Spell Disruption

[-XXX-]

Branching from this thread: viewtopic.php?p=354123#p354123 and calling back to a suggestion I made back in September: viewtopic.php?p=344998#p344998 I'd like to address the concentration check fo spell disruption mechanic.

IMO this mechanic in the current Arelith environment is outdated, dysfunctional, redundant & simply not fun.
It's justified in an environment where DC spells have a high probability of working even after a single cast, but that's not really the case here. The mechanic doesn't seem to keep anything in check for balance purposes anymore.
For DC spells to be effective the spellcaster needs to string multiple spells together & because spellcasting animations root them in the spot, playing the positioning game can be incredibly difficult in an environment where melee builds asymmetrically benefit from instant sprint. The spell disruption checks then put spellcaster builds on a compound disadvantage in a very unfun way.

We could go around crunching the numbers comparing AC/AB/dps of various specific builds to determine the probabilities here and debate what are the reasonable odds should be, but IMO that's irrelevant because unlike something like a KD attempt forcing concentration checks on a spellcaster doesn't require for any build to go out of their way whatsoever - they're doing what they'd be doing anyway = damaging the caster by any method.
Additionally, there are also warlocks and improved AA builds that don't care about AC all that much and can consistently keep disrupting spellcasters - while there are ways around this, the gameplay dynamic isn't very interesting or fun.

The dysfunctional formula: DC = 10 + damage received + spell level
This can not only reliably result in DC 80+ concentration checks with builds that can deal 60+ damage with a single regular attack, but can result in straght up unpassable checks with critical hits as skills are engine capped at 127 and even if we somehow got to that value with our spellcaster's concentration skill, there are multiple builds that can casually dish out critical hits exceeding this number by no small margin.

IMO the formula should be either overhauled or removed entirely.

[silverpheonix]

I think spell disruption is fair if we also reduce mundie APR on failed concentration checks, too.

[AstralUniverse]

I think spell disruption is fair if we also reduce mundie APR on failed concentration checks, too.

This is not going to happen.

[AstralUniverse]

Sorry for double posting, I just didnt really have time to write my feedback earlier.

So I agree with XXX that concentration is outdated. I dont agree with the suggested formula because I feel like it goes to nerf concenrtation DCs a bit too much, but in principle I do agree the current formula is not ok in current times and needs change.

Traditionally, people would max concenrtation, cap their soft con, perhaps then afford 10-20 concentration on their gear here and there but never as a huge priority (you never see esf concentration in anyone's builds for a reason) because it has always been considered very ambitious to attempt to gear vs critical hits, so people have just accepted that they will fail checks vs crits, and that 33 ranks + con mod + 10-20 conce on gear covers none-crits well enough to not need sf or esf.

The problem is that this has never been touched over the years, while special attacks keep getting added; atrocity strike, elemental strike, reworked smite, hideous blow and more. These attacks proc insta and can be timed to interupt casting on purpose, and even when they dont crit, the concentration check DC is going to be well above what was possible in the past.

I still propose to change the formula, and I dont know exactly to what, but ideally it's going to remain about the same for low damage checks, and at higher and higher damage outputs every extra damage point will have decreasing returns in it's representation in the concentration check. So if I take 50 damage from a melee, the check should still be 60ish, but if I take 100 damage from a melee the check will be more around the 70-80 than 110, just for example. Not sure what the best way is in order to set the formula to achieve something like this but basically there should be an asymptote such as:
10 + spell level + damage variable = dc
damage variable = damage * (1 - damage/X) where as X is the number that really determines how curved the asymptote is unless my math skills are rusty.

[-XXX-]

Well, my take on this is differs here in that spell disruption checks should likely be treated like tumble vs AOO checks - purely academic & fails on a roll of nat 1 (i.e. happens once in a while, but isn't a decisive factor in every PvP encounter).

I admit this might seem a little extreme in the context of what we have now, but:

• as I pointed out, there is no tradeoff to forcing concentration checks - you get to do what you'd be doing against the spellcaster anyway and the disrupted spells are just a bonus.
• this is a big downside for spellcasters on a conceptual level and IMO a strong contributor to the decreasing numbers of wiz/sorc
• I do not believe that people should really be forced to build and gear for their chosen class to merely function in what's arguably tight spots already
• ATM all a warlock needs to do to shut down a spellcaster's primary niche entirely is to win the initiative roll
• the concentration skill is used in other checks as well - most notably to avoid AOO while casting in somebody's melee range - so it's not like concentration would suddenly become pointless or that spellcasters could suddenly afford to skip it altogether

[AstralUniverse]

skill checks have no nat 1s and 20s.

also turning it to tumble basically means casters with 15+ concentration never need to worry about being interrupted ever again. I dont think it's realistic to suggest that (and I'm also not in favor, regardless).

