Anyone else bothered by the falling rules?

[Al]

As a tangent, anyone adopting Macabrea's massive damage rules can see a very VERY high casualty rate at high level. Maximised Cone of Cold anyone? 90 points of damage is going to hurt, but just wait for the DC55 Fort save as a kicker. Who needs Finger of Death?

The critique here is not a critique of the falling rules, but of the Hp system. JLXC has alluded to my point, but I'll make it explicit. It is no more unrealistic that a 200hp barbarian merrily throw himself off a skyscraper a few times than he stand there happily with forty arrows stuck in him. If the falling rules really bother you for purposes of 'reality check' perhaps you should adopt the much vaunted WP/VP system, or even change to a direct system altogether, like GURPS (and there's nothing wrong with GURPS).

 

[Henry]

Why not just make it 1d6 CON damage per 10 feet fallen and be done with it? You can use the same rule for falling into pits of molten lava or flesh-eating acid, for getting a direct hit by a real non-magical lightning bolt, etc. In short, any natural method of disaster that doesn't involve avoiding weapons is fairly likely to kill you.

 

[Voadam]

I also use the cumulative damage, with a couple of changes. I allow a Reflex save to reduce the effective fall by 10 feet. And I allow a jump check (same method as a standing high jump) to reduce the falling distance again. In this case I still enforce the maximum jumping height even if specific magic says to ignore it.

So you could jump down 50' and make the Reflex save, and only take damage as if it were 30', which is 6d6. But 100' falls are still exceedingly deadly (56d6, even if you make the save and the jump check).

PS

P.S. It's not factorial. That would be multiplying, not adding.

Doh!

Junior high was a long time ago, is there a term for cumulative progressing addition then?

 

[Ferret]

They roll, as they level they roll better

 

[Voadam]

The critique here is not a critique of the falling rules, but of the Hp system. JLXC has alluded to my point, but I'll make it explicit. It is no more unrealistic that a 200hp barbarian merrily throw himself off a skyscraper a few times than he stand there happily with forty arrows stuck in him. If the falling rules really bother you for purposes of 'reality check' perhaps you should adopt the much vaunted WP/VP system, or even change to a direct system altogether, like GURPS (and there's nothing wrong with GURPS).

Well, as I said before, my personal fear of heights shows up in my game in the cumulative damage rule While high hit points in general are an issue there can be a lot of narration that aids suspension of disbelief in D&D combat as the 40 crossbow bolts don't hit but merely scratch, etc. It is much tougher to narrate a big fall, bounce and then get up and run.

As to the 30' pits being common in dungeons post, these are serious heights to fall from, people get crippled from falling these heights in rl. Scary heights are a staple of fantasy movies and literature but they rarely fall, or the scrubs who do end up plummeting to their death.

 

[Dreaddisease]

How many people here have fallen 10-20 feet? The likelyhood of damage depends on the surface you fall on. I think D&D assumes you fall on rock every time because I remember falling plenty of times of the roof of my house onto the flower bed and taking no damage (not even a bruise). If I were to have these increasing damage that you are all suggesting I would not start it until after 30 ft. There is not much damage that you can take from anything that low unless you go face first.

Personally I would do damage on a chance roll. There is a chance you will bounce and get a few bruises, there is a chance you will hit face first and die. Let the ground make an attack roll base +5 and +1 for every 10 ft. Basically it is a touch attack with only luck and magic taking effect for defense. If it beats the AC then roll on a critical damage chart that has broken bones, concusions, death, temp and perm str, con, dex, int drain (Int, because have you ever talked to someone who has fallen on their head?).

That is a variant I guess. As for damage, I would go with 1d6/10ft for every 30 ft. and then add more damage beyond that.


edit: must edit

 

[Henry]

Only one problem, Dreaddisease: (in any other venue that would sound like an insult )

Most of the time, falling from the roof of your house is not falling more than 10 feet. Even on a multi-story house, you only "freefall" the last 8 to 10 feet. If you were to fall an actual 10 feet (jump off of the roof of a building from a standing position, and land unprepared) you are likely to take some damage. Only rarely will it kill you. If you fall 20 feet or more full free-fall, you have a 50/50 chance or a little less to outright break your neck.

I still think 1d6 CON per 10 feet would simulate this well. 10 feet would hurt, but only a true wuss would die. A 20 or 30 foot fal can kill you, but hardier people will overcome. Over 30 feet, and you are S.O.L.

Try to survive a 200 foot fall with 20d6 CON damage....

 

[Macbrea]

1d6 con damage per 10ft is way to drastic. In reality there have been alot of people survive falls under 50ft.

If your determined to add Stat damage to falling then:

Stat Fall damage:
Any person falling from a distance of 25 ft or more should take stat damage. Apply 1d4 temp stat damage randomly determined between Str, Dex and Con per 50ft of fall. This damage maxes out at 20d4 stat damage at terminal velocity.


For those that wish to know the math of it. Terminal velocity of a human body is 650 ft the first 6 seconds and 1033 ft every second after that.

Personally, I find applying stat damage alittle to drastic.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

As to the 30' pits being common in dungeons post, these are serious heights to fall from, people get crippled from falling these heights in rl. Scary heights are a staple of fantasy movies and literature but they rarely fall, or the scrubs who do end up plummeting to their death.

1st level commoners sometimes get crippled, sometimes they walk away from 30' falls in Real Life.

I find it ironic that I am usually a rather strong critic of the HP system on these boards yet the falling rules really don't bother me at all. Once I have accepted a certain amount of sillyness I do not find jumping off a 100' cliff and living particularly troublesome.

 

[kreynolds]

1d6 con damage per 10ft is way to drastic. In reality there have been alot of people survive falls under 50ft.

I agree. It should be 10d6 Con damage per 2ft fallen. I mean, hey, the idea of a 20th level Balor slaying juggernaut of a Barbarian with 450 hit points being able to jump 30 feet without killing himself is just rediculous.

Personally, I find applying stat damage alittle to drastic.

I do too. But the jumping rules don't bother me. If I had to choose, I'd go with the increasing damage per 10 ft. fallen posted above.