Falling from Great Heights

[El Mahdi]

Angels are too farfetched, huh?

No, I don't find Angels too farfetched. However, I do find having Players adjudicating what happened to their characters to be too farfetched. In my games that's the purview of the DM and only the DM.

What about evading the ground? Or helicopter swords?

Ummm...I have no earthly idea what you're talking about here.

Evading the ground...? is it common for the ground to chase you or your players...? Do you use Move Silently for this...? Or are your D&D characters commonly attempting low-alttitude, nap-of-the-earth, high-speed aerial maneuvering...?

And what in the world are helicopter swords...?

The heroes prepared by knowing they are too cool to die via falling damage.

The heroes didn't prepare at all. The rules of the game provided them partial immunity from this threat.

Big difference.

If you like that style of game, that's cool. I don't have a problem with that.

But just as Monte and Company have said about their base design conceits: that it's easier to add mechanics than remove ones you don't want...having a gonzo, super-hero default hardcoded into the base rules contradicts that.

Having believable rules hardcoded in the base game, and then provide ways for groups to ignore or alter them for more super-heroic type games, is better than the opposite (and Monte and Company agree).

 

[El Mahdi]

But again, D&D is not meant to be a realistic simulator of anything...

I think the point that keeps getting missed is this is no longer true (and likely never has been).

D&D is meant to be whatever each group wants D&D to be at their table.

This time around, with D&D Next, Monte and Company have stated the goal of supporting this above all else.

• That means that D&D is meant to be a fantasy game of super-heroism...
• That means that D&D is meant be a fantasy game of gritty sword and sorcery...
• That means that D&D is meant to be able to be primarily a game...

And it means that D&D is meant to be realistic simulator of everything!

Everything, Anything, or Nothing...for Everybody!

 

[Minigiant]

No, I don't find Angels too farfetched. However, I do find having Players adjudicating what happened to their characters to be too farfetched. In my games that's the purview of the DM and only the DM.

The players aren't adjudicating, they are making sense of what happens.
[/QUOTE]

Ummm...I have no earthly idea what you're talking about here.

Evading the ground...? is it common for the ground to chase you or your players...? Do you use Move Silently for this...? Or are your D&D characters commonly attempting low-alttitude, nap-of-the-earth, high-speed aerial maneuvering...?

[/QUOTE]

The ground is coming at you when you fall. You dodge.

And what in the world are helicopter swords...?

Spinning your sword around and around like a helicopter to slow your fall.

The heroes didn't prepare at all. The rules of the game provided them partial immunity from this threat.

Big difference.

If you like that style of game, that's cool. I don't have a problem with that.

But just as Monte and Company have said about their base design conceits: that it's easier to add mechanics than remove ones you don't want...having a gonzo, super-hero default hardcoded into the base rules contradicts that.

Having believable rules hardcoded in the base game, and then provide ways for groups to ignore or alter them for more super-heroic type games, is better than the opposite (and Monte and Company agree).

My point is that in D&D, a PC takes damage, you check if he or she is dead, then you explain why they are not dead.

Same with a giant twice your PC's size beating him with a tree.
Same with a dragon five times your PCs size slashing him with its claws (and the attack doesn't even move him)
Same with exploding bat poo.

Why should falling get more deadly at high level when everything else isn't?

 

[El Mahdi]

The ground is coming at you when you fall. You dodge.

Unless one has the ability to fly, exactly how does one do that in a realistic manner...

Spinning your sword around and around like a helicopter to slow your fall.

Mmmm...yeah...I think I saw this one on Mythbusters.

It didn't turn out the way I think you expect it to turn out...

My point is that in D&D, a PC takes damage, you check if he or she is dead, then you explain why they are not dead.

Same with a giant twice your PC's size beating him with a tree.
Same with a dragon five times your PCs size slashing him with its claws (and the attack doesn't even move him)
Same with exploding bat poo.

Why should falling get more deadly at high level when everything else isn't?

The damage from a Giant's club can be described (by the DM, of course), as only being a glancing blow, etc., and it makes sense (the same goes for the Dragons slash). There is no way to turn a 200' fall into a glancing blow and have it make sense...