[-XXX-]

also turning it to tumble basically means casters with 15+ concentration never need to worry about being interrupted ever again. I dont think it's realistic to suggest that (and I'm also not in favor, regardless).

Sure, but... why?

I'm genuinely curious about what are the balance reasons for preserving this mechanic (if there even are any) and what is it supposed to keep in check in the contemporary PvP environment.

While I'm not in favor of silverpheonix's proposal (making gameplay miserable to the other side of the aisle to even things out isn't necessarily the way to go as it'd make only things miserable for everybody in the long run), it does put things into perspective - a fighter with reduced APR is still doing [something], while a spellcaster whose spell has been disrupted not only did [nothing] but has also lost a spell slot on top of that, so spell disruption is arguably even more oppressive than that.

The suggestion I listed was just spitballing on my part - all I know is that the disruption in its current shape and form isn't very fun and would like to see it addressed somehow. Not sure how much min/maxing & gearing to push concentration is justified though.

[AstralUniverse]

Why? because concentration checks vs spellcasts are a core part of d&d and arelith balance. It is true that the current state is in my opinion not balanced but essentially removing the check entirely (in the same manner that when I have 15+ tumble I never ever fail tumble checks) would be a too drastic change, that breaks the game in the other direction. concentration checks should stay and should still be failable.

I've made a little calculator to explore my formula:
10 + damage * (1 - damage/X)
you input what X is and then the loop will run and ask you repeatedly how much damage was taken and then give you the output of what the concentration DC will be, and I was lazy so I didnt incluse the spell level, which would be between 1 to 9.

factor = int(input('return diminish variable: '))
while True:

Code: Select all

dmg = int(input('how much damage? '))


v_dmg = dmg * (1 - dmg / factor)
print(v_dmg + 10)

you dont have to actually know Python. you can just run this through chat gpt and ask it to be your terminal.

please try for yourself.

edit: I dont know why it puts a part of the code in black box and I dont know how to fix it but I hope you can see which parts to copy pasta.

[-XXX-]

The above can result in negative DC if damage > X
I ran it a few times and tried to refine it with AI and it came up with this:

DC = ((spell level + damage) × (1 − min(1,damage/X))

Tested at 9 spell level with X=300 (harm/avascular mass Max):

DC peaks at 150 damage and decreases toward 300 where DC=0, same applies if the damage is even higher

[Dedman1234]

It's justified in an environment where DC spells have a high probability of working even after a single cast, but that's not really the case here. The mechanic doesn't seem to keep anything in check for balance purposes anymore.
For DC spells to be effective the spellcaster needs to string multiple spells together & because spellcasting animations root them in the spot, playing the positioning game can be incredibly difficult in an environment where melee builds asymmetrically benefit from instant sprint. The spell disruption checks then put spellcaster builds on a compound disadvantage in a very unfun way.

This is true.

But only at the top level. I would say that less than 10% of the player base has their saves at 40s. Yes, I got this statistic from the Institute of Made Up Data, but it really does take a while to get a character to 30 and get all the gear needed. Many people aim to tell a story and then move on. Also, not everyone is building optimal PvP builds. One could argue that people who do not optimize their stuff would lose anyway, but that's a bit mean, and no reason not to give them a shot.

Besides, I've actually seen decent pvp'ers run around with a sub 30 will save, because they just never could afford the gear - which often takes considerable effort.

PvP happens at lower lvls as well, and DC very much is a thing there. Be it between "unskilled" players and people without their full gear or build, removing concentration checks would give mages a very significant advantage over other characters.

At the moment, a mage who starts getting smacked usually has to run. If they do decide to take it and roll the dice of fate, then who wins is up to luck. With Concentration checks being removed, the mage will win (almost) every time in such a scenario.

If a melee character without super saves lacks something like Knockdown, then getting into the wizard's face stops being a win condition. It becomes extremely dangerous for the melee... which really should not be a thing. Even if the melee is warded - timestop cast followed by a Mord, and CC could not be stopped either.

Such a buff to casters would also suffer from the "AA Syndrome," which, for a long time, prevented any improvements to ranged being made out of fear of buffing AA.

In this case, it would be called "Warlock Syndrome."
Imagine going up against a warlock that can never fail casting from dmg. Their damage is split specifically to make them unable to break the enemy's concentration, while being vulnerable to it themselves. But not anymore. Oh, did you drop a +100 dmg spell on the blastlock? Doesn't matter; you are getting blasted twice anyway.

