Familiar Revision

[Salk]

I guess it wouldn't help to check how Rabain coded his own revision of this spell?

He didn't do anything on this matter, as it seems Rabain's familiars use the same "weapon" at any level (flagged as non-magical).

This is a serious problem because I think that the Familiar's "weapon" improving at some levels is a rather important feature for the new spell.

It's indeed something that should be done imo.

 

If it will be impossible to do it, I guess we can use the PnP values.

 

The Lantern Archons use a ranged attack ("They are capable of shooting Out rays of light that inflict 1-6 points of damage on a successful hit. They may fire two such rays per round out to 30 feet and ignore any range modifiers. This is their only attack form and they will use it against evil intruders and to defend themselves.") which doesn't improve with the level and shouldn't be hard to implement.

The base Lantern Archon creature and its "ray of light" attack is already working, after testing a few animations I've decided to use beholder's "ray" animation for the attack.

 

If we really can't implement an upgradeable "attack" I'd say we have at least to make it +1 enchanted instead of non-enchanted, am I wrong?

 

If we can't implement an upgradeable attack, I think it's quite a problem but yes, the familiar attack should be enchanted.

 

A +1 enchantment would be just ideal for the BG1 part of the game but in SoA and mostly ToB, it would be really too weak, so I am not so sure.

[Jarno Mikkola]

...user here (jarno) said that...

Jarno. :)

 

...

If we can't implement an upgradeable attack, I think it's quite a problem but yes, the familiar attack should be enchanted.

Well, the way I see it, the attack item can be done by unsummoning the familiar with dialog so you don't loose the Constitution point and then resummoning it back via the spell(which then give back the appropriate creature that has better attack, just like the summon undead spell). Yes, even this approach will be hard as you have to change a lot of little things, and then try to make it work.

And if the familiar dies, the caster gets the constitution penalty, but the spell then can be casted back and you'll get the weapon upgraded creature, if you can... and yes, that's a lot of copies.

[Demivrgvs]

I may have found a sub-optimal way to implement the 'upgradeable weapon' issue, the .itm file used when the familiar rest in the backback can be used to "summon" a different .cre file based on caster's level. I have to think a little more about it, but perhaps some of you may quickly give me a good reason to search for another solution!

 

P.S I think I'll open a new topic (this one is too big and difficult to follow), and we should start to debate each and familiar, their abilities and their progression. Working on most of it can be done even before having solved the implementation issues.

[Salk]

I hope your solution might work!

 

And I welcome the fact that we can finally start discussing every and each familiar in a new topic!

 

Do you believe that my suggestion for working around the -1 Constitution penalty is implementable?

[Demivrgvs]

I hope your solution might work!

 

And I welcome the fact that we can finally start discussing every and each familiar in a new topic!

 

Do you believe that my suggestion for working around the -1 Constitution penalty is implementable?

Actually I'm not sure if I'm going to implement the constitution penalty at all.

 

I think SR's familiars won't grant additional hit points to the caster. The creature itself should be more than enough now (whereas in vanilla most players summoned them only to get the hit points), and it's an unfair advantage compared to non-charname mages who can't summon a familiar.

 

Furthermore I don't see a reason to implement a penalty which either force the player to reload, or can be "fixed" by just re-summoning another familiar.

 

I think having the caster suffer x points of damage on familiar death would be good from a roleplaying point of view and slightly challanging.

 

Anyway with a script which automatically puts familiars in the backup when low on hit points I actually hope to prevent familiars from dying most of times if not always.

[DavidW]

Catching up with some of this belatedly: you can fill the override with .spl and .bcs files to your heart's content and it won't matter for performance. (Look at TUTU). But .wav and .bam files are another matter (dumping a few hundred animation files into the override causes pretty dramatic slowdown, as I found to my cost in doing IWD-in-BG2).

[Salk]

I think SR's familiars won't grant additional hit points to the caster.

 

I am strongly against this.

 

The Familiar granting extra hit points and a constitution penalty is the very heart and base of this spell!

 

It doesn't make much sense saying that it'd be an unfair advantage for the mage class (and the beast master) because it's just one of the characteristics of those specific classes. It's like saying that Fighters shouldn't roll 1D10 HP per level because it's unfair to the other who can't!

 

The Constitution penalty shouldn't also be taken away just like that.

 

I was keen on this new version of FF but I am quickly losing enthusiasm after such statements...

[Demivrgvs]

Catching up with some of this belatedly: you can fill the override with .spl and .bcs files to your heart's content and it won't matter for performance. (Look at TUTU). But .wav and .bam files are another matter (dumping a few hundred animation files into the override causes pretty dramatic slowdown, as I found to my cost in doing IWD-in-BG2).

