Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dcollins" data-source="post: 241779" data-attributes="member: 876">It's too bad that I'm getting into this late-ish, but I've been bitten by the "can't login" bug and unable to post for two days.Gygax asserted in an old issue of Dragon magazine that the 1d6 per 10 ft. fallen is actually due to a printing error in the 1st Player's Handbook which took out the word "cumulatively". That is, that Gygax played it as 1d6 for 10 ft; 3d6 for 20 ft.; 6d6 for 30 ft.; and so forth. This was again implied in the Thief-Acrobat text for Unearthed Arcana. It's the way that I like to run it in my campaign.(However, I'll point out that I've recently realized that Gygax's classic modules G1-3 have encounters which explicitly contradict this statement, having a 90 ft. fall do 9d6 damage, etc.)You can read more about this issue on this web page: <a href="http://www.superdan.net/environs.html" target="_blank">www.superdan.net/environs.html</a>Personally, I feel that the "Massive Damage" rule is one of the worst blights on the game retained from the 2nd Edition era. It's an incredibly ham-handed attempt at responding to the "characters survive falls from far too high!" issue. The preceding solution (supposedly Gygax's original) scales much more smoothly. (In my house rules, I exchange the two rules.)</blockquote>