D&D 4E How should falling be handled in 4E?

[GreatLemur]

Aw, man, I forgot to say that falling damage also needs to factor in size. A goblin should have a better chance of surviving a fall than an ogre, obviously.

There are many ways to describe hp. Everyone I have ever encountered would apply to falling. What hp representation do you use?

Well, the usual explanation of why hit points increase with experience seems to be that it represents defensinve combat capability--the capacity to turn what would otherwise be a fatal attack into a glancing blow--more than it represents actual, physical toughness. It seems to me that combat experience wouldn't really help you a lot if you fell off a cliff (although acrobatic experience might).

Of course, there's also the conception of HP that includes "luck" or "dramatic importance" in the explanation, which kinda bothers my simulationist side, but if you're going with that version, then it would certainly apply to falling damage.

 

[Stalker0]

Well, the usual explanation of why hit points increase with experience seems to be that it represents defensinve combat capability--the capacity to turn what would otherwise be a fatal attack into a glancing blow--more than it represents actual, physical toughness.

Both are part of hp as described in the rules, you can' just ignore one side of it.

I think falling is fine. The "reality" is that high level fighters aren't just heroes they are defacto supermen. I remember the article a while back that described Gandalf as 5th level. By 10th level, fighters are just plain extraordinary.

Further lets combine the fact that most dnd fighters have a 16 to 18 base con, which is already a tiny fraction of the human population. And of course we can't include magic, the second you include that +2 con belt than you've thrown any time of physics reality out the window.

 

[Kraydak]

Aw, man, I forgot to say that falling damage also needs to factor in size. A goblin should have a better chance of surviving a fall than an ogre, obviously.

Well, the usual explanation of why hit points increase with experience seems to be that it represents defensinve combat capability--the capacity to turn what would otherwise be a fatal attack into a glancing blow--more than it represents actual, physical toughness. It seems to me that combat experience wouldn't really help you a lot if you fell off a cliff (although acrobatic experience might).

Of course, there's also the conception of HP that includes "luck" or "dramatic importance" in the explanation, which kinda bothers my simulationist side, but if you're going with that version, then it would certainly apply to falling damage.

Firstly, the "usual" explanation fails in describing almost every form of hp. Remember, you get your hp even when unaware of an attack, and it also doesn't work well with "proc on hit" abilities such as a poisonous bute.

Secondly, it forces PCs to be able to react and move on insanely fast time scales. Which also implies immense strength. Fast and strong enough to be able to take falls, as it happens. (200 arrows from 200 war 1s to generate 10d6 arrow damage against a high level fighter give the fighter about .03 seconds/arrow. 1/.03 meters/second=33 m/s is about 3 seconds worth of falling is noticeably over 100'. If the fighter can react meaningfully to the arrows, he can react meaningfully to the fall).

[hp descriptions that do mesh well with DnD include supernatural toughness (high level characters aren't mundane), supernatural luck (if the Fates are real...), divine providence (for the clericy types) and passive spells (somewhat like False Life, in many ways this is just a named source for supernatural toughness). I'm sure there are others, but those do cover the archtypes]

 

[GreatLemur]

Both are part of hp as described in the rules, you can' just ignore one side of it.

No, of course not. Otherwise, Constitution and the Toughness feat wouldn't contribute to HP. But the point is that that hit dice gained from experience supposedly don't represent actual, physical toughness.

Firstly, the "usual" explanation fails in describing almost every form of hp. Remember, you get your hp even when unaware of an attack, and it also doesn't work well with "proc on hit" abilities such as a poisonous bute.

Hell, I didn't say it was a good explanation. There are quite a lot of reasons why it doesn't work (healing magic is a good one), and why I'd prefer a system where HP were based solely on size and Con. But the defensive combat capability explanation is the one that I always see brought up when people point out the absurdity of high-level characters who keep fighting with a dozen axe wounds. I think it actually is the official explanation, but I could certainly be wrong.

I'm just saying that a combat veteran doesn't have any more or less reason to survive a straight fall than a farmer does.

