Proposal -- YAFDHR (Yet Another Falling Damage House Rule)
- Thread starter Jeff Wilder
- Start date
Jeff Wilder
First Post
I'm honestly not exactly sure. Something like that, anyway.
One of the guys kept saying stuff like, "But a 10th-level fighter could drop 40 HP in a 10-foot fall!" And I kept trying to get him to explain why that was any worse than a 10th-level fighter dropping 40 HP from a CON-damaging poison, but it never went anywhere.
My suspicion is that my players don't have a particularly good grasp of what hit point damage actually represents. (As opposed, for example, to CON damage.) But it's hard to fault them for that since, as I pointed out at the top of the thread, the designers didn't have a perfect grasp on the distinction, either, and they're the ones who intelligently brought ability damage into the game.
Bladesong
Explorer
I actually like your proposals. The only thing that struck me as odd was the type of roll and the changing of it due to size for falling.
I realize that you did not ask for examples of what others do for falling damage…but I am going to include it anyway just as an alternative.
Falling does two things to the victim; first it deals a cumulative 1d10 per 10’ fallen (i.e. 10’ fall 1d10, 20’ fall 3d10, 30’ fall 6d10, etc.) to a maximum of 20d10 and is stunned for 1 round per 10’ fallen with a Fort save to halve the stun time (a save on 10’ means no stun effect). Second the fall makes a “touch attack”. Roll 1d20 +1 for each 10’ of the fall; the crit range is 19-20 for 2X damage. If the “attack” hits the touch AC, regardless of whether or not it is a crit, there is a list of conditions that includes things like -2 to Fort saves, -2 to physical actions, movement reduced or halved, -2 to Will saves and finally dropped to -1 hp down and dying to simulate injuries to torso, extremities, head and near fatal injuries which remain in place until every hit point of damage received from the fall is healed. The list of course is a bit longer, but you get the idea (the effects are scaled by distance fallen). As a side note, one of the conditions is also 2d6 CON damage.
It took the players about 3 minutes to completely understand the mechanics and it has been working great (even so, falls are fairly rare).
I realize that you did not ask for examples of what others do for falling damage…but I am going to include it anyway just as an alternative.
Falling does two things to the victim; first it deals a cumulative 1d10 per 10’ fallen (i.e. 10’ fall 1d10, 20’ fall 3d10, 30’ fall 6d10, etc.) to a maximum of 20d10 and is stunned for 1 round per 10’ fallen with a Fort save to halve the stun time (a save on 10’ means no stun effect). Second the fall makes a “touch attack”. Roll 1d20 +1 for each 10’ of the fall; the crit range is 19-20 for 2X damage. If the “attack” hits the touch AC, regardless of whether or not it is a crit, there is a list of conditions that includes things like -2 to Fort saves, -2 to physical actions, movement reduced or halved, -2 to Will saves and finally dropped to -1 hp down and dying to simulate injuries to torso, extremities, head and near fatal injuries which remain in place until every hit point of damage received from the fall is healed. The list of course is a bit longer, but you get the idea (the effects are scaled by distance fallen). As a side note, one of the conditions is also 2d6 CON damage.
It took the players about 3 minutes to completely understand the mechanics and it has been working great (even so, falls are fairly rare).
Herzog
Adventurer
it might be a while untill a situation comes up where i'd have to use those rules, but if i can still find this thread after that, i'll let you know.
the reason i'm beginning to like this rule is this:
it is as deadly to high level characters as it is to low level characters.
while high level characters might die more quickly, it allows for more survival chance for low level characters.
2d6 dmg can be very lethal to a first level character. 2d6-4 con damage however, can be overcome, especially with a fortitude saving throw DC10 to be able to survive with Con 1, 0hp.
I just finished a 'falling' scenario two weeks ago (as a player) and there were some real issues in calculating the amount of damage (we were jumping of a flying ship that was already crashing, and trying to activate an amulet of feather fall with CL1 at just the right time.)
The scenario made me realise a couple of things:
-amulets of feather fall at CL1 are (almost) completely useless, since you have to activate them -just- before you hit the ground.
-falling damage for relatively low level characters is very quickly too little (if you have at least 1 hp left nothing is wrong with you according to the rules) or too much (getting past -10 is just a 20' and some very high rolls extra)
because of the saving throw at the end, the survival of the character is no longer only determined by the amount of damage (s)he takes, but can be averted by a final saving throw (which can be rolled by the player) which in turn allows for a special success. The special failure (rolling a 1 on the saving throw) only comes into play if your Con damage has already brought you on the brink of dieing, so there should be no complaints there.
And yes, I'm curious too: what exactly where the arguments brought up by your players?
the reason i'm beginning to like this rule is this:
it is as deadly to high level characters as it is to low level characters.
while high level characters might die more quickly, it allows for more survival chance for low level characters.