Melee characters would not be happy either... The stealthy and elusive warlock would suddenly not have to hide.

There is also the technical side of things to consider. I am not sure how this works, but correct me if I am wrong: the concentration mechanic is shared between PCs and NPCs. Changing the way those checks work would need an entirely new script, unless you'd want NPCs to be subject to the same buff. And I would imagine, not a lot of people would like to have that hasted caster enemy spam IGMS/Meteors until they die.

DC spells are outdated, and concentration checks are also... but one necessitates the other, since DC spells are either useless or extremely powerful - and in the moments when they end up as the latter, they need something to keep them in check.

One solution I can think of is creating a bunch of SUPER endgame items (stuff that would cost A LOT) that bestow significant bonuses to concentration (+10 conc staff and robes... or something. Maybe more class specific gear with like +5s. Make sure warlocks cannot equip those EVER) and make reaching the soft cap bonus of 50 possible. Tone down the concentration DC, maybe remove the +10 it usually gets, and we are golden.
That way, a fully geared mage would be more capable against a fully geared Melee, but the matchup at lower levels would remain untouched.

Melees currently need the gear and save feats to reach the saves needed for top-tier play, and mages would now need the same. The expensive gear, AND the feats - concentration skill foci in this case.

Both sides of the spectrum would need to pay the gear and feat tax, but both end up being almost immune to the other's most dangerous weapon.

Yes, a great axe WM would still break concentration, but those builds sacrifice enough for that to remain the case.

[AstralUniverse]

The above can result in negative DC if damage > X

Yeah so dont do that lol

X should be in the hundreds.

For example for X = 200
100 damage results in +50 damage variable. So dc of 60.

For X = 300
100 damage results in +33 +66.

Keep playing with it. I think the sweat spot is somewhere around X equals between 200 and 500 somewhere. Not convinced entirely myself where it exactly it just yet. And yeah, there may need to be a certain line of code that ensures the extra DC from damage isnt negative. I didnt go that far lol.

[-XXX-]

Melees currently need the gear and save feats to reach the saves needed for top-tier play, and mages would now need the same. The expensive gear, AND the feats - concentration skill foci in this case.

Both sides of the spectrum would need to pay the gear and feat tax, but both end up being almost immune to the other's most dangerous weapon.

Spellcasters also need to gear for saves and discipline same as melee builds (and getting to 60-70 discipline is much easier with a +15 STR modifier).

But yeah, reigning the concentration DCs into values that CAN be possibly beaten with some gear and feats sure is preferable to straight up unpassable checks.

[Shadowy Reality]

I generally agree that similarly to how many skills and abilities have normalized DCs, Concentration DCs should also be normalized.

1-30 damage -> 1:1 damage to DC
31-50 -> 2:1 damage to DC
50+ -> 3: 1 damage to DC

So let's say your neighborhood WM crits you for 120 while you try to cast light, the DC would be calculated as such:
+30 from 1-30
+10 from 31-50
+23 from 51 to 120

For a total of 63.

This is just an example, don't take these numbers as my recommendation, smarter people can figure out the sweet spots.

[AstralUniverse]

Okay, my previous attempt fell flat. I dont know why I was thinking I can use the damage input INSIDE the formula and still expect it to diminish the dc indefinitely as damage goes higher and higher. This time I've put more than 3 minutes into it and I think I've got it nailed down properly.

import math

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 ensures there are no reductions to the DC as damage goes higher than a certain point, ensures DCs remain about the same for low damage so it doesnt affect low level characters much and outputs only integers (rounded up). in python ** is ^ aka power.

I think it turned out exactly what we need. Have a look.
Damage: 10 DC: 22
Damage: 20 DC: 29
Damage: 30 DC: 36
Damage: 40 DC: 42
Damage: 50 DC: 48
Damage: 60 DC: 54
Damage: 70 DC: 59
Damage: 80 DC: 64
Damage: 90 DC: 69
Damage: 100 DC: 74
Damage: 120 DC: 83
Damage: 150 DC: 96
Damage: 200 DC: 117
Damage: 300 DC: 155
Damage: 500 DC: 222
Damage: 1k DC: 366

EDIT and notes:
Overall, the thing is we've never touched concentration checks before while damage averages have changed a lot both up and down over the years. This is uncharted territory. I can only say that in my philosophy of balanced conce checks, conce check vs normal standard attack from an str 1h build, no crit, no extras from on-cooldown class ability - the caster should require 33 ranks, maxed soft con mod and no gear in order to have like 90 or 100 percent to pass. If we then add special attacks on none crit, the caster should then require some gear to be safe and not a whole lot of it just yet. Jumping to wm crits and special attack crit from none wm, or normal crit from a 2h weapon without extras, the caster should require a shiton of gear, borderline feat investment, and when we get past like 150 damage from 2h wm, or special attack + crit it should require a special build (like something that con maxes, or paladin reckoning etc) + all feats and gear to have a fair chance.