 

[Kraydak]

No, of course not. Otherwise, Constitution and the Toughness feat wouldn't contribute to HP. But the point is that that hit dice gained from experience supposedly don't represent actual, physical toughness.

Hell, I didn't say it was a good explanation. There are quite a lot of reasons why it doesn't work (healing magic is a good one), and why I'd prefer a system where HP were based solely on size and Con. But the defensive combat capability explanation is the one that I always see brought up when people point out the absurdity of high-level characters who keep fighting with a dozen axe wounds. I think it actually is the official explanation, but I could certainly be wrong.
...
I'm just saying that a combat veteran doesn't have any more or less reason to survive a straight fall than a farmer does.

There have been a few, poor, suggestions in the rule books for what hp represent. I'm am unaware of any authoritative ones (especially of any authoritative ones that make any sense). The best way to mesh hp with other DnD rules is to have them represent actual, physical toughness. As I noted above, "defensive combat skill" actual gets *more* supernatural than supernatural durability.

[and it provides an actual reason to use bones as building material for high level BBEGs. the bones of heroes might actually be some of the toughest things around...]

 

[Stalker0]

I just had a thought about the whole toughness thing. We assume that when joe the fighter is fighting dragons, magical beasts, abberations, that they remain joe the fighter. Why?

These things have magical blood, magical claws, they do magical attacks no real person has ever experienced. Its not that much of a stretch to say a fighter would develop some extraordinary resilience, far beyond that of other men.

 

[GreatLemur]

The best way to mesh hp with other DnD rules is to have them represent actual, physical toughness. As I noted above, "defensive combat skill" actual gets *more* supernatural than supernatural durability.

I don't think it makes much sense to say that the ability to roll with a blow is more supernatural than the ability to withstand dozens of blows that would kill another man outright, but there are definintely a lot of elements of D&D that do suggest that hit points are simple durability. Like I said, it's not a situation that really makes a lot of sense.

I just had a thought about the whole toughness thing. We assume that when joe the fighter is fighting dragons, magical beasts, abberations, that they remain joe the fighter. Why?

These things have magical blood, magical claws, they do magical attacks no real person has ever experienced. Its not that much of a stretch to say a fighter would develop some extraordinary resilience, far beyond that of other men.

It could work, but it's definitely a very setting-specific kind of explanation.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I don't know about 4E, but Saga uses Fort defenses instead of savings throws. You don't save against poison; the poison makes an attack against your fort defense.

Seems like falling should go the same route. After all, it's not the fall that gets you--it's the sudden impact with the ground.

So, the ground makes an attack against your fort defense. Attack bonus is equal to the number of dice you just rolled (so, +1 per 10ft of height). Damage is 1d6 per 10', like always.

If you fall 20 feet, attack bonus is made at +2. Threatening to a first level guy with a Fort defense of 14, but not too bad. If you fall 200 feet, the attack bonus is +20. Even high level characters are in trouble. Things like spikes or other rough landing surfaces add to both attack bonus and damage. Soft surfaces like water or piles of leaves detract from attack bonus and damage.

If attack fails, you just take the damage. If attack succeeds, you're also crippled (penalty to attacks, speed, and defenses). If attack crits, you're crippled and take double damage.

So even short falls are dangerous if you land wrong (are critted), but not life-threatening: a crit from a 10' fall is still only 2d6, which isn't too bad even for 1st level characters. And long falls are scary, even for high level characters. As they should be. It's cool and fun to push enemies off cliffs, or be in danger of being pushed off a cliff. It's not fun to think "Sure, I could bull rush him off the three story balcony... but he'd only take 3d6. Meh; not worth it."

 

[lukelightning]

I just had a thought about the whole toughness thing. We assume that when joe the fighter is fighting dragons, magical beasts, abberations, that they remain joe the fighter. Why?

In my campaign (well, if I was runtning a game, that is), there are some people you can hit in the head with a hammer repeatedly and they just don't die. It's a given fact. People (and other beings too) just have more potential resiliance than they do in real life.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I think that the DMG should come with a ladder. Whenever a character falls, the player must climb the ladder, and then get knocked off. If the player is killed, so is the character, otherwise, no damage.

Later
silver