2d6 dmg can be very lethal to a first level character. 2d6-4 con damage however, can be overcome, especially with a fortitude saving throw DC10 to be able to survive with Con 1, 0hp.
I just finished a 'falling' scenario two weeks ago (as a player) and there were some real issues in calculating the amount of damage (we were jumping of a flying ship that was already crashing, and trying to activate an amulet of feather fall with CL1 at just the right time.)
The scenario made me realise a couple of things:
-amulets of feather fall at CL1 are (almost) completely useless, since you have to activate them -just- before you hit the ground.
-falling damage for relatively low level characters is very quickly too little (if you have at least 1 hp left nothing is wrong with you according to the rules) or too much (getting past -10 is just a 20' and some very high rolls extra)
because of the saving throw at the end, the survival of the character is no longer only determined by the amount of damage (s)he takes, but can be averted by a final saving throw (which can be rolled by the player) which in turn allows for a special success. The special failure (rolling a 1 on the saving throw) only comes into play if your Con damage has already brought you on the brink of dieing, so there should be no complaints there.
And yes, I'm curious too: what exactly where the arguments brought up by your players?
ChampionoftheTriad
Explorer
The thing that most of you have not mentioned (I don't know if it is lost on most of you or not) is that the Con damage ALSO does hit point damage by lowering the subject's Con modifier. This is why I like Con damage for massive trauma of all kinds, and why I am considering it as an alternative to Vitality/Wounds for a more "realistic" critical damage system.
You see, when you take massive trauma, you're less able to heroically dodge all those sword swings (or bullets or blaster bolts or whatever). It beautifully models what happens when you fall and break your leg, while remaining (essentially) "abstract".
I haven't ever gotten my own system worked out on "paper", but I would like to point out my own ideas on the subject:
I think the damage per x distance should be gauged so as to be potentially deadly to a tough hero at about 40 feet, and VERY deadly to anyone at about 60 feet.
Then, in keeping with the heoic fantasy (and to satisfy whiny players), there should be a Reflex save for half the Con damage. So, the freaky fantasy heroes can fall "unlikely" distances while SURVIVING, but they still limp away. AND there is a built in limit to that survivablility, i.e. when half the damage is more than your Con, your dead anyway.
I should point out that I also favor 0 Con= dying not dead, but then I like dying to be deadlier than RAW.
Thanks for reading.
You see, when you take massive trauma, you're less able to heroically dodge all those sword swings (or bullets or blaster bolts or whatever). It beautifully models what happens when you fall and break your leg, while remaining (essentially) "abstract".
I haven't ever gotten my own system worked out on "paper", but I would like to point out my own ideas on the subject:
I think the damage per x distance should be gauged so as to be potentially deadly to a tough hero at about 40 feet, and VERY deadly to anyone at about 60 feet.
Then, in keeping with the heoic fantasy (and to satisfy whiny players), there should be a Reflex save for half the Con damage. So, the freaky fantasy heroes can fall "unlikely" distances while SURVIVING, but they still limp away. AND there is a built in limit to that survivablility, i.e. when half the damage is more than your Con, your dead anyway.
I should point out that I also favor 0 Con= dying not dead, but then I like dying to be deadlier than RAW.
Thanks for reading.
Jeff Wilder
First Post
That's just an example of my own wonkiness.
A smaller creature, because of the ratio between mass and surface area, falls significantly more slowly and thus takes significantly less damage than a larger creature.
Given how easy that was to reflect in my system, I just added it in.
ChampionoftheTriad
Explorer
I'm pretty sure that science has shown that they fall at the same rates.
However, due to a lower mass, the smaller creature hits with less weight and therefore less force.
And, given the structural strength to weight ratio of a small humanoid, the small creature would take less damage.
Conversely, a large creature though it may be mighty and tough, will nonetheless have a lower overall structural strength to weight ratio. Thus, the Ogre takes a worse fall from the same height.
There is a reason why elephants move relatively slowly, and do not leave the ground.
However, due to a lower mass, the smaller creature hits with less weight and therefore less force.
And, given the structural strength to weight ratio of a small humanoid, the small creature would take less damage.
Conversely, a large creature though it may be mighty and tough, will nonetheless have a lower overall structural strength to weight ratio. Thus, the Ogre takes a worse fall from the same height.
There is a reason why elephants move relatively slowly, and do not leave the ground.
Jeff Wilder
First Post
Actually, no. You're thinking of falling speed in a vacuum. Smaller creatures fall more slowly due to wind resistance, which is a function of the ratio between surface area and mass.I'm pretty sure that science has shown that they fall at the same rates.