I've tweaked the variables to fit my vision and it looks exactly like what I had in mind. feel free to tweak them and try it yourself.

[-XXX-]

OK, let's try the other way around - optimizing spellcaster for concentration:

33 Ranks
10 CON mod (could be higher but at the cost of maining CON instead of the primary spellcaster stat, which is an unreasonable tradeoff IMO)
10 ESF
5 SF
= 58 hard (for context - this already exceeds the hard sail threshold most optimized sail builds are aiming for)

+50 soft (this is hypothetical - the best I could stack up existing gear was +32)
= 108

Where I'm getting at with this is that there probably ought to be some sort of ceiling cap to the DC, considering how easy it is for STR builds to crit for 120+ damage with a x3 weapon (and that's not even taking WM, Div Might or two-hand into account)

Another concern are eldrich chain warlock builds that can casually blast for 100 damage at very long distances - this probably shouldn't be a license for shutting down spellcasters IMO.

[AstralUniverse]

You're shouting incorrect warlock numbers at me. dex blaster has 94~ blast, separated into two rolls of about half each. It's actually hideous blow that you should be concerned with, as it's also insta-attack that can be timed surgically to ruin your day but that one has it's weaknesses as well.

Yeah idk what to tell you man. I actually see no issue that even in my formula it's still impractical to cast through 150+ damage give or take. My goal is to make the now 80s dc from mostly none crit special attacks, like my own freaking character directly getting nerfed by it btw, more feasible to cast through. Since as I've said from the get go, many new special insta-attacks - conce never before touched.

[-XXX-]

You're shouting incorrect warlock numbers at me. dex blaster has 94~ blast, separated into two rolls of about half each.

Yeah, forgot about the 80% bit with magic/positive blasts (that don't get divided).
Still, using the now corrected MAv (thx) 94x0.8=75. Right now that forces a DC 94 spell disruption check for a caster trying to fire off a lvl 9 spell, which is kinda silly. With the formula it'd have been DC64, which is pretty benevolent, but the DPS pressure is also present so it somewhat checks out.

I actually see no issue that even in my formula it's still impractical to cast through 150+ damage give or take.

OK, but why? I already asked this - what's the purpose here? What is it supposed to balance anymore?*

Why? because concentration checks vs spellcasts are a core part of d&d and arelith balance.

I'm circling back to this as it doesn't really answer my question in any other way than "because it's always been that way"

Btw. concentration has been changed drastically in later iterations of D&D (possibly because its 3.5 version is kinda unfun) & exists in a form more akin to how BBD is handled - to maintain certain powerful long lasting buffs and persistent effects to keep them exclusive from each other (so that only one can be active at a time), but it no longer serves to prevent offensive spells from firing off.

Maybe making select spells exempt from concentration might be an interesting approach - it certainly would put more incentive for considering other direct damage spells than IGMS, for example.

This is true.

But only at the top level. I would say that less than 10% of the player base has their saves at 40s. Yes, I got this statistic from the Institute of Made Up Data, but it really does take a while to get a character to 30 and get all the gear needed. Many people aim to tell a story and then move on. Also, not everyone is building optimal PvP builds. One could argue that people who do not optimize their stuff would lose anyway, but that's a bit mean, and no reason not to give them a shot.

Besides, I've actually seen decent pvp'ers run around with a sub 30 will save, because they just never could afford the gear - which often takes considerable effort.

PvP happens at lower lvls as well, and DC very much is a thing there. Be it between "unskilled" players and people without their full gear or build, removing concentration checks would give mages a very significant advantage over other characters.

That's a valid point. Doesn't seem to be a concern in other areas though - for instance there doesn't seem to be much worry over how fast an optimized WM can shred an underleveled & undergeared character. There's only so much that can be balanced and the focus appears to be on optimized vs optimized. Exceptions to that approach can seem a little arbitrary then.

