Falling from Great Heights

[Aaron]

You can dodge a Tyrannosauraus Rex. Wanna see how you dodge a lava pit if you're already falling.

-YRUSirius

Dodge the breath of a red wyrm while he uses the Snatch feat against you (3.5).

Your replies have been covered a while ago.

 

[Balesir]

I understand what you're saying. HP's being at the levels they are, or climbing to the levels they do, does seem to be a problem to some. It's not a problem to me, because I don't see Hit Points as purely physical, I see them as an abstract quantification of luck, stamina, ability to avoid or turn damage, fatigue, and yes, a bit of phyisical damage. I'm fine with other people thinking differently. But I don't think Hit Point levels are the core of the problem. I think that, mechanically, fixing the problem with realism (like falling) by reducing Hit Points is a mechanically poor way to do it. I'd much rather want the damage expression of a fall to be changed. Like what Elf Witch was saying. Higher Hip Point loss for falls (more than just 1d10 per 10 foot), and a save vs. death after a certain height (for me, anything above 20").

As a module I think this would be fine - it supports some specific world-model elements that people might want without warping the other rules to do so. I could see variants of this working, too, with conditions like Daze and Stun being applied for serious falls.

As for Archers, I'd fix it by not allowing Dex or Defense bonuses to be part of avoiding an arrow, only armor and shields. In real life, nobody has the ability to "dodge" arrows in real combat. People do put on exhibitions of this, but it's from a specific distance, and constistently practiced at that distance, with the same bow, same arrows, same everything, so that it's just a matter of timing. In real combat, those are variables one can only guess at, and though someone might occasionally get lucky and dodge or bat away an arrow, they are still going to be hit more times than they succeed.

In actual fact I am pretty sure arrows can be dodged for a variety of circumstances. I used to shoot longbow in field archery, and have stood near targets as people were shooting to announce scores. Dodging wayward arrows was quite easy, but its very important to note that (a) the range was more like what one would see in a real battle - 60 feet plus - than is typical in a D&D 'battle', and (b) there was nothing else of similar note going on, so I was concentrating totally on watching the archer (and could bar them from shooting while I was not). I think the "use of dodging" thing has a much wider range of issues, to be honest. For one-on-one duels it's dandy, but for a confused melee it becomes near-worthless and other factors, such as teamwork (covering your buddies) and fatigue - as well as the sort-of-analogue footwork - come to the fore.

As an aside, if you really want D&D to be anything even vaguely approaching a "realistic" model of combat, you have one heck of a lot of "modules" to write!!

While I don't want to cease increasing Hit Points as one levels, I can see that those that do would still have an use for levels. They are still a representation of "aquired experience" and would still determing when one learns new Feats, Skills, or Abilities. Even in the real world, we continue to grow and learn new things.

If you have problems with hit points, it seems likely to me that you would also have an issue with skills and such advancing in lock-step. Surely, at this stage, a system of independent skills and talents would be preferable? Some could be grouped, as you find in DragonQuest (not the boardgame, the RPG), but they are trained in/bought separately. This also allows increasing skill to come from practice and training instead of killing things and taking their stuff...

It's ability to support different play styles can be inclusive of other play styles (by supporting them), or exclusive of other play styles (by not supporting them or supporting one exclusively).

I'm not going to argue with wanting to support more play styles - as many as possible - because that's like arguing against free money. Obviously, it's desirable as long as the side effects aren't taken into account.

But D&D in all of its incarnations has covered only a fraction of the styles possible in roleplaying games - and it has covered a far smaller fraction than that well.

When D&D tries to be "all things to all men" it has an unfortunate tendency to compromise itself - and that's when you start to see the "oh, we can't take that out - that's part of the core of D&D!" D&D has a number of these "core features" (hit points, levels, classes, certain "iconic" monsters) that are seen as "defining" it. These features in themselves support some styles of play far better than others. Can you add "modules" around the edges to make it (look like it would) support other styles? Sure. But you will still have those core elements - and they will still cause issues for those who don't want the style(s) they support out of D&D.

So, WotC's options seem to be:

- Make a D&D that caters primarily to the style best supported by the "core elements" of hit points, levels, classes and so on, maybe with additional "modules" as, essentially, a marketing gimmick.