The Fireball can be dodged, shielded by an object, mitigated by armor or clothing, etc. Conversely, the ground cannot be dodged, cannot be concievably blocked by any object the PC may be carrying, nor will any mitigation due to clothing or armor help enough in a 200' fall.

It's not getting more deadly when everything else isn't...it already is inherently more deadly. Just like falling onto lava. There simply is no realistic, narrative explanation for commonly surviving a 200' fall with relative impunity.

That leaves the Rules As Written, if included as part of the base rules, as unsupportive and exclusionary of Realistic Play Styles. Impossible to ignore.

Conversely, base rules that support a Realistic Play Style are much more easily ignored or altered to support a Fantasy Super-Hero Play Style.

The first does not support the design goals of Monte and Company for D&D Next. The second does.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION]

My point is that unless you make the falling rules "You fell from too high, You die.", somebody's character might survive.

Then you (as the DM) will have to explain the survival or ignore the rules. If you choose to follow the rules, your explanation might not make sense or be realistic.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Real-life survivals of such falls are extremely rare (like 1 in 1 million rare).

So, the problem isn't that the demi-god slaying paladin can survive the impact, it's that the demi-god slaying paladin can almost always survive the impact.

For many, it just doesn't make sense.

Isn't the demigod-slaying paladin like, 1 in a million though?

But aren't single-handed slayings of dragons and demigods also 1 in a million?

Yeah, but now calculate the odds of him being both the guy who can slay a demigod, and a guy who happens to survive that fall. Potentially twice, or three times. That guy is 1 in ...a lot. And, there's more where he came from, since it applies to the party Fighter, too, and maybe the Cleric, or Druid, or Thief, or Bard, or Wizard, etc. And the villain Fighter, or Cleric, or Blackguard, or Giant, or Dragon (if you stop it from flying), or Demon, or...

I think that's what El Mahdi is talking about when it just doesn't make sense for many people.

Hit point loss can be anything.

When my halfling paladin fell and took falling damage, I stated that he channeled his divine powers into an emergency plea for help and an angel CAME OUTTA NOWHERE and caught him.... slowed his descent.

HPs are abstract, man.

And for people that want to play completely mundane characters for the cool factor? Or that don't want this level of divine intervention? Or who don't want to say "oh, and there's this branch that wasn't there before, slowing you down, because I need a plot device"?

Those things are fine to use, but they're hardly universally wanted by groups in this situation. Some people want this for their super badass mundane warriors:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcA5c8S6Q-s]Batman's Calm. - YouTube[/ame]

But the same PC can almsot always survive being hit by the club of a 12' tall giant, or being fried by the breath of a gargantuan red dragon.

Surviving what would be certain death for anyone else is part of the schtick of a demi-god slaying paladin!

Same with a giant twice your PC's size beating him with a tree.
Same with a dragon five times your PCs size slashing him with its claws (and the attack doesn't even move him)

Why should falling get more deadly at high level when everything else isn't?

Yes, let's fix these, too! (And I say "fix" lightly, as one man's fix is another's "break", but I hope it gets my personal preference across.)

Let's make it so that if you get solidly hit by that giant, you're badly injured or dead. If you're really tough, maybe not. If you're okay with being that super-human-like, sure. I've mentioned the PC in my game that was built to be strong like Hercules, and him being tough was part of the concept as well. He just wasn't seen as mundane.

Give mundane characters other ways to deal with it, like dodging. HP are nice in how versatile they are, but they fail the "badass mundane" check sometimes (falling, lava, etc.). Batman, above, was going to be paste. Another PC saved him. I'd much rather have that than "he gets saved every time, somehow!" when a situation like that arises. Others disagree, and that's fine. Let's try to make this work for everyone, though.

My point is that unless you make the falling rules "You fell from too high, You die.", somebody's character might survive.

Then you (as the DM) will have to explain the survival or ignore the rules. If you choose to follow the rules, your explanation might not make sense or be realistic.

I think that's his point, as he wants the rules to cover it from a more "realistic" perspective as well.

The damage from a Giant's club can be described (by the DM, of course), as only being a glancing blow, etc., and it makes sense (the same goes for the Dragons slash). There is no way to turn a 200' fall into a glancing blow and have it make sense...

