New Trait: Wise (or something along those lines)

[turin]

Since when were traits given by race? Aren't strong, quick, resilient, fearless and intelligent universal? (with exceptions) Aren't the only other traits healthy and dextrous? Also why wouldn't giving the traits to all units be more KISS?

EDIT: Forgot undead, but my point still stands, also I've never liked that being a trait and a race.

What we mean "traits are given by race" is that that's how they're defined in the WML:

Code: Select all

    #       *   R A C I A L   T R A I T S   A N D   N A M E S   *

    #traits that are common to all races and units
    {TRAIT_STRONG}
    {TRAIT_QUICK}
    {TRAIT_INTELLIGENT}
    {TRAIT_RESILIENT}

    [race]
        name=elf
        num_traits=2
        markov_chain_size=2
        {ELVISH_NAMES}
        {TRAIT_DEXTROUS}
    [/race]

    [race]
        name=wose
        num_traits=0
        markov_chain_size=3
        {WOSE_NAMES}
    [/race]

    [race]
        name=human
        num_traits=2
        {HUMAN_NAMES}
    [/race]

    [race]
        name=dwarf
        num_traits=2
        {DWARVISH_NAMES}
        {TRAIT_HEALTHY}
    [/race]

    [race]
        name=orc
        num_traits=2
        {ORCISH_NAMES}
    [/race]

    [race]
        name=goblin
        num_traits=2
        {ORCISH_NAMES}
    [/race]

    [race]
        name=undead
        not_living=yes
        num_traits=1
        ignore_global_traits=yes
        {TRAIT_UNDEAD}
    [/race]

Personally I think this is a really dumb way to do it. It was originally done like this because the undead weren't supposed to get traits, so there had to be a way to make undead units be special, and what distinguished them was race. But then we started adding traits like dexterous, healthy, etc, and removing traits like strong from units like adepts...

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah, KISS is definitely one valid reason.

About Adepts, not having strong is ok, since they don't have melee attack and it works well with their background.

adepts not beeing strong is perfectly fine... now that i think about it... their chances of beeing resilent is also increased... so 2/3 adepts are resilent... my bad... it was more or less bad luck hiring 3 quick intelligent adepts in a row...

[MDG]

Personally I think this is a really dumb way to do it. It was originally done like this because the undead weren't supposed to get traits, so there had to be a way to make undead units be special, and what distinguished them was race. But then we started adding traits like dexterous, healthy, etc, and removing traits like strong from units like adepts...

Emphasis mine.

My understanding of the primary difference between abilities and traits is that although both produce game play effects on a given unit, traits are used to produce variation between units of the same unit type, whilst abilities are always inherited by all units of a unit type. If I am correct then the undead trait does not actually fit the purpose of traits (variation of units of the same unit type).

In addition, another feature of most of the mainline traits (excepting undead and fearless) is that they alter the unit's numerical base stats (damage per strike, movement points, hit points, experience points, heal per inactive turn, etc...) in order to differentiate between units of the same unit type. Abilities tend to be additional features over and above the core unit stats that all unit types share. Again, the undead trait does not seem to fit.

Would the undead trait be better suited to an ability that all undead unit types receive? It wouldn't affect game play to switch this. Not sure if coding would be required. It might improve clarity in a very minor way if this exception were 'fixed' since it may not need to be an exception in the first place (not sure if there is some ancient justification for it being a trait rather than an ability).

Edit: With regards the fearless trait and Walking Corpses, since it is not assigned randomly and doesn't produce variation within the unit type, could the same game play effects not be achieved by increasing the damage per strike by 25% and then making the unit line's alignment neutral? It might be clearer for player's (particularly newbies), it might not. (Note: I am not one of the individuals who equates chaotic with evil and therefore assumes any undead unit has to be chaotic. I tend to think of chaotic as night vision and lawful as day vision, I prefer not to think about neutral ).

[turin]

Well DUH the undead trait isn't like the other traits! It's not even a real trait, all it is is a name. It doesn't DO anything. It's just a name, added on as a trait because that seems like the easiest way to do it. It could just as well be an ability. The whole game effect is created by that "not_living=yes" in the [race] tag, not by any trait-specific WML.

----

Fearless and being neutral are slightly different, in my understanding, as Fearless means you do more damage in your preferred time of day and just don't do less in the opposite. So your solution is no good.

---

In any case, IF we change to having traits be defined on a per-unit basis not on a per-race basis (which I support), I would also support changing both of the above to abilities (since that's really what they are). But if not, I say don't do anything, since this saves WML.

[MDG]

Well DUH the undead trait isn't like the other traits!

Thank you for the response.

It's not even a real trait, all it is is a name. It doesn't DO anything. It's just a name, added on as a trait because that seems like the easiest way to do it.

I was actually aware of this. I wasn't proposing any change to the effect it has so this seemed irrelevant.

