IceFractal
First Post
Just a minor point, but I've noticed that faster-than-linear falling damage (such as 1d6 for 10', 3d6 for 20', 6d6 for 30') is often listed as being more accurate. However, it's actually the reverse - falling damage should scale slower than distance.
Reason:
1) Damage is presumably proportional to force.
2) The force is directly proportional to the velocity right before hitting the ground.
3) V = D / sqrt(D / 32), because V = 32T and D = 32T^2
4) So as you can see, velocity, and therefore force, scale at a slower than linear rate with distance - and if we were being realistic, so should damage. This isn't even taking terminal velocity into account.
Some quick figures:
After falling 10': 17.9 fps
After falling 50': 40 fps
After falling 100': 56.6 fps
After falling 150': 69.2 fps
After falling 200': 80 fps
Reason:
1) Damage is presumably proportional to force.
2) The force is directly proportional to the velocity right before hitting the ground.
3) V = D / sqrt(D / 32), because V = 32T and D = 32T^2
4) So as you can see, velocity, and therefore force, scale at a slower than linear rate with distance - and if we were being realistic, so should damage. This isn't even taking terminal velocity into account.
Some quick figures:
After falling 10': 17.9 fps
After falling 50': 40 fps
After falling 100': 56.6 fps
After falling 150': 69.2 fps
After falling 200': 80 fps