My Falling Damage House Rules

[KarinsDad]

Someone requested my falling damage house rules, so here they are straight out of the document. Enjoy.


Falling is VERY dangerous. Short falls are temporarily debilitating. Longer falls have longer term effects. Falling has the following effects:

1D6 damage per 5 feet fallen above 5 feet. The first D6 is subdual damage, the rest is real.

Reflex save for half damage. The DC is based on the amount of damage done (the Evasion ability does not affect this save). So, if a character falls 20 feet for 12 points of damage (3 subdual and 9 real), there is a DC 12 reflex save to take 1 subdual point and 4 real (the damages are treated separately for round down purposes). Dazed, stunned, unconscious, and disabled (e.g. tied up) characters do not get a reflex save and take full damage.

1D6 of Dexterity and 1D6 of Constitution for every 15 foot fallen. Half of this if the reflex save is made. So, 60+ feet falls can be deadly to almost all characters, regardless of level since the save DC will often be 40+.

The rest of the falling rules will basically be used as written:

Soft landing (mud or soft ground): second D6 is subdual damage
Jump save failed: second D6 is subdual damage (cumulative with soft landing)
Jump save made: subtract 10 feet from the distance and proceed as if jump save failed
Water deeper than 10 feet: subtract 20 feet from the distance, 1D3 subdual per 10 foot for next 20 feet, and then normal falling damage (cumulative with jumping, but not soft landing).

Diving: water must be 10 feet deep per 30 feet dived, DC 15 Swim or Tumble check to succeed, DC +1 per 10 feet in dive.

[KarinsDad]

Shoot. I hate when I do that.

Would a moderator please move this to the house rules forum? Thanks.

[Grazzt]

Moved as per your request, KD.

[Kodam]

Hi!

I like the Idea of suffering "bad conditions" from a fall very much. Dazed, stunned, incapacitated would propably fit, and it could be avoided by a Fort-Save. As DC I'd suggest 30 + 1 for each 10 ft. of falling to avoid becoming dazed, 20 + 1/10ft for stunned and 10 + 1/10ft. for incapacitated. The condition would lighten by one step per round.

No more Mid-level Barbs surprising enemy armys by jumping down this 50ft. chasm and making a full attack in the first round of combat (rising in the surprise round)!

Like it?

Kodam

[Henry]

Very interesting - the rules have a "realistic simulation" feel.

The main reason I wouldn't use them for my games is their complexity. We've kept with the basic rules on falling so far, but if I feel the need, I plan to ramp it up to falling directly doing CON damage, or as you suggest CON and DEX. Perhaps 1d6-1 per 10 feet. That simulates the "being all broken up" when you hit the bottom, and gives them that one in a million chance from a high fall not to break any bones at all.

[Cheiromancer]

Is it Dex and Con damage, or drain?

I like the idea of the save being based on the damage done, btw.

[Plane Sailing]

I've long toyed with the possibility of including ability damage as a result of personal experience in even 10ft falls... my dexterity and strength were dramatically reduced for a week or so. I've never actually bitten the bullet and decided to introduce it though.

At present I discourage jumping by the thoroughly unscientific method of adding dice at each 10ft increment. 1d6 for 10ft, +2 for 3d6 at 20ft, +3 for 6d6 at 30ft, 10d6 at 40ft etc.

Cheers

[Kae'Yoss]

To be honest, I don't really like them. As it has been said, they are quite complex.

In addition, they aren't consistent with the rest of the rules. While with your rules, A fall can reduce my mobility and health in addition to the damage taken (talking about the con and dex damage), I can be crit'ed by a scythe-wielding barbarian, losing much more than the equivalent of 100 ft falling and bringing me to within an inch of my life, and suffer no ill effects - no bleeding, no strength or dexterity lost due to severe bloodloss, need to hold in my intestines, or lost limbs.
Why has falling to be so much more lethal than being head-on with several ft of sharp metal (make that several yards witha titan's sword)?

Also, not allowing evasion is inconsistent also: The rogue can be in the middle of a quartet of meteors falling direclty beside him, escaping unharmed, yet he cannot avoid the damage from falling?