Anyway you may have noticed the issue cannot be solved even via tons of .spl files. If you can help me finding a solution to the "replace weapon" issue I'd be eternally thankful to you, though I already am due to SCS.

 

I think SR's familiars won't grant additional hit points to the caster.

The Familiar granting extra hit points and a constitution penalty is the very heart and base of this spell!

Then why both feature aren't implemented in 3rd edition? Imo this was the very heart of the spell only in BG, where it actually was the only reason to summon a familiar. The heart and base of this spell should be having a cool and useful familiar, am I wrong? Does any other player think that the heart and base of the spell are the extra hit points and the constitution penalty feature?

 

P.S In 3rd edition the caster loses experience points when a familiar dies.

 

It doesn't make much sense saying that it'd be an unfair advantage for the mage class (and the beast master) because it's just one of the characteristics of those specific classes. It's like saying that Fighters shouldn't roll 1D10 HP per level because it's unfair to the other who can't!

I probably didn't explained myself enough. It's unfair to any other mage, not to other classes. Why Edwin, Aerie, Imoen and all the other NPCs can't benifit from these additional hit points? It's already enough imo that they can't have a companion, making them weaker even as a character is unfair imo. It's not like fighters not having their 1d10 HP per level, it's like charname (with any class) not getting additional free hit points.

 

The Constitution penalty shouldn't also be taken away just like that.

What's the point? If we make it permanent players would simply reload everytime it happens, making it only frustrating. If we make it removable with a new familiar it would simply be an annoying malus quickly removable. Anyway if we decide to implement it I think the only decent option is to make it removeable, am I wrong?

 

I was keen on this new version of FF but I am quickly losing enthusiasm after such statements...

I'm losing it too! Anyway, we're doing only the first steps towards something I thought was going to be easy, only to find out the most challenging spell ever!

[Steve]

... as I found to my cost in doing IWD-in-BG2).

Ahem. Would you care to elaborate, DavidW?

[Salk]

I think SR's familiars won't grant additional hit points to the caster.

The Familiar granting extra hit points and a constitution penalty is the very heart and base of this spell!

Then why both feature aren't implemented in 3rd edition? Imo this was the very heart of the spell only in BG, where it actually was the only reason to summon a familiar.

 

For starters, I don't think we can take 3rd edition as paragon of virtue when we look at how things changed from 2nd Ed.

 

The Constitution penalty and the HP gain is a documented PnP feature of the spell Find Familiar. And Baldur's Gate is still more than inspired to 2nd Ed. rules.

 

I have nothing against importing or changing some minor aspects of the game outside the 2nd Ed. rules but for Find Familiar those suggested changes do feel like blasphemy ( ).

 

Even if it was the core of Baldur's Gate only (but it's not - it's also the core of the 2nd Ed. Find Familiar spell), I do believe it should be preserved because it's a trademarked feature which can't just be swept away.

 

The extra free Hit Points won't make <charname> certainly invincible and having them slowly raise together with the Familiar's level up is a way to tone it down quite much.

 

The Constitution penalty makes still sense: you create useful familiars and want the player to actively use it in the field. The risk you take is to lose all your extra HPs and 1 point of Constitution untill a new Familiar will restore the former condition (not to mention that when a Familiar dies, the new one will start again at level 1).

 

I hope I can reallly convince you with my arguments here because this is a key-point for me to like the new revision.

 

P.S. I imagine most people reload not only when <CHARNAME> dies of course but also when NPCs do it too or when they regret any of their choices. It's sad but that's how it probably goes. If people want to roleplay Baldur's Gate, they will not reload at the death of the familiar but rather wait the days needed to cast the spell again and restore their constitution. It's the player that makes the difference here, not the spell being annoying...

[DavidW]

... as I found to my cost in doing IWD-in-BG2).

Ahem. Would you care to elaborate, DavidW?

 

Sure: one of the requirements of the project is to translate all the IWD animations (some of them can be copied over directly, some need some converting to work in BG2 slots). Cam's original version of IWD-in-BG2 just dumped them all into the override, but that version had horrific slowdowns in (for instance) combat. If the animations are BIFFed, though, it's all fine.

[Jarno Mikkola]

The extra free Hit Points won't make <charname> certainly invincible and having them slowly raise together with the Familiar's level up is a way to tone it down quite much.

Ahh, but this comes to the engine limitations... etc.

 

not to mention that when a Familiar dies, the new one will start again at level 1

Who, would you make that happen? Script based and all,,,

 

As for now, if my assumption is correct, Demivrgvs makes the familiar level up every 2 (mage)character levels. Now this is easy to script within the familiar script, as you can check the casters level, take it as a number from it, divide it with 2 and level up the familiar that many times. This way, if we start the game in BG1 on BGT, we get the level 1 familiar, and if we make the mage in BG2, we get the 7/2=4th level familiar. Then if it dies, we can always summon it back and the familiar levels up in few seconds after he is summoned as the script kicks in.

