Falling Damage - Anyone else hopes falling hurts just a little bit more?

frankthedm · Jan 29, 2008

I'd just prefer falling to be a little more painfull. With first level PCs able to take a bit more abuse maybe a bump to falling damage is in order. Or maybe a round or two of stunning.

rkanodia · Jan 29, 2008

frankthedm said:
I'd just prefer falling to be a little more painfull. With first level PCs able to take a bit more abuse maybe a bump to falling damage is in order. Or maybe a round or two of stunning.

Nah - if my PCs try to escape a fight by throwing themselves off a cliff, the bad guys will just follow them down

IceFractal · Jan 29, 2008

Sure, as long as being set on fire, dragon bites, poison gas, rolling boulders with spikes, volleys of arrows, lightning strikes, and acid are all made more deadly as well.

Frankly, adventurers shouldn't be able to survive almost any of what they face on a daily basis, but somehow they do. I don't see why being able to survive a 100' fall is any more unlikely than surviving burning alive for an entire minute, being immersed in acid, or taking the full force of a blast that can melt gold - all of which do the same 10d6.

And keep in mind that falling is already deadly to 99%+ of the populace, perhaps moreso than in reality, in fact.

Archade · Jan 29, 2008

There was an old AD&D Dragon Magazine article that had a great variant on falling damage. Basically, it had a long-winded scientific explanation for acceleration of a falling body, but it boiled down to: 1d6 for the first 10 ft, 2d6 for the next 10 ft (total 3d6), 3d6 for the next 10 ft (total 6d6), and so on, to a total of 40d6.

mhensley · Jan 29, 2008

IceFractal said:
I don't see why being able to survive a 100' fall is any more unlikely than surviving burning alive for an entire minute, being immersed in acid, or taking the full force of a blast that can melt gold - all of which do the same 10d6.

Simple. We have no experience of any of that other stuff, but everyone knows that falling hurts. It's the same reason that no one bats an eye when Bruce Willis gets shot at in Die Hard, but everyone cringes when he walks on the glass with bare feet. We know how that would feel.

Tewligan · Jan 29, 2008

Archade said:
There was an old AD&D Dragon Magazine article that had a great variant on falling damage. Basically, it had a long-winded scientific explanation for acceleration of a falling body, but it boiled down to: 1d6 for the first 10 ft, 2d6 for the next 10 ft (total 3d6), 3d6 for the next 10 ft (total 6d6), and so on, to a total of 40d6.

I seem to recall that being Gary's original intent, actually - I believe it was a bit of overzealous editing that accidentally made it a straight d6 per 10'.

Piratecat · Jan 29, 2008

In addition to falling, I understand there's already a 4e compatible supplement that provides more simulationist rules for lava immersion. Very handy.

Midknightsun · Jan 29, 2008

In addition to falling, I understand there's already a 4e compatible supplement that provides more simulationist rules for lava immersion. Very handy.

Then I sense my first 4e campaign will include at least one instance of falling off a cliff. . . . . into lava.

FadedC · Jan 29, 2008

Archade said:
There was an old AD&D Dragon Magazine article that had a great variant on falling damage. Basically, it had a long-winded scientific explanation for acceleration of a falling body, but it boiled down to: 1d6 for the first 10 ft, 2d6 for the next 10 ft (total 3d6), 3d6 for the next 10 ft (total 6d6), and so on, to a total of 40d6.

Hmm.....I think I understand how acceleration works, but I think that fails to take into account that the faster you fall per second, the more distance you will cover before you speed up again. Or to put it another way, while you may be accelerating twice as fast during the 2nd second of falling, your also covering twice as much distance so it would kind of even out on damage per 10 feet.

I have no problem with falling damage being increased if hit points are going up. If we expect most paragon level characters to have over a 100 hit points, then we should consider a "fatal" fall distance doing more then 10d6 (actually I have no idea if falling damage caps out at 10d6 anymore)

Woas · Jan 29, 2008

Situations like this is where the HP system breaks down and where 4e may or may not succeed. In the past weeks or so I've been reading through several discussions on the "what do HP measure/realism or vagueness" issue. And it seems that 4e is clearly in the abstract/morale/force of will camp to the answer for that question.

So the questions is, when a 4e character falls 80' off a building and takes damage can the Cheerle... er I mean Warlord run over to the pancake of flesh (or scales) and give him the ol' "shish-coom-ba! You just fell 80' off a building! Get up and kill something now!" healing treatment?

Personally I think certain situations that do damage, and can only do damage any way you describe it (like falling, acid, certain traps) should by pass HP and effect the character in a much more direct way. And this is where 4e might do good with that new-fangled status tracker-whatsit.