---

*I guess this is where we differ the most - I think that the DC should cap out at some point and stop rising no matter how big the damage is. A character with maxed out concentration, optimized gear and SF/ESF should probably retain at least 50% success rate at all times IMO

[AstralUniverse]

I get your point, and I have no counter argument. It's just the way things are. I think that big drastic changes have historically led us to silly unbalanced places. Took us really long time to get over updates like lore or spellcraft because of their drastic impact. I believe in smaller steps towards the goal, so if there are negative impacts they are more isolated, and the experiment is more controlled. There's logic in what you're saying which I'm hearing as "well what's the point in concentration checks which are never going to be passable, it's like having feats that no character can ever qualify for, or sea content that no sail score can carry you through" etc etc. But remember that the admins also need to read this and go "this makes sense and wouldnt be too drastic so it wouldnt be a huge headache" and then a dev also needs to go "this looks fun to code, imma do it", so I proposed a change that really helps casters and is probably easier to swallow. Does it eradicate all of the imbalances and logical loopholes in how concentration checks work? No, but it'd change your life quite a lot regardless.

[-XXX-]

I think the loop approach is a solid one. I played with it & tried to refine it so that it both respects spell level & addresses some math problems (like giving negative values under certain conditions). The issue I noticed is that we have effects that can deal 300 damage, so X<300 can result in negative DCs, but with x>300 we're increasing the resulting DCs that quickly start getting too high by the time we get to x=400.

There's also the issue of engine limitations where 127 is the max value for any given skill, so I tried a function that peaks and starts decreasing again after certain values (arguably if somebody's already suffered 300 damage from a single attack/source there's little justification for adding further insult to injury).

Anyway, this is a math problem & I'm certain that should any contributor decide to pick this up, they'd likely come up with even better solution.

---

Rather than delving too much into the math formula specifics I'd also like address the DC ranges - purely for reference, even discipline checks vs IKD peak somewhere around DC80

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.

What we have now generally speaking are spellcasters with hard concentration skill ranks ~ 41, considering 12 gear slots with +2 concentration including +5 cloak and staff we can arrive at 28 soft ranks
This puts us at 69 concentration with basically no build tweaks. Throwing in SF/ESF into the mix then gets us at 84 concentration.
What I'm getting at is that if the goal is for people to even consider SF/ESF:concentration as viable options, the disruption DC probably shouldn't exceed 90.

Again, the math might be slightly off here, but I'd like to convey the general idea.

---

BTW I'm a fan of loremageddon.
Arelith differs from the base game in many ways & some bandaids just need to be ripped off.

[Xersaoth]

If you get hit in the face while casting, you should probably fail - it’s that simple. The issue of balancing spellcasters runs deeper, and there’s little that can be done except nerfing damage output across various martial builds and reducing bonuses from Spellcraft and Dark Blessing OR creating more epic spells and raising the base DC for all casters. Since nobody likes nerfs to their characters, I’d prefer improving spell DCs and introducing powerful magic, especially considering higher saves after the basin update.

[AstralUniverse]

I think the loop approach is a solid one. I played with it & tried to refine it so that it both respects spell level & addresses some math problems (like giving negative values under certain conditions). The issue I noticed is that we have effects that can deal 300 damage, so X<300 can result in negative DCs, but with x>300 we're increasing the resulting DCs that quickly start getting too high by the time we get to x=400.

You're using the old one I spent 3 minutes doing, that doesnt respect damage numbers which are higher than your denominator, and there for, once the damage passes the denominator you start getting to negatives. I've refined it since. Use the new one.

import math

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.

[Ruzuke]

Why? because concentration checks vs spellcasts are a core part of d&d and arelith balance. I

Then we could fix the issues by reverting the game to core D&D mechanics. No APR (that is not core D&D and unbalances so many things. Hording skill points so they can be dumped at a 3 point dip.

But the game isn't ultimately mirroring D&D.

How popular would this be if we had attack disruption be a discipline skill check? Remove the spell level and a warrior hit uses a discipline check to attack striking through the pain?

[AstralUniverse]

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)

[Naghast]

According to dnd 3.5's SRD ( Link ), ability to make multiple attacks in a round is a thing. You just have to spend a full round action to deliver more than a single attack in that round.

Subsequently, spells have multiple cast durations, ranging from free, standard, or full round, or minute, or hour, or etc.

As for interruptions of martial attacks, i think they meant that being struck in the middle of your attack round would force a skill check to not lose the rest of the round? I think that's what they meant.

(Edited to fix the link: For some reason, not adding https:// at the beginning made it automatically add forum.nwnarelith.com/ there. Like it's linking to a page on forums.)

[AstralUniverse]

As for interruptions of martial attacks, i think they meant that being struck in the middle of your attack round would force a skill check to not lose the rest of the round? I think that's what they meant.

Well, we'd be back to gearing 75ish disc, potentially, depending on how it would be implemented exactly, and it would generally just make fights longer and ranged attacks/damage spells would be the meta. Sounds a bit like 2020, we dont miss 2020.