Bodyslam of DOOM

[pallandrome]

So you are saying that a character who weighs 18 tons should only do 1d6 damage for falling on someone? I know it's dnd, but I'm striving for at least a LITTLE believability here. Similarly, a rock falling from 50 up should not have the same chance of killing someone as, say a large building. Thus I will use the weight rules. Common sense > RAW, in my campaigns.

EDIT: Also, the 20d6 cap is for distance fallen, which is a different rule from the weight of the falling object.

 

[takasi]

Again, what enlarge spell are you using?

 

[pallandrome]

Err, Alter Self actually.

EDIT: He could have used a Enlarge Ogre spell, researched as per the rules as a 4th level spell, but the extra +2 str wouldn't have stacked anyways.

 

[IcyCool]

Common sense > RAW, in my campaigns.

That's 185d6 of damage. +40 to aim himself. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Seems like you didn't like that approach. Perhaps "Game balance > Common Sense" should be your new rule?

 

[takasi]

How does true strike help in this case? How is falling on someone considered an attack by the raw?

And if if you're not going to follow the raw then common sense would put a 20d6 limit on weight as a houserule.

 

[pallandrome]

Why would common sense put such a limit on damage by weight? Then being hit by a house would do as much damage as, say, being hit by the moon. Similar problems arise. The 20d6 cap only makes sense for falling damage by height, so that's why I use it. It makes no sense for the damage by weight portion.

The reason he has true strike up is because That's his melee configuration. Iron body, which triggers Tensors+Alter Self (huge form)+True Strike. I figured attempting to jump on someone was either a jump check to hit a square (I called it DC15 and he's got around +15 for it), or an attack (AC 22, and he's got a +40). Either way, and he's only going to miss on a one, which he didn't roll. He rolled a 12. So the hitting the dude portion is sorta moot.

 

[Felix]

I dig that a 36,000lb wizard ogre dropping himself off a cliff onto an opponent is on the side of "Common Sense".

 

[Stalker0]

Here's a great reason to use 20d6.

Lava does 20d6 per round to people immersed in it. Compared to that, a big rock doesn't look that scary.

Now an actual meteor on the other hand, okay, but your ogre stature cannot stand to the power of NATURE!!

If you want, you could scale the damage by consistency, not maximum.

For example 20,000 lbs does 20d6 (or however you want to start the scale). 30,000 does 19d6+6, or 18d6 +12. Basically its more consistent high damage, but can never do more damage than full lava could do.

 

[SlagMortar]

I believe by the rules this would be a bull rush, not an attack. You are entering your opponent's space so time for opposed attack rolls.

 

[evilbob]

As for the "to hit" argument, I proposed a resolution to that idea here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=182219

Regarding the damage: rather than trying to focus on falling damage (which doesn't really sit well with anyone), another line of thinking might be something similar to a dragon's "crush" ability. A gargantuan dragon is about the correct weight category for what you're talking about (gargantuan = 16 to 125 tons, and you're talking around 18 tons). These do 4d6 damage + 1.5 x strength bonus per round, which is MUCH more reasonable and includes the fact that a "flying or jumping" dragon is landing on someone - and since your ogre wizard only fell 20', that seems about on par with a dragon "hop." (The only flaw: crush is limited to 3 or more size categories smaller creatures.)

How's that sound?

I dig that a 36,000lb wizard ogre dropping himself off a cliff onto an opponent is on the side of "Common Sense".

Indeed, a fantastic game we play.