Mishihari Lord
First Post
Falling should do Constitution damage
Gravity
- Thread starter AffableVagrant
- Start date
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
None. It's practically an axiom that if a bad guy falls down a chasm, is sent to a dimension of pure pain, is seen to be crushed under a large object, or meets any other putative demise that prevents the recovery of his body, he survives and will return at a dramatic moment to seek revenge.Rechan said:
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
The fighter in my party could meet the gaze of a basilisk and resist being petrified. Not only is it impossible in real life to avoid being turned to stone because you're simply a tough hombre (an effect that can cause quantum reconstruction of your atomic structure is unlikely to take into consideration how bad-ass you are), he didn't even need to use a mirror to accomplish this.Tewligan said:
fix this too, 4e!
People talk about hypothetical fighters jumping off 100' cliffs for a lark, or for a quick way down to the bottom. I've never seen this behavior in 27 years of play, though. If fighters jumping off cliffs "because they can" is extremely rare, is the survivability of falls that big of a problem?
If I had a player act like this, I'd make him regret it, for the following reason. The player may know that his character has 100 HP, and that he will only take 10d6 damage from a 100' fall, but the character only knows that it looks like it's a long way down. Someone using meta-game knowledge like that isn't roleplaying very well, IMO. In my game, if someone were to fall by accident, or due to enemy action, I'd just assess 10d6 damage. If they jumped on purpose because of meta-game considerations, I'd still give them only 10d6 damage - and maybe a broken leg or concussion for their foolishness.
If I had a player act like this, I'd make him regret it, for the following reason. The player may know that his character has 100 HP, and that he will only take 10d6 damage from a 100' fall, but the character only knows that it looks like it's a long way down. Someone using meta-game knowledge like that isn't roleplaying very well, IMO. In my game, if someone were to fall by accident, or due to enemy action, I'd just assess 10d6 damage. If they jumped on purpose because of meta-game considerations, I'd still give them only 10d6 damage - and maybe a broken leg or concussion for their foolishness.
Sundragon2012
First Post
I houseruled this nonsense back in 1e and have continued to do so.
Here's what I do:
10ft: 1d6
20ft: 3d6
30ft: 6d6
40ft: 9d6
50ft: 12d6
60ft: 15d6
70ft: 20d6
80ft: 25d6
90ft: 30d6
+5d6 per 10ft. fallen after this point so you can see the progression.
The whole D&D characters are superheroes thing is BS in my opinion. The reason someone with 95hp can take several hits from a longsword is because D&D combat is abstract and most of those blows don't even really hit their target. D&D has always suffered under the weight of a pretty dumb damage system and hopefully 4e will fix some of this. Whatever else needs fixing needs to be houseruled.
As to someone falling a preposterous height and surviving in real life, well that was a one in a million freak of nature. In D&D such falls can happen on more than one occasion with more than one person falling. I'm sorry but it stretches fantasy into absurdity when a high level party falls 500' and then, like Wiley Coyote, climg out of the body-shaped holes in the ground, brush themselves off and continue their journey. The abstract hit point system breaks when there is NO way around the damage....you fall 500' you hit the ground....no way around it.
D&D doesn't simulate reality in all things to be sure but we have certain assumptions regarding the reality of the setting. We assume that male and female humans have gender appropriate primary and secondary sexual characteristics, steel is harder than foam, fire is hot, ice is cold, its dark at night and light in the morning, nearly all living creatures need to eat and drink to stay alive, and giant winged watermelons don't take to the skies every sunset and a housecat cannot take down a dragon with a good critical hit.
Fantasy is not synonomous with absurdity.
Sundragon
Here's what I do:
10ft: 1d6
20ft: 3d6
30ft: 6d6
40ft: 9d6
50ft: 12d6
60ft: 15d6
70ft: 20d6
80ft: 25d6
90ft: 30d6
+5d6 per 10ft. fallen after this point so you can see the progression.
The whole D&D characters are superheroes thing is BS in my opinion. The reason someone with 95hp can take several hits from a longsword is because D&D combat is abstract and most of those blows don't even really hit their target. D&D has always suffered under the weight of a pretty dumb damage system and hopefully 4e will fix some of this. Whatever else needs fixing needs to be houseruled.
As to someone falling a preposterous height and surviving in real life, well that was a one in a million freak of nature. In D&D such falls can happen on more than one occasion with more than one person falling. I'm sorry but it stretches fantasy into absurdity when a high level party falls 500' and then, like Wiley Coyote, climg out of the body-shaped holes in the ground, brush themselves off and continue their journey. The abstract hit point system breaks when there is NO way around the damage....you fall 500' you hit the ground....no way around it.
D&D doesn't simulate reality in all things to be sure but we have certain assumptions regarding the reality of the setting. We assume that male and female humans have gender appropriate primary and secondary sexual characteristics, steel is harder than foam, fire is hot, ice is cold, its dark at night and light in the morning, nearly all living creatures need to eat and drink to stay alive, and giant winged watermelons don't take to the skies every sunset and a housecat cannot take down a dragon with a good critical hit.
Fantasy is not synonomous with absurdity.
Sundragon
Corathon said:
But the *character* knows the rules the universe he lives in operates by. It would be a bizarre case of meta-gaming for a high level fighter to *not* jump down a 100' cliff if the tactical situation called for it... He knows he can take it in the same way that he knows he can take a fireball from an equal level wizard (which would fry a commoner 1).
