Flying into a Wall of Force effects?

[AuraSeer]

Player Cool Drago slides down the wall. I cast a sphere of WoF around his head. No breath weapon and instant stock and locks.

Read the spell description. "The wall of force must be continuous and unbroken when formed. If its surface is broken by any object or creature, the spell fails."

Since the sphere is broken by the dragon's neck, the spell would fizzle.

 

[Otterscrubber]

The fact that you'd imagine it does not mean that it would be so. Not if you want to maintain consistency with falling damage (which is, as Shalewind points out, very forgiving). But you certainly could always tell players that the creature got a nice bump. Or be wildly inconsistent and assess huge damage.

So, yes, I agree. Or you're agreeing with me. Or something. It's a little hard to tell whether you know you're agreeing, the way you put it. But nobody's keeping score.

Well let me be a little more clear. Slamming into a wall when going full speed should cause signfigant damage, you dont need physics to figure this out. If there is any doubt try running as fast as you can into a brick wall and then post here whether it hurts or not, if you still can. Keep in mind a brick wall is signifigantly softer than a wall of force. That's all I'm saying, the damage is not negilgible as someone posted earlier.

 

[AuraSeer]

Well let me be a little more clear. Slamming into a wall when going full speed should cause signfigant damage[...]

Maybe it should, but it doesn't. In D&D, slamming into large immovable objects simply does not cause very much damage. Proof? Let's look at the largest, most immovable object there is: the ground.

Jumping out a 5th-story window onto concrete is about a 50' drop. At the point of impact, you're moving at about 55 feet per second.

55' per second means to 330' per round. An adult red dragon taking a double move moves 300' per round. So if a dragon double-moved straight into the ground, or a Wall of Force, or any other hard flat surface, it'd be nonsense for him to take more damage than from a 50' fall.

If you fail your Tumble and Jump checks, and therefore land badly, that fall will do 5d6 damage. So the dragon should take that much at the very most.

(Disclaimer: Applying physics to game rules is always suspect, so the physical details here aren't essential. The point is that collision damage is not very severe in D&D.)

 

[LokiDR]

Well let me be a little more clear. Slamming into a wall when going full speed should cause signfigant damage, you dont need physics to figure this out. If there is any doubt try running as fast as you can into a brick wall and then post here whether it hurts or not, if you still can. Keep in mind a brick wall is signifigantly softer than a wall of force. That's all I'm saying, the damage is not negilgible as someone posted earlier.

Running into a brick wall does not have a large chance of killing a person. In D&D terms, a average person only has a few levels. 2d6 is plenty to kill the average person. Hence, there isn't too much to be gained from the example.

I do believe that hitting a wall you did not see when moving at top speed should do more damage, for the speed, than falling. All creatures when falling have a natural instinct to minimize the damage. You put your hands out when you fall for example, better you hands/arms than your head. If you have no idea of the impact, these instincts don't kick in.

I would like to recind my earlier comments on being stunned. If you don't get stunned by any blow in D&D unless they use pressure points (monk), an impact with a wall shouldn't either.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

All creatures when falling have a natural instinct to minimize the damage. You put your hands out when you fall for example, better you hands/arms than your head. If you have no idea of the impact, these instincts don't kick in.

A fine point, but note that you can already do this to a degree in D&D by making Jump and Tumble checks, in which case you take even less damage. Or are you prepared to institute more complicated rules for creatures who fall when they are somehow impaired from attempting to control their fall?

 

[Number47]

I am going to go with speed divided by 60 in d6 dice for damage. I pull the 60 by reading the description of Feather Fall. "The rate of falling is instantly changed to a mere 60 feet a round, equivalent to the end of a fall from a few feet". So for a creature moving 30-60, 1d6. 65-120, 2d6. 125-180, 3d6. I don't think I would cause any damage to incur for a creature moving slower than 30. He simply isn't moving fast enough to cause D&D hit point damage.