- Publish a set of rules that don't really achieve coherent support for any style, but that have a few "buzzwords" and systems in them that will appeal to all sorts of roleplayers for marketing purposes. I don't believe the designers or developers at WotC would do this, actually, but the marketeers and business realities may suck them into it if things do not go well with the planned development.

- Abandon the "core elements" so as to make a game that supports playstyles dissimilar to those supported by the "core elements", in the hope that you can get a game that supports a wider range of styles by doing so (which, looking at other games which do support other styles, seems unlikely, since they, too, are limited in their coverage - just limited to a different range of styles).

As to the rest, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Sure.

 

[pemerton]

Han is absolutely an Ordinary Hero. He has no special abilities, no magical force to protect him, no massive amount of Hit Points...just the guts to dare things that others don't. Those guts are something that D&D does not, and has never, quantified.

Huh? On the mojo interpretation of hp, this is exactly what hp are.

The issue with HP are that they are applied all the time, despite there being situations where certain aspects of it don't apply.

In AD&D I would say that this isn't an issue, so much as a deliberate design decision (see Gygax on the rationale for saving throws, in particular - the whole point is that you get a save vs dragon breath even if you're chained helpless to a rock face).

The easiest way to change the game in 3E would be to multiply all damage taken outside of combat (eg falling, ambushes, dragon breath while chained helpless to a rock face) by the PC's level. (This is a tiny bit wonky because of the max hp at 1st level, but we'll probably cope. It will work fine for classic D&D up until the maximum HD are reached. It won't work for 4e, because damage in 4e is balanced against a much bigger pool of 1st level hp.)

 

[triqui]

You can dodge a Tyrannosauraus Rex. Wanna see how you dodge a lava pit if you're already falling.

-YRUSirius

Sure, you can. That's what happens if he fails. But as the Tyrannosaurus Rex has the "grab" ability and the "swallow whole" ability, you didn't. He BITED you, for sure, because you are grabbed (and swallowed next round). Same goes with a dragon that snatch you in his jaws.

So your character can, and routinarelly do, survive the 4d6+18 or whatever damage a Tyrannosaurus Rex bites do. Your character *should die* to a 10' jaw closing on them with a 5000 pound force. Actually, being human sized, he should be cut by half. Yet he didn't.

In your implementation of the game, where the 4d6+18 from the T.Rex should "kill you, period", fighting with T.Rexes (or dragons) is pretty much impossible. Characters die on first hit. Not very heroic.

I could say the same with a 15' giant hitting you with a maul that weights 2000lb. Or a 2000lb axe, for that matter.

That you selectivelly blind yourself so falling in lava *breaks your inmersion* but being completelly surrounded by a dragon's firebreath (arguabily hotter than lava) because you failed your save, or that falling from 100' should mean death, but being hit with a 2000lb maul by a creature that has enough stregth to lift a truck shouldn't, does not make it any more believable. It just makes you selectively blind.

 

[YRUSirius]

Yeah, exactly. I'm selectively blind. With purpose. I don't want characters to survive if they fall into lava. I don't want characters to survive if they fall a very high fall.

BUT: I DO want them to survive a T-Rex attack, I DO want them to survive a dragon's breath attack, etc. (T-Rex could just hit the arm, and have the adventurer in his mouth, the adventurer could duck behind his shield.)

What's my rationale? If a T-Rex swallows you I want the adventurer to survive and continue fighting even IN the T-Rex. If a dragon's breath is successfull I want the adventurer to be burned pretty badly, but I want him to continue. If he fall's a very big height I don't want him to continue to fight, I want him dead. He's smoosh. Nothing there to that could continue the fight. If he falls into lava he's marshmallowed and can't continue fighting cause he's stuck in the larva, he already burned down and all that (Terminator, goodbye).

So what exactly is the problem? Are you a player and want to keep on fighting if you fall from a specific height? Are you a DM and think that players actually care that much? Are you a rules layer who just looks at hit points without using common DM sense?

-YRUSirius

 

[triqui]

So what exactly is the problem?

Ingame coherence. Your proposal has none.

Are you a rules layer who just looks at hit points without using common DM sense?