The Fireball can be dodged, shielded by an object, mitigated by armor or clothing, etc. Conversely, the ground cannot be dodged, cannot be concievably blocked by any object the PC may be carrying, nor will any mitigation due to clothing or armor help enough in a 200' fall.

It's not getting more deadly when everything else isn't...it already is inherently more deadly. Just like falling onto lava. There simply is no realistic, narrative explanation for commonly surviving a 200' fall with relative impunity.

That leaves the Rules As Written, if included as part of the base rules, as unsupportive and exclusionary of Realistic Play Styles. Impossible to ignore.

Conversely, base rules that support a Realistic Play Style are much more easily ignored or altered to support a Fantasy Super-Hero Play Style.

The first does not support the design goals of Monte and Company for D&D Next. The second does.

Yep. I'd like HP flexed in such a way that it can continue to satisfy both groups. You got "hit" by a giant, but didn't drop. Did you dodge? Was it glancing? Did you take it because you've got superhero toughness? Did you deplete your divine energy stores (and consequently how much you god likes you? Never been sure on that...) by having your faith deflect it? Did you ward against it with magic? You've got options.

You fall 400 feet and land, and can reliably walk away. Now we have superheroic toughness, and faith, and warding, but we don't have the more "realistic" (mundane) "glancing blow" and "dodge" options. I think El Mahdi's point is that he wants to see the rules on HP (or falling) to continue to cover both play styles, rather than excluding mundane, for some reason. Same for lava, etc. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

it's easier to add mechanics than remove ones you don't want

base rules that support a Realistic Play Style are much more easily ignored or altered to support a Fantasy Super-Hero Play Style.

Are you saying that it's easier to add mechanics, or to subtract/ignore them?

Either way I don't think this can be answered without knowing what the mechanics are.

For example, in 4e it's trivial to change the rate of recovery of healing surges via extended rests, therefore making the game less gonzo. This is an easy subtraction/alteration of a mechanic to enhance grittiness.

In AD&D or 3E it's trivial to add action points that let a player reroll (say) one d20 roll per session, thereby adding a mechanic to reduce grittiness.

But amending a game like Runequest to make it less gritty - whether by addition or subtraction - is far from trivial. Likewise, amending 4e to make it even remotely as gritty as RQ would, in my view at least, be non-trivial also. At a minimum, you'd have to work out how to get healing surge recovery onto something like a disease track, and you'd have to work out how you want to change incombat healing, and you'd have to work out a new mechanic to replace psychic damage, and you'd have to do something about falling damage, and fix a bunch of other stuff that I haven't thought of.

And that's even ignoring the implications for the mechanics of differences in playstyle preference between the process-simulation that you (from your posts) appear to prefer, and the fortune-in-the-middle approach (ie work out the result via the mechanics, and then narrate a fictional process - such as angels or helicopter swords - around that outcome) that [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] is advocating.

 

[Stormonu]

This is definitely something that needs to be set on a dial for how it should be handled - (super)heroic, "normal", gritty or perhaps deadly.

Didn't Gygax originally intend falling damage to be cumulative, such that a fall of 30' feet did 6d6 damage (1d6 for 10', 2d6 for 20', 3d6 for 30') instead of 3d6?

Personally, that would be about the level of damage I'd like to see for the game, assuming characters of about 5 hp/level - and still putting it on the heroic scale in my eyes.

 

[Minigiant]

This is definitely something that needs to be set on a dial for how it should be handled - (super)heroic, "normal", gritty or perhaps deadly.

Didn't Gygax originally intend falling damage to be cumulative, such that a fall of 30' feet did 6d6 damage (1d6 for 10', 2d6 for 20', 3d6 for 30') instead of 3d6?

Personally, that would be about the level of damage I'd like to see for the game, assuming characters of about 5 hp/level - and still putting it on the heroic scale in my eyes.

Even with accelerating d6s, you can roll a lot of 1s and 2s and have PCs survive regularly. Especially at low altitude and high levels. Survival chance means a survival chance. D&D rarely does "normal lethal" and "gritty lethal" using the base rules once you get to higher levels unless you have "You die" or "Bagful of damage dice" rules.

 

[Leatherhead]

Real-life survivals of such falls are extremely rare (like 1 in 1 million rare).

That's just one of the rules of fantasy storytelling: 1 in a million shots happen 9 out of 10 times.