 

[Lord Thurham]

I am going to go with speed divided by 60 in d6 dice for damage. I pull the 60 by reading the description of Feather Fall. "The rate of falling is instantly changed to a mere 60 feet a round, equivalent to the end of a fall from a few feet". So for a creature moving 30-60, 1d6. 65-120, 2d6. 125-180, 3d6. I don't think I would cause any damage to incur for a creature moving slower than 30. He simply isn't moving fast enough to cause D&D hit point damage.

This is very interesting, when I did the math, I used a 3 second move-equivalent rather than the full 6 second round. Since during combat, I had assumed that the ME was about 3 seconds and a Standard Action is about 3 seconds. There are exceptions of course due to special actions. If I were to go off of the full 6 second round, then the first 1d6 would occur at 150' movement rate according to the velocity speed. The velocity at the time of impact for a 10' fall is 25.3 feet per second. The velocity of a 150' movement rate is 150' divide by 6 seconds = 25 feet per second.

Hmmm... Back to the drawing board for more physics... ARGH!!!

LT

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I know the dmg there are rules for dropping objects on people based on weight and distance fallen. What I can't remember is if the wieght issue effects the damage a heavy thing takes from a fall. It should to some degree, but probably not as much as they ahve down for daamge form an object falling on you.

I'd probably go for a dragon, speed/60=d6+the damage a dragon does from jumping on you. I think the maneuver is in the 2d12 range, got no books at work so I'm unsure what the big dragon butt stomp does damage wise.

 

[Shalewind]

Physics in DnD!? Bah I say, Bah!

Take Bob the Barbarian. Bob has a Strength of 14, 40 base speed, and the Run feat. Carrying up to 116 lbs and taking a full sprint (x5 move) he can cover 200 ft in a round (40' x5). That's 33.33 ft/s or 22.7 MPH. Bear in mind this is without magic. The fastest man in the world with good running shoes, flat terrain, and no weight carried, can move 22-23 MPH over a very short distance. Bob can do this a lot longer than that. Physics in DnD, bah i say ::

If you want another absurb application of phsyics:
A Monk's fast movement becomes Supernatural at 9th level. Meaning that up until that point, he is totally using reality, skin, flesh, and bone, no magic. That means a ground speed of 50ft. That means a Monk can run 41.7 ft/s or 28.4 MPH without much of a problem if he wants to. (and has the Run feat)

This isn't reality. It's DnD. It's heroic fantasy. A 49 hp fighter can fall off an 80 foot building and have ZERO chance of dying. So, a dragon can fly into a wall and not be hurt. And all my running fool characters can do things better and faster than Michael Johnson and Donovan Bailey. Realism carries as much as you want it to. But justifying the core rules by using real life physics is a bit like swimming upstream in a flood. Just my little take on the matter.

 

[Lord Thurham]

Physics in DnD!? Bah I say, Bah!

This isn't reality. It's DnD. It's heroic fantasy. A 49 hp fighter can fall off an 80 foot building and have ZERO chance of dying. So, a dragon can fly into a wall and not be hurt. And all my running fool characters can do things better and faster than Michael Johnson and Donovan Bailey. Realism carries as much as you want it to. But justifying the core rules by using real life physics is a bit like swimming upstream in a flood. Just my little take on the matter.

I agree, Physics has no place in DnD. I know that the falling damage taken from a 80' fall is no comparison to real life. I mainly did the math to find the relationship of velocity at the end of a 1d6 fall, vs the velocity of running into a wall at normal movement or even a doublemove. As it is turning out to be, a character with a normal 30' movement would have to be maxed out on running with the run feat before the character is traveling at the same velocity as falling 10'. Would 1d6 kill a creature or character capable of moving 150'? Probably not, but it would stop em dead in their tracks, which is the effect that I think my player is looking for. No foward movement = falling to the ground unless you regain your flight mode. I haven't made a final ruling on this yet, but I'm leaning toward no damage in the first 150', then 1d6/60' increment after that. It's not much, but it's in line with the existing falling damage. But then that darn Feather Fall spell comes along with the 60' deal... so, it's kinda a toss up.



LT