Falling from Great Heights

[Gryph]

Gandalf the grey fell - FAR. And got stronger.
If you want to penalize characters who metagame and jump down from large heights- put metal spikes at the bottom.

Gandalf was a divine being.

 

[Kynn]

On drinking poison being auto-death.

Okay, so if I say "I am going to drink this bottle of poison" and do so, then I die, right?

But if I say "I am going to drink this potion of healing" but it actually also contains a poison, I get a saving throw to avoid dying?

If I say "I eat this apple" and I don't know it's a poisoned apple, I get a save, but if I say "I eat this poisoned apple" I automatically die?

I'm trying to figure out what you guys are saying here about when you'd take away a save entirely.

 

[fenriswolf456]

Action movies are still generally heroic characters who are rarely empowered by mystic energies.

A paragon character in D&D would be able to punch the Terminator to death.

Sure, I just chose Die Hard since it fit (at least for me) the concept of a 4E hero who reacted realistically to hazards.

As to punching out a Terminator, it all depends on how it's statted. I'd make it the equivalent of an Iron Golem. So I'd be interested in seeing a lone Paragon punching one to death. Even Epic heroes I'd be hard pressed to believe being able to (barring powers, abilities, mystical items, divine boons, etc.).

Precisely. A better example, to me, is in Lord of the Rings (the movies since they're easier to picture): during the battle of Helm's Deep Aragorn and Gimli leap in front of a huge column of Uruk-hai and fend them off. Were they probably nervous to do it? Maybe a little, but they were pretty damn sure they could succeed; that's why they did it.

Or when Gandalf faces down the Balrog. He KNEW he was on of an equal power level as the Balrog, just as paragon-tier characters KNOW they're stronger than some country-militia.

So they were afraid/ran from the low-level orc (goblin) horde why then?

Aragorn and Gimli defended the bridge out of desperate necessity. They knew they were the most able for the job and like the heroes they are, stepped out to do the job. I don't think either actually expected to survive, just delay the uruk long enough for the gates to be reinforced. Otherwise, why didn't they just stay out there and hack them all down? They got the hell out of there as soon as the task was done.

Gandalf by no means knew he was on equal footing with the Balrog. He stood his ground because he was the only one who could possibly delay the Balrog long enough for the rest of the party to escape. He certainly didn't look back at Aragorn and give a badass grin and a "I got this" wink.

I would happily agree that LotR is a good example of Paragon level play. I wouldn't agree that any of the characers would blithely ignore in-world dangers, even mundane ones, thinking that they were so high level it would only cost them a healing surge or two. Everything was dangerous, every creature deadly and taken seriously.

On drinking poison being auto-death.

Okay, so if I say "I am going to drink this bottle of poison" and do so, then I die, right?

But if I say "I am going to drink this potion of healing" but it actually also contains a poison, I get a saving throw to avoid dying?

If I say "I eat this apple" and I don't know it's a poisoned apple, I get a save, but if I say "I eat this poisoned apple" I automatically die?

I'm trying to figure out what you guys are saying here about when you'd take away a save entirely.

That's in part the issue of this thread. If a character willingly downs an entire bottle of poison (equivalent to many doses), which should by all rights kill them, just what do we do? It seems unrealistic to me that a PC would just take some HP damage and call it a day. As 4E doesn't have saves in the sense of older editions, DMs are left with the regular 10+ save, or more likely, applying a save with a heavy negative modifier, so that while you'll likely die, there's still a chance.

It was mentioned before, but the rules have been written with the idea that there's someone adjudicating the game. Negative effects and conditions have been developed in the sense that characters would not be willingly accepting of them. A poison taken unwillingly applies as normal, doing damage, prompting a save, whatever. Knowingly taken a poison should impose a greater risk (dependent on exposure, of course), just like there should be a difference between actively opposing someone trying to stab you in a face and just standing there and letting them do it.

I agree that for 99% of gaming, such circumstances are not going to arise. I don't know of any character who willing jumps off a cliff. But I've certainly read of encounters with drops of over 100', or occurring adrift in primordial lava. But we have rules for stuff like being Deafened, which seems a very rare occurance. And I think it's actually more important to just have 'this is deadly lethal' rules just so that players can get out of the mindset that you can survive anything just because you're 21st level with a heap of HPs.

 

[Kynn]

It was mentioned before, but the rules have been written with the idea that there's someone adjudicating the game. Negative effects and conditions have been developed in the sense that characters would not be willingly accepting of them. A poison taken unwillingly applies as normal, doing damage, prompting a save, whatever. Knowingly taken a poison should impose a greater risk (dependent on exposure, of course), just like there should be a difference between actively opposing someone trying to stab you in a face and just standing there and letting them do it.

Surely the poison is just the same, though, whether you willingly ingest it or not.

Are you saying you believe that the lethality of poisons should be based on the intent of the victim?

