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

[Warbringer]

It won't, because it violates the new Golden Rule

Characters only die in a way that is fun to have your character die

 

[Wormwood]

Characters only die in a wy that is fun to have your character die

Been playing that way for years. Won't go back, either.

 

[Cadfan]

FadedC: Yup.

Anyways, I personally favor doing this in D&D physics. All falls, no matter the height from which you fall, take exactly one round, or 6 seconds. Your velocity on impact is therefore equal to the distance fallen divided by six. A fall of 60' in D&D world results in an impact at 10 feet per second, which is the same as a real world fall of approximately one and a half feet. A fall of 600' in D&D world results in an impact of 100 feet per second, which matches a real world fall of about 156 feet. This brings D&D falling damage in line with what we would expect for a higher level character- falling 60 feet is about akin to skinning one's knee, and falling 600 feet is a credible threat to one's survival- though not guaranteed death, especially if one happens to land in a cart of manure, a dumpster, or perhaps atop an awning of some kind in an arabian marketplace.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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.

Actually, iirc, Gary once said the above was supposed to be core for AD&D, but somehow got changed in editing via misinterpretation or some such. At any rate, I've been using that method for years. Pit traps HURT in my game.

 

[Craw Hammerfist]

Man falls 500' and lives. Last December in Manhattan. 50d6? That would probably kill most heroic characters.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/03/skyscraper.fall.survivor.ap/

 

[Grazzt]

Actually, iirc, Gary once said the above was supposed to be core for AD&D, but somehow got changed in editing via misinterpretation or some such. At any rate, I've been using that method for years. Pit traps HURT in my game.

Yeppers. I remember hearing/reading Gary saying that about falling damage. Same here..Ive used it since 1e or so. Makes falls a little more interesting anyway.

So- do you cap damage (say 20d6) or let it go higher?

 

[Wyrmshadows]

To put it plainly, who gives a flying fig what the official rules say in regards to orbital reentry or falling headlong into a crevasse full of molten lava. If you are running a game as a DM, you tell your players that there are certain, maybe only a few, things that will kill them instantly.

Falling into lava is instant death

Falling into a 200' ravine...lets calculate 10=1d6, 20=3d6, 30=6d6, 40=9d6, 50=12d6 and so on with no upper limit. Fall too far and you die.

Houserule whatever it is that breaks the suspension of disbelief too much. I know that some folks have survived falls from ridiculous heights. However, the exception doesn't create the rule. The rules are supposed to establish norms and not cater to abberations and quirks of fate. For every one person that survived a 1000ft+ fall there would be 1,000,000 who would not. Out of those that survive, it would be another 1 in a 1,000,000 chance that the same character could fall another deadly height and survive.

I know the PCs are a rare breed, but they aren't so rare as to make the absurd the norm.




Wyrmshadows

 

[Victim]

No.

And I'd prefer that falling damage for dropping things on to targets was less deadly as well.

 

[S'mon]

IRL you reach terminal velocioty after falling around 270' due to air friction.

 

[ideasmith]

As long as they don't make 'lift and drop' tactics too effective. If most monsters/characters find that their most effective tactic is picking the opponent up and then dropping an opponent, then there is a problem.