D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Death from above, via Treant?

[Particle_Man]

A Treant is 30' high, so I assume that waist height is around 10 to 15 feet. A Treant weighs 4500 lbs, so if it were a falling object falling 10' it would do 20d6 to whatever it landed on.

Combining these facts with the "hop up" part of the Jump skill, could a Treant simply "hop up" 10'-15' to empty air, and then fall crashing down on an adjacent medium-sized victim for 20d6 to the victim and 1d6 to the Treant (and perhaps both going prone)?

 

[Dandu]

According to the falling damage rules, the Treant takes 20d6 damage if dropping from terminal velocity. It deals out, however, an amount of damage based on a table in the Complete Warrior, page 160, which states that for every 200 pounds of an object's weight beyond 400 pounds, it deals an additional 1d6 damage.

An improvised weapon weighing 400 pounds deals 5d6 damage, so a treant would deal around 25d6 damage.

 

[Jhaelen]

Combining these facts with the "hop up" part of the Jump skill, could a Treant simply "hop up" 10'-15' to empty air, and then fall crashing down on an adjacent medium-sized victim for 20d6 to the victim and 1d6 to the Treant (and perhaps both going prone)?

No. Or rather: This is firmly in DM's call territory.

 

[Particle_Man]

According to the falling damage rules, the Treant takes 20d6 damage if dropping from terminal velocity. It deals out, however, an amount of damage based on a table in the Complete Warrior, page 160, which states that for every 200 pounds of an object's weight beyond 400 pounds, it deals an additional 1d6 damage.

Well that is just it. I don't think the Treant, as falling character, is at terminal velocity at 10' (otherwise 10' pits would be more dangerous to heavy characters than to light characters which is not the case). So the Treant only takes 1d6. As falling object, he reaches max damage to anyone he falls on at 10', so he deals 20d6. Just as a 4500 lb tree, if it falls from a 10' height onto a human (or heck, the roof of a wooden house), could crush the human to death (or severely damage the roof) but the tree will likely not be nearly as damaged as the human/roof.

 

[HoboGod]

That's because the tree is strong enough to take the damage. If we're talking real world physics, then newton's third law of motion tells us that whenever a body exerts force on another body, the second body exerts the same amount of force upon the first body. I can't say that DnD physics pair up to real world physics (which in fact they don't, or falling damage would be a hell of a lot more lethal), but if they did, a falling tree could not deal 20d6 damage without receiving 20d6 damage. In all reality, larger creatures SHOULD receive more damage than smaller creatures from a fall. Ever stun an insect and watch it fall to the ground from a height which would make a watermelon crack and break into a gooy mess but the insect gets up and flies off? Watermelon isn't structurally too different from your typical house fly, but there's no question about which could endure greater force.

 

[Persiflage]

That's because the tree is strong enough to take the damage. If we're talking real world physics, then newton's third law of motion tells us that whenever a body exerts force on another body, the second body exerts the same amount of force upon the first body. I can't say that DnD physics pair up to real world physics (which in fact they don't, or falling damage would be a hell of a lot more lethal), but if they did, a falling tree could not deal 20d6 damage without receiving 20d6 damage.

Not so. You were fine up to the point where you suggested that a tree would take 20d6 damage simply because it *dealt* 20d6 damage. If your car runs over a cat, the cat dies and all the car will feel is a slight bump. Taking your argument as read, anything that hits anything else will take as much damage as it deals, which is patently incorrect.

You were almost right, but the tree isn't "strong enough to take the [20d6] damage", it's "strong enough that it doesn't take the damage".

"Damage" is not proportionate to just "force"; it's the measure of the result of a creature or object's susceptibility to force applied in a particular way. For instance, I can jump up and down on a concrete slab without hurting either myself or the slab appreciably despite the significant forces involved - i.e., neither my feet nor the floor take "damage" - but if the concrete were to hit my head with the same force, I would die and the concrete would still be fine.

Messy, but fine.

Cats are squishier than cars. People are squishier than trees. You can't equate the damage something does to another object by landing on it to the damage it receives whilst so doing because although the forces involved in the collision are indeed equal and opposite as you describe, "force" and "damage" are in no way interchangeable as concepts.

Mr. Prosser: Have you any idea how much damage that bulldozer would suffer if I just let it roll straight over you?

Arthur Dent: How much?