I mean, sure: Surviving a fall from great heights, or even escaping it unharmed is absurd, but so is surviving the direct hit from a very big weapon or even a meteor. D&D isn't about realism, but when you want to put it in, go all the way. (If your rules contain rules to make every damage more dangerous, risking crippling wounds etc., you can ignore everything above and I just say: I don't like it too realistic)

[Cheiromancer]

Players don't have direct experience of falling meteors and scythe-wielding barbarians, and so are willing to accept a more abstract treatment. Falling, however, is within our experience, and a little more detail helps us suspend our disbelief.

And as for its complexity... if it is something to be feared and avoided, a certain recondite quality to the calculations is appropriate.

[Storminator]

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

I've long toyed with the possibility of including ability damage as a result of personal experience in even 10ft falls... my dexterity and strength were dramatically reduced for a week or so. I've never actually bitten the bullet and decided to introduce it though.

At present I discourage jumping by the thoroughly unscientific method of adding dice at each 10ft increment. 1d6 for 10ft, +2 for 3d6 at 20ft, +3 for 6d6 at 30ft, 10d6 at 40ft etc.

Cheers

This is what I use as well. Works beautifully. Also makes those Jump and Tumble checks, as well as Slow Fall, very important. A mid level monk can Jump down, Slow Fall 20', and Tumble at the end to take 1d6 from a 50' fall. The fighter will take 15d6, which makes the monk's jump look really impressive.

PS

[KarinsDad]

Originally Posted by KaeYoss

In addition, they aren't consistent with the rest of the rules. While with your rules, A fall can reduce my mobility and health in addition to the damage taken (talking about the con and dex damage), I can be crit'ed by a scythe-wielding barbarian, losing much more than the equivalent of 100 ft falling and bringing me to within an inch of my life, and suffer no ill effects - no bleeding, no strength or dexterity lost due to severe bloodloss, need to hold in my intestines, or lost limbs.
Why has falling to be so much more lethal than being head-on with several ft of sharp metal (make that several yards witha titan's sword)?

In my game, there is less inconsistency.

I also have a house rule that when you take damage, you have to make a Fort save or be staggered. I also have a house rule that when you are 1/3rd damaged, you are at -1 to all rolls, -2 at 2/3rds, -3 at 0 hits or less.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?t=68478

Getting damaged in my game is "painful".

For example, our party of 6 4th level characters walked into a warren with 27 Dire Rats in it.

The party Monk immediately went into Fight Defensively mode. Why? Because it is better to not get hit at all in my game than it is to take an opponent out quicker. Once the party had wiped out about 20 of the rats or so, then the Monk went back to fighting normally.

The other aspect of my fall rules is that players dread falling. It has only happened something like 3 times in about 50 hours of gaming in the current campaign and only a handful of times in the previous campaigns of hundreds of hours. I do not worry that the rules are a little more complex because it rarely happens. Since I have a copy of my house rules at my side, it is much faster to look up a house rule than it is to look up a core rule (fewer pages).


The reason I do CON/DEX damage on big falls is because your entire body is taking the fall, not just one portion of your body getting hit (like with a weapon). Even a Fireball does not cook your insides like a fall splatters them. If you get hit in the arm with a weapon, you will not get a concussion. If you fall 30 feet, you will almost always get a concussion in real life. If you fall 50 feet onto a hard surface, your intestines will almost always be hanging out in real life. I consider falls to be deadly (like coup de grace) and unavoidable once you are in the situation. I consider sword swings to be less lethal on many parts of the body and easier to minimize the damage (partially parry, dodge, deflect, absorbed by armor, etc.), even when you are hit.

[AeroDm]

I think the 'spirit' of your rules are right on. They make it more lethal and add an element of suprise to what is currently a mathematical process. Barbs look at a 30' fall and laugh, now maybe they won't.

However, they really do seem too complicated for their worth. The scaling dice that have been suggested (1d6 at 10, 3d6 at 20, et al) is very simple and has much the same affect without the stat damage in so much as adding lethality and improving the worth of skills.

Perhaps a conjunction of the two systems. Off the top of my head I'd say something akin to a DC equal to 10 + dice rolled reflex save or you suffer dexterity damage equal to dice rolled. A 10' fall would be DC 11 or lose 1 dex, while a 50' fall would be DC 25 or lose 15 dex. Scales quite severely.

I like this because it adds quite a penalty to large falls while only slightly threatening the shorter falls. Your jump skill to drop off 10' from the 50' fall just dropped the DC by 5 and the penalty by 5 points of dex, making it quite worthwhile. Finally, dealing damage and con loss in the same move is just too damn harsh. The last thing I want is to make falling more deadly than combat.