 

[Incenjucar]

Eh. LotR was mostly heroic characters trying to hold a paragon threat at bay.

Sauron isn't an epic threat.

 

[Libramarian]

However, you can also play it as avoiding going over the edge by scraping and clawing. This is the "Die Hard" version. On a 100 foot fall, you don't roll 10d6+modifiers for a huge fall onto rocks. You roll 10d6 to grasp the edge with your fingernails, slide over, bounce off a few rocks, grab some foliage to slow your fall, and then grab hold of a narrow ledge with your last strength. It hurts, and you are still in a bad spot. But you didn't fall all the way onto those rocks.

Then if the fiction makes this impossible--tied up, suspended by a rope head down, well away from the edge, and someone cuts the rope--well, you go back to the base, nasty version of damage. Better be really lucky.

Yes, this is good and essentially what I do right now in 1e. I use 1d6/10 feet for falling damage in a situation that is kind of abstract and where one can reasonably imagine that there are damage mitigating things going on, like falling down a rocky cliff or falling into a forest canopy. You take one "hit" per 10 feet.

If the fiction makes this impossible, e.g. straight drop far away from the edge, I use the cumulative falling damage, where 30 feet is 1d6+2d6+3d6, etc.

I wouldn't be averse to using a more in-depth, realistic treatment of falling damage for that situation if one of my players had a simulationist thing for it, at least to an extent. I don't mind some "incoherence" between the realism of the falling damage rules and the realism of the poison rules or the getting hit by club rules. Simulationism isn't always whole hog, sometimes people just have "a thing" for particular situations and want to explore their resolution with more simulationist rules.

The posts in this thread basically saying "it's absurd to care about realism if you're playing D&D in the first place" and giving suggestions to go play HarnMaster or Runequest are unhelpful. Yes, D&D has always been in the game school vs. the realism-simulation school going back to Gygax's use of these terms in the 1e DMG, but the midline between these two schools has clearly shifted towards the game side between then and now. It's entirely reasonable that was in the "game school" by late 70s/early 80s standards is now in the "realism-simulation" school by 2012 standards. You can't criticize people for being inconsistent when the terms are shifting in meaning.

I mean 1e has a pretty simulationist vibe by today's standards. Obviously this doesn't make it "anti-D&D" or whatever.

This sort of militant anti-simulationism I've been noticing in contemporary D&D culture feels contrived and alienating. I've never played with anyone who didn't at least kind of like simulationism as a supporting element.

 

[SageMinerve]

Eh. LotR was mostly heroic characters trying to hold a paragon threat at bay.

Sauron isn't an epic threat.

Wow.

Considering that Sauron is an extra-dimensional being that pre-existed the creation of the World, and that the Free People losing against him in the War of the Ring essentially meant the End of the World (tm), saying that Sauron isn't an Epic threat (and LotR compares very poorly to default D&D in terms of basic world assumptions) means, what? Only Greater Gods are Epic threats?

 

[SageMinerve]

On drinking poison being auto-death.

Okay, so if I say "I am going to drink this bottle of poison" and do so, then I die, right?

But if I say "I am going to drink this potion of healing" but it actually also contains a poison, I get a saving throw to avoid dying?

If I say "I eat this apple" and I don't know it's a poisoned apple, I get a save, but if I say "I eat this poisoned apple" I automatically die?

I'm trying to figure out what you guys are saying here about when you'd take away a save entirely.

To me as a DM, the difference between:

(a) a PC drinking the poison willingly because its player knows that the PC won't die for it;

(b) a PC drinks the poison by mistake;

is metagaming. Of course the poison's lethality doesn't theoritically change between the two scenarios. But if the player is enough of a *** to blatantly ignore in-world logic, then the DM is perfectly justified to act accordingly.

Said player (in option (a)) deserves to see his PC die a horrible death.

Anyway, the bottle of poison is Schroedinger's Cat all over again.

 

[Libramarian]

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.

This would be considered pointless and special snowflake-y and would receive some frowns and raised eyebrows and possibly some eyerolls at my table. (just trying to describe my preference and experience as counterpoint, not trying to badwrongfun you objectively).

Maybe Next could develop a new philosophy: solipsistic reskinning. Meaning if somebody wants to change the fiction in a certain way to please themselves, even though this won't affect anything else in the game, they're encouraged to silently imagine it without sharing it with the other participants.

 

[Incenjucar]

Wow.

Considering that Sauron is an extra-dimensional being that pre-existed the creation of the World, and that the Free People losing against him in the War of the Ring essentially meant the End of the World (tm), saying that Sauron isn't an Epic threat (and LotR compares very poorly to default D&D in terms of basic world assumptions) means, what? Only Greater Gods are Epic threats?

Epic heroes can create worlds.

Sauron failed to conquer a world of weak beings because a little hairy homebody found a piece of jewelry.