's remember some recent changes, that allowed a map creator to set any resource amounts. In the original game you couldn't find any gold pile more than 1000 coins. Now map creator can set 2000 or even more, to be able to save some space inside the area and make the overall map more refined. I agree that making everything upside down can break the game experience and I'm not proposing to give something irrelevant in this object (like artifacts, army or anything else). It's for the sake of expanding the basic mechanics: if witch's hut provides some skills, why not expanding the number of skills? It looks quite natural for me.
I personally found out that leadership is out of the list for this object just a few days ago. :) And I won't be really much confused, if at some custom map I could get leadership or even necromancy in this object. It's just my personal feelings, though. :)

[LeHerosInconnu]

@Branikolog,

There could be a plot twist, when your hero can get a necromancy on a certain stage of the game (turn to the dark side or smth like that). Since it is still possible to set necromancy for any hero in the editor, inability to grant it within a gameplay seems like a step back for me. I understand your skepticism regarding the necromancy though. But the leadership is quite a useful skill and in some circumstances it would be nice if the witch could give this skill to your hero. (From a mapmaker point.)

If the scenario creator wants to be able to provoke an unusual possibility, this could be done using an object of the event type (on the adventure map or even a global event), possibly with one or more trigger conditions, so as not to arrive at undesirable effects either.

It should also be noted that the level of the normally inaccessible secondary skill does not progress if the hero gains an experience level.
For example, if a knight is edited to have basic necromancy, his necromancy level will remain at basic for the entire game.

It is possible for the necromancer, and all other hero types, to compensate for the absent secondary skill leadership with several artifacts and locations on the adventure map related to morale.
It's a bit constraining at times, but the original game allows for this, and it also brings different gameplay experiences.

As for necromancy, I think it's a good thing that it can only be attributed to the necromancer and occasionally to the warlock.
If all hero types could have it, it would somehow limit the differences between hero types.

I'm against a "copy" of the witch's hut that would allow all secondary skills, it would only be redundant and would denature the way the original game works, and for what real benefit.

I believe in future some new skills could appear. How would witch's hut perform in that case? The more new skills could be granted visiting this object, the more unfair it seems that leadership is not in the list. If a special object for all new (including old leadership and necromancy) skills is going to be introduced - then OK... 👍

My main idea is to give a little more choice to map creators within the basic game mechanics. Let's remember some recent changes, that allowed a map creator to set any resource amounts. In the original game you couldn't find any gold pile more than 1000 coins. Now map creator can set 2000 or even more, to be able to save some space inside the area and make the overall map more refined. I agree that making everything upside down can break the game experience and I'm not proposing to give something irrelevant in this object (like artifacts, army or anything else). It's for the sake of expanding the basic mechanics: if witch's hut provides some skills, why not expanding the number of skills? It looks quite natural for me. I personally found out that leadership is out of the list for this object just a few days ago. :) And I won't be really much confused, if at some custom map I could get leadership or even necromancy in this object. It's just my personal feelings, though. :)

In the original game, heroes have a certain percentage of chance to obtain the various secondary skills.
The value "0" indicates that the secondary skill cannot be learned.
The value "5" indicates a greater chance of being offered the secondary skill.
Here's the table of values (from the game manual):

If new secondary skills are added, they really need to be interesting to own and also different from the existing ones, which is complicated.
Also, the heroes' secondary skills progression table should be improved with "automatic adjustments" based on a system of values for each hero type, allowing to authorize or not the secondary skills available in the game.

[Branikolog]

As for necromancy, I think it's a good thing that it can only be attributed to the necromancer and occasionally to the warlock.
If all hero types could have it, it would somehow limit the differences between hero types.

I'm 100% agree with that. The issue is opened just for the sake of expanding some custom made maps. I'm not proposing to activate those two skills for the existing original maps and even for .fh2 maps this feature should be switched off on default.
Indeed, it's just a small "fine tuning" above the original game behaviour, but it's completely optional. The second reason I suggested this is because I believe, it requires a minimum of code changes (I hope so 😅 ).