Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AZRogue" data-source="post: 4046124" data-attributes="member: 3963">I think the main issue is that falling damage IS covered in the RAW. Therefore, some people think that this rule, unless previously House Ruled (which would render all of this pointless), must be followed because this is how the physics of falling are handled in the game world.Basically (and I'm sure I'll mess this up somewhere), the Falling Damage rule is a direct reflection of the setting's nature itself. If you change it, fine, but that would mean (from their point of view) that you just changed the physics of the world.I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe that Falling Damage does not represent the physics of the world but, instead, is the way the game handles adjudicating the consequences of falling for a PC. Under casual circumstance it could also be used for NPCs, since it allows for quick and easy adjudication, but I believe that this is not necessary.&nbsp; Since, IMO, the rules do NOT reflect the physics of the world, but are in place to provide a fun heroic fantasy game for the players, I think that it is much more appropriate to not use the rule and instead adjudicate the situation in a way that MORE CLOSELY REFLECTS the physics of the game world. I think that a player who thinks that this is impossible because his character has survived much more dangerous falls is kind of metagaming. The character was &quot;lucky&quot; (partially what hit points represent) and should think that he barely escaped with his life--not conclude that every hero of his skill (level) can leap from tall buildings.But, once again, I don't begrudge anyone their style of play. It did surprise me at first because this is the first I've heard of it, and I've been playing since 1981 and DMing since 1985, with a wide variety of people including many gaming store games. I didn't realize that it was such a popular interpretation of what the rules represent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AZRogue, post: 4046124, member: 3963"] I think the main issue is that falling damage IS covered in the RAW. Therefore, some people think that this rule, unless previously House Ruled (which would render all of this pointless), must be followed because this is how the physics of falling are handled in the game world. Basically (and I'm sure I'll mess this up somewhere), the Falling Damage rule is a direct reflection of the setting's nature itself. If you change it, fine, but that would mean (from their point of view) that you just changed the physics of the world. I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe that Falling Damage does not represent the physics of the world but, instead, is the way the game handles adjudicating the consequences of falling for a PC. Under casual circumstance it could also be used for NPCs, since it allows for quick and easy adjudication, but I believe that this is not necessary. Since, IMO, the rules do NOT reflect the physics of the world, but are in place to provide a fun heroic fantasy game for the players, I think that it is much more appropriate to not use the rule and instead adjudicate the situation in a way that MORE CLOSELY REFLECTS the physics of the game world. I think that a player who thinks that this is impossible because his character has survived much more dangerous falls is kind of metagaming. The character was "lucky" (partially what hit points represent) and should think that he barely escaped with his life--not conclude that every hero of his skill (level) can leap from tall buildings. But, once again, I don't begrudge anyone their style of play. It did surprise me at first because this is the first I've heard of it, and I've been playing since 1981 and DMing since 1985, with a wide variety of people including many gaming store games. I didn't realize that it was such a popular interpretation of what the rules represent. [/QUOTE]

Verification