It's not like you have any kind of common sense. You have a selective blindness that works for you because you are blind, but that does not make your "way to play D&D" possesing any kind of common sense. When a Huge Dragon comes and uses the "crush" ability and lands *on* your character, pinning him, that's 5+ tons crushing you. Making him survive because he has more HP than the crush damage does not make more "common sense" than surviving 100' falls in any sense. Actually, quite the opposite.

Your vision of the game completelly lacks of common sense. That you pretend otherwise using selective blindness does not change your senseless game at all. Just like you being color blind does not make strawberries become blue.

 

[YRUSirius]

When a Huge Dragon comes and uses the "crush" ability and lands *on* your character, pinning him, that's 5+ tons crushing you. Making him survive because he has more HP than the crush damage does not make more "common sense" than surviving 100' falls in any sense.

Okay, then let's use common sense, shall we? Why does a character survive a dragon stepping ON him that has a crush ability? Cause the dragon doesn't crush him completely, but only get's his arm, only his leg under his feet. Dragon still pins him down and the dragon still deals massive damage. The character survives this because I want him to survive this. I don't want characters to survive a very long fall, because they'd be careless because of their high hit points. I don't want characters to survive a high fall. As I said: Yes, I'm blind. But with purpose.

So how did Gandalf survive the fall from height, after the fight with the Balrog? Didn't he fall onto the balrog?

How does a character survive a 100 feet fall? Does he slow down the last 10 feet and lands savely? Does he use the tumble skill to negate falling damage? Does he use the tumble skill to negate damage from a fall into lava? o_<

Yeah, some people have survived a 100 feet fall. But what are the chances? 1 in a 500 chance? Okay, roll a percentile dice, if you roll a 100 your character survives the fall. But hit points are the wrong mechanic to decide this. End of story.

-YRUSirius

(Btw, didn't a Troll step on Aragorn or someone else during the movies?)

 

[Hussar]

What I wonder though, is why does people clinging so hard to D&D bother you so much?

As to never being able to understand, I'd say that as long as one continues to view D&D as only one specific type of game, playable in only one specific way, then of course one will never understand.

Because you are insisting that the game be changed to suit your tastes. That's why it bothers me. If I repeatedly insisted that Battlemechs be added to the rules, complete with classes, equipment and in-game justifications for their existence, would that be reasonable?

I certainly don't think so. Battlemechs have never really had much of a place in D&D and I probably wouldn't want to see them built into the game. It would make too many other things difficult. It screws with the game balance too much to have 50 foot tall plasma wielding mecha firing guided missiles in the game.

Unless you're playing Rifts. But, that's a bit of a different animal.

But, you're insisting that we should build into the game a baseline that has never been part of the game before and doing so in the name of being "inclusive" of other playstyles. Well, it's true that it is inclusive of other playstyles, but, somehow building in elements into the game which have never existed before, not to fix any perceived problems with the existing mechanics, but simply to cater to a segment of gamers that have been never been catered to before doesn't really seem like a good plan to me.

Not when doing so will make the game that has always been supported in every edition, virtually impossible.

Again, if it's a supplement book? No worries. Got not problems at all. But, you cannot have everyday heroes and zero to hero in the same set of rules. It just doesn't work. The end goals are too different.

It's not a case of being biased here. It's recognizing that NO version of D&D has ever done what you're suggesting. To build that into the baseline assumptions of the game would be a radical shift for the entire system. D20 as it is, does a very poor job of doing what you want. E6 is a prime example of this. To make D20 do what you're suggesting, E6 ejects well over 2/3rds of the game.

Hey, I get having wish lists. I do. There's all sorts of things I'd like to see in D&D. But, let's be realistic about this. I'm REALLY unlikely to get zone based combat rules as opposed to grid based or non-grid based. It's just not going to happen and I know that. I know that because zone based mechanics are FAR too far away from the simulationist veneer that people insist is part of D&D.

I would put your ideas in the same category. Great idea. Fun game. Not going to happen.

 

[triqui]

Okay, then let's use common sense, shall we? Why does a character survive a dragon stepping ON him that has a crush ability? Cause the dragon doesn't crush him completely, but only get's his arm, only his leg under his feet. Dragon still pins him down and the dragon still deals massive damage.

