Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3793104" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.</blockquote>

Verification