I will say that I find the arguement that HP represent "getting out of harm's way in the nick of time" to be questionable at best. It certainly doesn't mesh with "proc on hit" effects like a poisonous bite. (having watched some Naruto, I find that it has a decent hp system representation. the characters are, literally, tougher than rock, in part because, like any mid to high level DnD character, they are no longer entirely human, but rather semi-supernatural)
I like the idea of a Fortitude save or death followed by a wide range of constitution damage. There could be enough variation in that to account for the "you happen to land in a wagon full of hay" but it takes away the certainty.
Or treat it like a coup-de-grace. The similarity is that in normal combat there is a chance to miss, whereas in the falling situation the ground is pretty much going to hit you (like the executioner with the axe) and it's only extraordinary circumstances that will save you.
Or treat it like a coup-de-grace. The similarity is that in normal combat there is a chance to miss, whereas in the falling situation the ground is pretty much going to hit you (like the executioner with the axe) and it's only extraordinary circumstances that will save you.
Celebrim
Legend
The big problem with the current rules is that the DM sets the height of the fall. The DM sets the height of the fall based on the game he needs to inflict to make it a reasonable threat to a PC of a given level.
So the fact is, changing the rules on falling only changes how deep the pits are. It has no other real impact.
That said, the simulationist in me wants a little more versimilitude than the current system gives. Over my career I've waffled between two different rules: 1d6/level cumulative and 1d20/level divided by 1d6. Both rules work pretty well.
The first rule gives you a nice predictable amount of damage. It works really well for reducing the depth of those pits to something more realistic without changing the way the game plays much. The problem with that of course is character still take dives off 50' cliffs knowing he's going to survive it no problem.
The second rule works really nice for keeping that from happening. Unfortunately it does this by making falls really unpredictable and often lethal. The average damage is about the same as the current rules, but roll a '1' on your 'save' and even 30' pits can be really dicy (if you know what I mean).
In 1st edition, it was enough to cap falling damage at 200' or something. But that's because characters rarely had more than 100 hp - 20d6 would kill most anything. Third edition calls for a much higher damage cap, say in the 40d6 range.
This is probably in my top 10 things I expected to see them fix in 4e.
Presently, I don't expect them to change a thing.
So the fact is, changing the rules on falling only changes how deep the pits are. It has no other real impact.
That said, the simulationist in me wants a little more versimilitude than the current system gives. Over my career I've waffled between two different rules: 1d6/level cumulative and 1d20/level divided by 1d6. Both rules work pretty well.
The first rule gives you a nice predictable amount of damage. It works really well for reducing the depth of those pits to something more realistic without changing the way the game plays much. The problem with that of course is character still take dives off 50' cliffs knowing he's going to survive it no problem.
The second rule works really nice for keeping that from happening. Unfortunately it does this by making falls really unpredictable and often lethal. The average damage is about the same as the current rules, but roll a '1' on your 'save' and even 30' pits can be really dicy (if you know what I mean).
In 1st edition, it was enough to cap falling damage at 200' or something. But that's because characters rarely had more than 100 hp - 20d6 would kill most anything. Third edition calls for a much higher damage cap, say in the 40d6 range.
This is probably in my top 10 things I expected to see them fix in 4e.
Presently, I don't expect them to change a thing.
IceFractal
First Post
Someone, I can't remember who right now, made a very good case that the highest level any actual historical person ever reached was 5th level. Einstein? 5th level. Genghis Khan? 5th level.
The scale was roughly:
1st level - Most people
2nd level - Highly competent people; they could start a successful business, for example.
3rd level - Exceptional people
4th level - World-famous people (olympic athletes, nobel prize winners, etc)
5th level - Historically-famous people
Then you have legendary people at 6th-7th people (Aragorn was pegged at 5th-6th level, for instance), the stuff of epics at 8th-9th level, and mythical heroes like Hercules at 10th level (and Hercules might not even be 10th level, this is approximate). And from there, it just goes up higher.
So the question is: Does it seem reasonable that Hercules could fall off that building and walk away? IMO, yes it does.
I mean, a 10th level character is CR 10. CR 10 includes things like Nine-headed Hydras, Fire Giants, Adult Dragons, and scorpions the size of a house. Those things are not normal creatures and 10th level characters are not normal people.
NOTE: I'm using 3E levels here - in 4E, for instance, if they go with the 4-14 = 1-30 we've heard mentioned, level 18 is the new level 10.
The scale was roughly:
1st level - Most people
2nd level - Highly competent people; they could start a successful business, for example.
3rd level - Exceptional people
4th level - World-famous people (olympic athletes, nobel prize winners, etc)
5th level - Historically-famous people
Then you have legendary people at 6th-7th people (Aragorn was pegged at 5th-6th level, for instance), the stuff of epics at 8th-9th level, and mythical heroes like Hercules at 10th level (and Hercules might not even be 10th level, this is approximate). And from there, it just goes up higher.
So the question is: Does it seem reasonable that Hercules could fall off that building and walk away? IMO, yes it does.
I mean, a 10th level character is CR 10. CR 10 includes things like Nine-headed Hydras, Fire Giants, Adult Dragons, and scorpions the size of a house. Those things are not normal creatures and 10th level characters are not normal people.
NOTE: I'm using 3E levels here - in 4E, for instance, if they go with the 4-14 = 1-30 we've heard mentioned, level 18 is the new level 10.
Similar Threads
Shadowdark
Finally Played Shadowdark