[KarinsDad]

Originally Posted by AeroDm

Perhaps a conjunction of the two systems. Off the top of my head I'd say something akin to a DC equal to 10 + dice rolled reflex save or you suffer dexterity damage equal to dice rolled. A 10' fall would be DC 11 or lose 1 dex, while a 50' fall would be DC 25 or lose 15 dex. Scales quite severely.

Not a bad idea.

The only thing I do not like about it is the "roll a 24, take 15 dex damage, roll a 25, take 0 dex damage".

Instead, a system of "you take 15 dex damage on a 50 foot fall, roll DC 25 reflex save to take half damage" would work better.

And, of course, I would make it that you take CON and DEX damage being the rat bastard DM that I am.

[Kae'Yoss]

Originally Posted by KarinsDad

In my game, there is less inconsistency.

I also have a house rule that when you take damage, you have to make a Fort save or be staggered. I also have a house rule that when you are 1/3rd damaged, you are at -1 to all rolls, -2 at 2/3rds, -3 at 0 hits or less.

Then, as I said, I merely put in: I like it easy and heroic.

The other aspect of my fall rules is that players dread falling. It has only happened something like 3 times in about 50 hours of gaming in the current campaign and only a handful of times in the previous campaigns of hundreds of hours.

Well, this is still more often than it has happened in all our campaigns. I can't remember more than one or two fall situations. (And one was so extreme that we were happy about feather fall)

I do not worry that the rules are a little more complex because it rarely happens. Since I have a copy of my house rules at my side, it is much faster to look up a house rule than it is to look up a core rule (fewer pages).

Bigger books don't necessarily mean longer looking up, cause of index and all that.

Also, the reasoning that rules that get used more often have to be less complex is a bit weird: stuff that happens all the time can be a little more complex, for you will have to memorize it anyway. But stuff that happens almost never shouldn't be very complex, for you'll look it up only a couple of times, and then you'll have to look up something complex on the fly.

The reason I do CON/DEX damage on big falls is because your entire body is taking the fall, not just one portion of your body getting hit (like with a weapon). Even a Fireball does not cook your insides like a fall splatters them. If you get hit in the arm with a weapon, you will not get a concussion. If you fall 30 feet, you will almost always get a concussion in real life. If you fall 50 feet onto a hard surface, your intestines will almost always be hanging out in real life. I consider falls to be deadly (like coup de grace) and unavoidable once you are in the situation. I consider sword swings to be less lethal on many parts of the body and easier to minimize the damage (partially parry, dodge, deflect, absorbed by armor, etc.), even when you are hit.

A crit with a greatsword might well cleave you in half or split your skull. I personally consider such a hit more lethal than a fall from the second story.

And if falling gives you additional penalties for the whole body, other hits should give you penalties concerning the body parts hit. So if your arm is hit for x % of your hit points, it is severed, and you lose the use of this hand, and/or dex. If your leg is hit, your speed is decreased and so on. And this all will lead to big great charts. And since I don't like it half-baked, e.g. detailed damage effects for falling but none for other hits, but like it all or nothing, I choose nothing, for simplicity's sake.

[Kae'Yoss]

Originally Posted by Cheiromancer

Players don't have direct experience of falling meteors and scythe-wielding barbarians, and so are willing to accept a more abstract treatment. Falling, however, is within our experience, and a little more detail helps us suspend our disbelief.

But players are usually bright enogh to know that they'd die if a meteor hit them, or if their body or head got split in half by a scythe. And while falling as much as 6 feet might be in the experience of many (personally, I haven't really fallen down great depths, maybe a 3-ft wall, and jumped 5m tops - into a deep pool in the open-air swimming pool), they probably have no personal experience of falling something like 30 ft. You may see it in the news, but the news also tell of people hit by big heavy objects (like these darvin award aspirants who got killed by a drinks dispenser) or cut in half.

On the other hand, sometimes there's stories of poeple surviving great falls. So even the suspension of disbelief wants all-or-nothing (especially if the the players are like "Hey, I can take a direct hit by a giant who wields a fraggin' tree without the slightest discomfort, but once I fall down a couple of feet I suddenly become frail and clumsy".)