 

In your way, perhaps it's based on the experience the character gain, it's possible way of doing this, but what the %&/¤# is the 40th level mage going to do with a 1th level familiar if the last one died cause the Ravager went against it, first, cause it was the weakest link. Time to reload the 10th thousand times, perhaps? No thanks.

 

...Now, what comes to the extra hit points and the Constitution penalty gained from the familiar spell, they make the character invincible when compared to a regular fighter, when you exploit the hole in the system, the hole of course is first to make the character a mage, and then dual him to a fighter at level 2, exploit the familiar spell etc mage spells as a fighter. So it's better just not to keep the features.

[Salk]

I didn't express myself correctly.

 

I don't know about engine limitations but I hoped it was possible to make the familiar's level up independent from the summoner's.

 

So, example, if I am a level 20 mage and my familiar dies, I will incur a 1 point Constitution penalty and also lose the extra HPs granted by the familiar. After a certain period (according to P&P should be one year but for gameplay benefits could be as little as 3 days), the mage can cast again the spell but it wouldn't make much sense to summon a familiar of the same level of the dead one, would it?

 

There must be some sort of penalty for losing the familiar before. The inbetween penalty is already defined (-1 to Con and no more extra HPs) but in addition we could think of having the new familiar lose one level (or two) to the dead one.

 

Would this be possible?

[Demivrgvs]

For starters, I don't think we can take 3rd edition as paragon of virtue when we look at how things changed from 2nd Ed.

I don't take 3rd edition as paragon of virtue, but I do think it means something if they completely removed the 'hit points gain' and 'CON loss' aspect from the familiars. Anyway, I've clearly argumented my opinion, I haven't just said <3rd edition does that - we should do that>.

 

The Constitution penalty and the HP gain is a documented PnP feature of the spell Find Familiar. And Baldur's Gate is still more than inspired to 2nd Ed. rules.

 

Even if it was the core of Baldur's Gate only (but it's not - it's also the core of the 2nd Ed. Find Familiar spell), I do believe it should be preserved because it's a trademarked feature which can't just be swept away.

Ok, but then if you really want to be fair and true to 2nd edition you should also suffer the downsides of it, whereas you're asking to keep all the positive aspects, improve them, and remove most negative ones.

 

In 2nd edition PnP you couldn't "put the familiar in the backpack" (which is indeed horrible from a roleplaying point of view imo, and too convenient), and the familiar couldn't go far from his master. This is a huge difference because in PnP the familiar would have been in constant danger, and the Constitution loss was permanent, so there was significant risk in casting Find Familiar. Finally, in PnP, what animal or creature you got as a familiar was determined randomly and powerful familiars like Pseudo-dragons were extremely rare. Most of the times you would end up with a cat or ferret or something similar, and unlike the cats and ferrets of BG2, they were just normal animals without special stealth skills or other abilities.

 

The Constitution penalty makes still sense: you create useful familiars and want the player to actively use it in the field. The risk you take is to lose all your extra HPs and 1 point of Constitution untill a new Familiar will restore the former condition

Regarding the constitution loss you may have convinced me, it would still be a temporarily penalty, and it may be better than not having any penalty at all from letting a familiar die.

 

Losing the extra hit points isn't a true penalty instead, they were extra hit points after all, a mage without a familiar would have died even before losing those hit points!

 

(not to mention that when a Familiar dies, the new one will start again at level 1).

Jarno pratically said what I was going to say.

 

The familiar doesn't level up on his own but rather with his master, as in PnP. Even if it was possible to do I would never do what you're suggesting. Do you really think players would keep a lvl1 familiar in the middle of SoA?! I do love to roleplay but I'd never do it myself, because the new familiar would certainly die in a matter of seconds, and it wouldn't be of any help at all.

 

I hope I can reallly convince you with my arguments here because this is a key-point for me to like the new revision.

Perhaps I'll convince you instead!

 

...Now, what comes to the extra hit points and the Constitution penalty gained from the familiar spell, they make the character invincible when compared to a regular fighter, when you exploit the hole in the system, the hole of course is first to make the character a mage, and then dual him to a fighter at level 2, exploit the familiar spell etc mage spells as a fighter. So it's better just not to keep the features.

Oh my, I haven't thought about this horrid exploit...

[Dakk]

I'm with you Demivrgvs on this one. I originally felt Salk's opinion had merit, but between you and Jarno I'm convinced. No (permanent) CON and HP loss please.