Arelith

AstralUniverse wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 11:35 am

def calculate_dc(dmg):
return math.ceil(10 + (dmg ** 0.75) * 2) #this part is what you want to tweak in order to explore different scaling curves. the **0.75 is the diminishing slope, and the *2 is a general multiplier that prevents my math from producing too low DCs at higher damage.

while True:
dmg = int(input("Damage: "))
print(f"DC: {calculate_dc(dmg)}")

This time it isnt going to ask you to input your denominator because I used a different formula that doesnt use the damage as the numerator and there's no division action at all (powering by a number smaller than one is a bit like division in some cases but not quite the same and this is the core difference and why it now works).

The idea here is that people are unlikely to build for concentration (or even consider SF/ESF as viable options) for as long as the possibility of them getting their spells reliably disrupted regardless persists - most will either accept that they'll have their spells disrupted anyway or not touch spellcasters at all.

And this right here is precisely what I'm trying to tweak, without changing the whole dynamics of the skill TOO MUCH. This formula gives people fighting chance against none-crit special attacks, and it gives them reason to sometimes consider sf+esf concentration. That's my goal, nothing more.

DC = 10 + (√dmg) x 6

(10 + (dmg ** 0.5) * 6)

Damage: 10 DC: 29
Damage: 20 DC: 37
Damage: 30 DC: 43
Damage: 40 DC: 47
Damage: 50 DC: 52
Damage: 60 DC: 56
Damage: 70 DC: 60
Damage: 80 DC: 63
Damage: 90 DC: 67
Damage: 100 DC: 70
Damage: 110 DC: 73
Damage: 120 DC: 76
Damage: 150 DC: 83
Damage: 180 DC: 90
Damage: 200 DC: 95
Damage: 300 DC: 114

IMO this keeps the DC numbers within reasonable values, gives enough incentive for considering SF/ESF without making them a must-have auto-include.

You are utterly screwing low level characters. But I mean, it's... as good as my idea I guess.

AstralUniverse wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 12:19 pm

uh... idk if you're trolling or what..
concentration, and apr, both exist in 3.x d&d, and it's more importantly a core ancient part of nwn that arelith never changed. Not sure what your point is.

As for how popular would it be if we had attack disruptions? It's hard to even imagine since attacks in nwn have no casting time in which interruptions can happen so it's basically gibrish for me when you phrase it like that.

Do you guys really think that concentration checks will just... vanish.. because of this thread? Out of no where, when it's not some hotly and frequently debated discussion (like idk... saves eyeroll). the best we can really hope to achieve here is that the team folks read it and maybe go "eh.. ok.. I'll get to it at some point and give it a slightly notch maybe." (use my formula if you do <3)

Then I ask you the same. Were you trolling when you said concentration checks could never go away because it is a core part of D&D? Ignoring the fact the majority of the systems on Arelith are not a core part of the D&D experience. On the same topic of will it go away because of this thread the same standard would then apply do you think your comments in this thread will change the outcome of anything?

The line of reasoning in your argument appears to be a strawman attack against me as you cannot negate the substance of my statements.

If we want a core experience and to get rid of most of the issues (including the concentration attacks) lets go back to not artificially inflating the attack bonuses. Let's move back to and can enforce all skill points most be used per level (avoiding the issues of dip builds for skill point dumps), and to show how unpopular it would be adding the same sort of mechanic for disruption to the other side.

To answer the question how hard it would be to implement it. If someone has the time to work on the code. Reality may be it will never happen, but by examining ideas holistically rather than what I don't like should follow D&D rules and what I do like does not need to follow it better results are achieved. When people phrase it otherwise I'll quote you: "it's basically gibrish for me when you phrase it like that."

Sure thing chief.

I mean, in the end it just boils down to the same thing every time.

Martials don't get punished.
Spellcasters always get punished.

That just is how it is.