Mr. Prosser: None at all

Apologies to the younger members of the audience for the reference

In all reality, larger creatures SHOULD receive more damage than smaller creatures from a fall.

Now this *is* true, but the reasons are more complicated than "acceleration due to gravity". Terminal velocity is NOT the same for all creatures unless they're in a vacuum. One of the (many) reasons why a spider falling off a cliff will "land" whilst an elephant doing the same will "splash" is that the elephant will be travelling an awful lot faster than the spider.

There's also exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal considerations, different body densities, area-to-volume ratios, deformation of different types of materials, etc., etc.

Watermelon isn't structurally too different from your typical house fly, but there's no question about which could endure greater force.

WHAT?! Holy cr*p dude, I never want to see the flies where you live! Or possibly it's the watermelons I should watch out for...

Basically, the OP has a good point and the best way to address it is to look at the rules of the game rather than introducing Newton's Laws or spurious comparisons between watermelons and flies. Besides, I'm not even sure I've understood what you're saying: are you actually claiming that a housefly can withstand a greater force than a watermelon?!

Forget "terminal velocity": the game has no mechanic that even vaguely approximates the real world in that regard, which is why everything takes the same damage for falling, and why the damage is linear rather than exponential. [1]

From a rules perspective, the Treant can't perform the manoeuver as described, because:

Hop Up: You can jump up onto an object as tall as your waist, such as a table or small boulder, with a DC 10 Jump check.

So, if the DM (or players) wanted to prevent heinous amounts of damage being inflicted on a technicality - and rightly so - they just need to point out that the rules for that manoeuver require an object to be in place. You can't even claim "the creature's head" is an object, because any creature is by definition not an object.

Not only that, but the Treant isn't an object either: it's a creature, and it deals damage as a creature, so if you want it to pull this stunt you have to use rules that apply to creatures. There are two obvious ways to do this without resorting to (much) home-brew.

1) You could handle this like a dragon's "Crush" attack:

Crush (Ex): This special attack allows a flying or jumping dragon of at least Huge size to land on opponents as a standard action, using its whole body to crush them. Crush attacks are effective only against opponents three or more size categories smaller than the dragon (though it can attempt normal overrun or grapple attacks against larger opponents).

A crush attack affects as many creatures as can fit under the dragon's body. Creatures in the affected area must succeed on a Reflex save (DC equal to that of the dragon's breath weapon) or be pinned, automatically taking bludgeoning damage during the next round unless the dragon moves off them. If the dragon chooses to maintain the pin, treat it as a normal grapple attack. Pinned opponents take damage from the crush each round if they don't escape.

A crush attack deals the indicated damage plus 1-1/2 times the dragon's Strength bonus (round down).

It wouldn't be hard to adapt this for any creature of sufficient size.

Alternatively, and more simply, give the Treant the "trample" special ability and call it good:

Trample (Ex): As a full-round action, a creature with this special attack can move up to twice its speed and literally run over any opponents at least one size category smaller than itself. The creature merely has to move over the opponents in its path; any creature whose space is completely covered by the trampling creature's space is subject to the trample attack. If a target's space is larger than 5 feet, it is only considered trampled if the trampling creature moves over all the squares it occupies. If the trampling creature moves over only some of a target's space, the target can make an attack of opportunity against the trampling creature at a -4 penalty. A trampling creature that accidentally ends its movement in an illegal space returns to the last legal position it occupied, or the closest legal position, if there's a legal position that's closer.

A trample attack deals bludgeoning damage (the creature's slam damage + 1-1/2 times its Str modifier). The creature's descriptive text gives the exact amount.

Trampled opponents can attempt attacks of opportunity, but these take a -4 penalty. If they do not make attacks of opportunity, trampled opponents can attempt Reflex saves to take half damage.

The save DC against a creature's trample attack is 10 + 1/2 creature's HD + creature's Str modifier (the exact DC is given in the creature's descriptive text). A trampling creature can only deal trampling damage to each target once per round, no matter how many times its movement takes it over a target creature.

Either way, by the rules as written the Treant can't hop-scotch the PC's to death and quite right too!

Cheers,


Persiflage

[1] For what it's worth, I run a house-rule that inflicts "sum-to-n" falling damage, like so:

10ft = 1d6
20ft = 3d6
30ft = 6d6
40ft = 10d6
50ft = 15d6
...and so on, until

20d6 = 210d6

 

[HoboGod]

Not so. You were fine up to the point where you suggested that a tree would take 20d6 damage simply because it *dealt* 20d6 damage. If your car runs over a cat, the cat dies and all the car will feel is a slight bump. Taking your argument as read, anything that hits anything else will take as much damage as it deals, which is patently incorrect.