It could just as well be an ability.

Yep!

The whole game effect is created by that "not_living=yes" in the [race] tag

I was not aware of this. Learned something new. Thank you.

Fearless and being neutral are slightly different, in my understanding, as Fearless means you do more damage in your preferred time of day and just don't do less in the opposite.

My mistake. I misunderstood the effect the fearless trait has. I'm particularly annoyed with myself because I was too damn lazy to check it before adding it to my earlier post and I should have . My bad.

In any case, IF we change to having traits be defined on a per-unit basis not on a per-race basis (which I support)

Interesting. Wasn't aware this was in debate. I am aware you can override race traits and number of traits within the unit WML already (as done for the Dark Adept and Walking Corpse in the dev branch. I checked this time, lesson learned ).

In any case, IF we change to having traits be defined on a per-unit basis not on a per-race basis (which I support), I would also support changing both of the above to abilities (since that's really what they are). But if not, I say don't do anything, since this saves WML.

Emphasis mine.
It would be nice to clear up this anomaly but, I already figure it's probably a minor issue. If the extra WML is a factor then fair enough, I'll let it go.

[gabe]

Hey, just out of curiosity what are the new traits in 1.3.4/5 as I am using 1.2.4

Also what do the dev version traits do. Is undead still a trait/race or one of each? Before I actually say anything these questions I have. Mainly as with the addition from what I hear of a new trait (healthy) or two, maybe it is time to rebalance traits.

Quick does have a drawback for its gain. Many times I would rather the health and no movement increase. Maybe quick should be fixed or the other traits made with cost/benefit contrasts?

Also a quick answer on the current status of the undead trait/race relationship would be cool.

[MDG]

Gabe, there is a list of the traits on the wiki. Scroll down to almost the bottom of the page and it essentially lists all the traits and their descriptions.

[irrevenant]

MDG's point appears to be that "Undead" makes more sense as a unit ability than a trait. I tend to agree.

[Iris]

MDG's point appears to be that "Undead" makes more sense as a unit ability than a trait. I tend to agree.

Specially as the spanish translation of the trait says "undead" in plural ("no muertos").

But if it were an ability, I'd prefer to change its name anyway, as undead should refer to the units "race", not specialties. Perhaps in the future BFW should display the unit's race in the description box, under the unit type name. In such case, the ability/trait should be "immortal"* or something like that.

* Don't mistake this with "unkillable"

[MDG]

In any case, IF we change to having traits be defined on a per-unit basis not on a per-race basis (which I support), I would also support changing both of the above to abilities (since that's really what they are). But if not, I say don't do anything, since this saves WML.

Just to clarify, whilst I think switching the undead trait to an ability might be a small improvement, I do not view the fearless trait the same way because it is assigned randomly to trolls (hence it suits being a trait in this regard).

(Didn't want someone coming along and misunderstanding my opinion on this! I've already gotten it wrong about the fearless trait once in this thread!)

[Noyga]

MDG's point appears to be that "Undead" makes more sense as a unit ability than a trait. I tend to agree.

Since it does nothing except displaying "undead" in the stats, is it really important ?

[irrevenant]

MDG's point appears to be that "Undead" makes more sense as a unit ability than a trait. I tend to agree.

Since it does nothing except displaying "undead" in the stats, is it really important ?

"Important", no. It would be nice, because it's tidier, but it's certainly not a major issue.

"Undead" is a unit special that applies to every instance of particular units - it just makes more intuitive sense as an ability.

It's also simpler to just say "Undead don't have traits. Period.".

[shevegen]

You know the impact of bad traits or useless traits would vanish a bit if a player could reshape the traits of a unit (i.e. for a cost of a turn standing still, and paying quite some gold for this)

[Darth Fool]

You know the impact of bad traits or useless traits would vanish a bit if a player could reshape the traits of a unit (i.e. for a cost of a turn standing still, and paying quite some gold for this)

Not going to happen.

[Noy]

I've been using the stable version since thats where most of the people are, I didn't notice that they had strong removed from adepts in the development release.

as for the whole weakness with traits, guess we heard it straight from the fool's mouth... er wait. I still like the idea that theres a -1 HP, since it somewhat fits in with the tag that a wise person is generally older and weaker (of course I may just be having Gandalf syndrome or something), and it's not exactly that big of a loss. Still there is that thing called effort getting in the way.

Something else I've noticed, shamans can get dexterous, which raises their magic damage, so something would probably have to happen there.

-1 hp? thats such a minor change its hardly worth the effort. And its not even close to being balanced when compared to how powerful its opposite effect would be. Depending on Time of da, and the opponents resistance, 1+ damage could result in +3 actual damage on a unit per hit, maybe +9 damage total if all attacks hit. Thats not balanced in the least...

Sooo, no its not going to be included.