# How good is Enervating Blows really?

## Recommended Posts

(104 - 15) * (1 / 0.75)

oh boy, i forgot about inversions.

edit - the max hp loss is a constant amount, despite boeroer's 10 CON or 20 CON (-29, or more realistically 29.5 with some hidden rounding or truncation, which is 25% of the base 118). this means that con-based health reductions don't undergo inversions? you would also have to make sure it works with boeroer's second example. i had a lot of promising equations that just couldn't work simultaneously for both the 10 CON and 20 CON case.

Edited by thelee
##### Share on other sites

Lvl 8 is correct.

##### Share on other sites

you would also have to make sure it works with boeroer's second example. i had a lot of promising equations that just couldn't work simultaneously for both the 10 CON and 20 CON case.

Hmm, let's try that approach to all of his values:

--> 72/104 (@5CON)

enfeebled expires

--> 101/133 (@10CON)

current_hp: (72 + 15) * (1 / 0.75) - 15 = 87 * 1.(3) - 15 = 101

max_hp: (104 - 15) * (1 / 0.75) + 15 = 89 * 1.(3) + 15 = 133

--> 44/104 (@5CON)

enfeebled expires

--> 62/133 (@10CON)

current_hp: (44 + 15) * (1 / 0.75) - 15 = 59 * 1.(3) - 15 = 63.(6)

max_hp: (104 - 15) * (1 / 0.75) + 15 = 89 * 1.(3) + 15 = 133

--> 123/163 (@15CON)

enfeebled expires

--> 151/192 (@20CON)

current_hp: (123 + 15) * (1.5 / 1.25) - 15 = 138 * 1.2 - 15 = 150.6

max_hp: (163 - 15) * (1.5 / 1.25) + 15 = 148 * 1.2 + 15 = 192.6

--> 87/163 (@15CON)

enfeebled expires

--> 106/192(@20CON)

current_hp: (87 + 15) * (1.5 / 1.25) - 15 = 102 * 1.2 - 15 = 107.4

max_hp: (163 - 15) * (1.5 / 1.25) + 15 = 148 * 1.2 + 15 = 192.6

--> 49/163 (@15CON)

enfeebled expires

--> 60/192(@20CON)

current_hp: (49 + 15) * (1.5 / 1.25) - 15 = 64 * 1.2 - 15 = 61.8

max_hp: (163 - 15) * (1.5 / 1.25) + 15 = 148 * 1.2 + 15 = 192.6

P.S. I wonder if we can consider those as approximation errors or not.

And if these are indeed the formula used by Deadfire, that sign swap (for flat bonus on current_hp) is a really funny thing. As if some dev got a negative number once, and thought oh, the error must be in the sign, so I'll just change it.

Edited by MaxQuest