Ah, forgive me, I have oversimplified it and you're right. However, to say a tree walks away with only as much damage as getting hit with a walking stick after smashing pretty hard against the ground that the force alone does as much carnage as a jerk with a greatsword chopping you up for 60 seconds, that doesn't sound right.

WHAT?! Holy cr*p dude, I never want to see the flies where you live! Or possibly it's the watermelons I should watch out for...

Basically, the OP has a good point and the best way to address it is to look at the rules of the game rather than introducing Newton's Laws or spurious comparisons between watermelons and flies. Besides, I'm not even sure I've understood what you're saying: are you actually claiming that a housefly can withstand a greater force than a watermelon?!

I was trying to imply the watermelon was stronger, not the fly. <_<

But in any case, I wasn't trying to argue the rules, just the logic part. Quite honestly I couldn't say for sure as I've always tried to avoid any attacks that would not be listed in the monster's entry. Using such attacks almost always alter the CR of the monster. Endless simulated battles to determine the accurate CR of a modified creature give me headaches.

 

[Jhaelen]

And here we have another example why you should never, ever try to use real-world science to determine a D&D rule

You were almost right, but the tree isn't "strong enough to take the [20d6] damage", it's "strong enough that it doesn't take the damage".

Actually, 'being strong enough to avoid taking damage' is modeled by 'hardness' (for objects) or damage resistance (for creatures). So, the tree would take 20d6 minus its hardness/DR.

Quite honestly I couldn't say for sure as I've always tried to avoid any attacks that would not be listed in the monster's entry. Using such attacks almost always alter the CR of the monster. Endless simulated battles to determine the accurate CR of a modified creature give me headaches.

The thing is, unless I am mistaken, the OP is not a DM wanting to use the described maneuver for a monster, but a player with a treant pc looking for cheese to get an at-will attack that deals a humongous amount of damage.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, though. This is a case of misapplying the game rules:
You never take damage from hopping up. I.e. the subsequent 'fall' is not governed by the rules for falling.

You might as well rule that for a treant making a step is equal to one of the treant's legs 'falling' a distance of, say, 10 feet, resulting in the treant taking 1d6 damage per square of movement.

 

[Persiflage]

For the win:

And here we have another example why you should never, ever try to use real-world science to determine a D&D rule

YES! Well, except for those rare occasions when you should.

Actually, 'being strong enough to avoid taking damage' is modeled by 'hardness' (for objects) or damage resistance (for creatures). So, the tree would take 20d6 minus its hardness/DR.

No, if we're back to D&D equivalencies it just flat-out doesn't take the damage, any more than a warhammer used to deliver a 100hp smack upside the head takes 100hp-worth-of-damage-minus-hardness. In D&Dland, a falling tree is an "object", and falling objects - like weapons - DO damage, not TAKE it. It's not until an attack is made against an object that the hardness rules are invoked... A boulder falling 100' and hitting the monk on the head is undamaged unless you house-rule otherwise, yet if that same monk is tough enough he can go right ahead and headbutt that boulder to rubble. So yeah, science applied to D&D is almost always ill-advised

My objections to the science, were to the science.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, though. This is a case of misapplying the game rules:

Ayup, agree totally: this is why I posted the rules objections to it

You never get as far as invoking the falling rules, because you can only "hop up" onto an object, not into thin air. Likewise, the treant doesn't do damage as a falling object, because it isn't one.

If the OP is deliberately looking for MOAR CHEEZ through exploiting piffling rules technicalities despite already playing a g*ddam Treant, then I would suggest that their cheese-fu is weak...

Seriously, trying to exploit the jumping rules to do 70 points of damage against a single opponent with (minimum) two move actions? Small boys will follow you in gangs just to wave hedge-trimmers and jeer at you, and Mummy Treant will disown you and complain to anyone who'll listen that she always wanted a rose-bush instead.

 

[Dandu]

Well that is just it. I don't think the Treant, as falling character, is at terminal velocity at 10'

The C. War damage table doesn't mandate that the improvised weapon be falling at terminal velocity, it just says an improvised weapon deals that much damage. Sorry for being unclear.