You keep *trying* to rationalize things. If that works for your selective blindness, fair game. If that's how you want to delude yourself, fair game. But don't try to tell us that your version is "more logic" or "more common sense", because it is not. A Tyrannosaurus Rex that bites a man in the arm kills him too. Instantly. Traumatic dismemberment does kill people you know. There was a kind of execution that worked like that. And there's no way a normal human being can be chewed by a 10' jaw with more than 3000 pound force pressure and remain attached to the body. It's as much impossible as it is to survive 100' fall, or more. Same goes with a 10ton creature landing on you from the skies, even if it is in your arm or leg.

Fact is: you *want* to believe D&D is realistic, although it is not, by any means. So when you see something you feel it is not realistic, like falling 100' and surviving, you rule it out, which is fine if that suits your style. When you find some other thing that isn't realistic, but that you CANT rule out because it simply destroys the game playability (like dragons instantly killing any human sized character they bite), your brain take the option to selectively blind yourself instead. You rationalize it, you skip it, you simply look to other side and prettend the incoherence is not there. But that's false, it's selective blindness. Your character WAS crushed by a dragon, who then DID snatch him with his giantsized claw, and then MOVED it to a 10' giantsized jaw with thousands of pounds in force, and CHEWED it, and firebreathing him with molten fire that is hotter than pure lava. Then he flied into the skies, drop him from mere 100', and suddenly your brain jumps and claim "THAT'S UNBELIABLE!!! HOW COULD A HUMAN BEING SURVIVE THAT FALL". If it works for you, that's ok. But I find it quite hilarious, to be honest.

So how did Gandalf survive the fall from height, after the fight with the Balrog? Didn't he fall onto the balrog?

Because he is a high level heroes. Heroes survive incredible damage all the time. Why on hell should a stupid fall kill Gandalf? He is able to fight for *weeks* against a giant sized demon that spread hot flames, and you care about falling damage? Beowulf fought one week underwater, holding his breath. Cuchulain eyes were sucked into his skull when he raged, and the warp spasm was so strong that his feet turned backwards. Several times. Why would something as stupid as a fall will damage them?

How does a character survive a 100 feet fall?

Like this, 50''

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Azykolhz4]"Why do we fall? So that we can learn to pick ourselves up." [Batman music video] - YouTube[/ame]

Like this, in 1'30'':
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZXw9LgQiRE]Fall For You (Bruce Wayne x Rachel Dawes --- The Dark Knight) - YouTube[/ame]

Like this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdk3b7sHdPA]"The Fugitive" (1993) - Inappropriate Soundtracks - YouTube[/ame]

Or like this, 2'30'':
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGuX0BuHp2w&feature=related]Underworld 1 2003 Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

Or like this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66imrid90UM&feature=related]Gandalf vs. Balrog Epic Battle 1080p - YouTube[/ame]

Or like this, 0,18'':
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwyLbX4uOS0&feature=relmfu]Sin City (6/12) Movie CLIP - Miho vs. Jackie Boy (2005) HD - YouTube[/ame]

It's not like surviving a fall is hard at all for heroes, isn't it? They do so in a regular basis.

But hit points are the wrong mechanic to decide this. End of story.

As much as they are to decide if your character survive being crushed, then snatch, then chewed by a 10 ton giant winged firrbreathing lizard.

 

[Balesir]

What's my rationale? If a T-Rex swallows you I want the adventurer to survive and continue fighting even IN the T-Rex. If a dragon's breath is successfull I want the adventurer to be burned pretty badly, but I want him to continue. If he fall's a very big height I don't want him to continue to fight, I want him dead. He's smoosh. Nothing there to that could continue the fight. If he falls into lava he's marshmallowed and can't continue fighting cause he's stuck in the larva, he already burned down and all that (Terminator, goodbye).

Okay, well, if it's simply down to arbitrary events that you want to do far more damage than others, how can that be handled with anything but a completely arbitrary game system? Just houserule a multiplier for all the sources of "damage" that you consider "non-U", like falling damage, lava damage, whatever.

You might get annoyed at how those precise damage sources become the "killer app" situations that characters try to manoeuvre their opponents into at every opportunity, but that's just a consequence of any arbitrary rule.

As much as they are to decide if your character survive being crushed, then snatch, then chewed by a 10 ton giant winged firrbreathing lizard.

Nuh-uh - dragons don't weigh 10 tons! One ton at most (they have bird-style bones and stuff). I have documentary proof; what you are suggesting here is unrealistic.