My Falling Damage House Rules

[KarinsDad]

Someone requested my falling damage house rules, so here they are straight out of the document. Enjoy.


Falling is VERY dangerous. Short falls are temporarily debilitating. Longer falls have longer term effects. Falling has the following effects:

1D6 damage per 5 feet fallen above 5 feet. The first D6 is subdual damage, the rest is real.

Reflex save for half damage. The DC is based on the amount of damage done (the Evasion ability does not affect this save). So, if a character falls 20 feet for 12 points of damage (3 subdual and 9 real), there is a DC 12 reflex save to take 1 subdual point and 4 real (the damages are treated separately for round down purposes). Dazed, stunned, unconscious, and disabled (e.g. tied up) characters do not get a reflex save and take full damage.

1D6 of Dexterity and 1D6 of Constitution for every 15 foot fallen. Half of this if the reflex save is made. So, 60+ feet falls can be deadly to almost all characters, regardless of level since the save DC will often be 40+.

The rest of the falling rules will basically be used as written:

Soft landing (mud or soft ground): second D6 is subdual damage
Jump save failed: second D6 is subdual damage (cumulative with soft landing)
Jump save made: subtract 10 feet from the distance and proceed as if jump save failed
Water deeper than 10 feet: subtract 20 feet from the distance, 1D3 subdual per 10 foot for next 20 feet, and then normal falling damage (cumulative with jumping, but not soft landing).

Diving: water must be 10 feet deep per 30 feet dived, DC 15 Swim or Tumble check to succeed, DC +1 per 10 feet in dive.

 

[KarinsDad]

Shoot. I hate when I do that.

Would a moderator please move this to the house rules forum? Thanks.

 

[Grazzt]

Moved as per your request, KD.

 

[Kodam]

Hi!

I like the Idea of suffering "bad conditions" from a fall very much. Dazed, stunned, incapacitated would propably fit, and it could be avoided by a Fort-Save. As DC I'd suggest 30 + 1 for each 10 ft. of falling to avoid becoming dazed, 20 + 1/10ft for stunned and 10 + 1/10ft. for incapacitated. The condition would lighten by one step per round.

No more Mid-level Barbs surprising enemy armys by jumping down this 50ft. chasm and making a full attack in the first round of combat (rising in the surprise round)!

Like it?

Kodam

 

[Henry]

Very interesting - the rules have a "realistic simulation" feel.

The main reason I wouldn't use them for my games is their complexity. We've kept with the basic rules on falling so far, but if I feel the need, I plan to ramp it up to falling directly doing CON damage, or as you suggest CON and DEX. Perhaps 1d6-1 per 10 feet. That simulates the "being all broken up" when you hit the bottom, and gives them that one in a million chance from a high fall not to break any bones at all.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Is it Dex and Con damage, or drain?

I like the idea of the save being based on the damage done, btw.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've long toyed with the possibility of including ability damage as a result of personal experience in even 10ft falls... my dexterity and strength were dramatically reduced for a week or so. I've never actually bitten the bullet and decided to introduce it though.

At present I discourage jumping by the thoroughly unscientific method of adding dice at each 10ft increment. 1d6 for 10ft, +2 for 3d6 at 20ft, +3 for 6d6 at 30ft, 10d6 at 40ft etc.

Cheers

 

[Kae'Yoss]

To be honest, I don't really like them. As it has been said, they are quite complex.

In addition, they aren't consistent with the rest of the rules. While with your rules, A fall can reduce my mobility and health in addition to the damage taken (talking about the con and dex damage), I can be crit'ed by a scythe-wielding barbarian, losing much more than the equivalent of 100 ft falling and bringing me to within an inch of my life, and suffer no ill effects - no bleeding, no strength or dexterity lost due to severe bloodloss, need to hold in my intestines, or lost limbs.
Why has falling to be so much more lethal than being head-on with several ft of sharp metal (make that several yards witha titan's sword)?

Also, not allowing evasion is inconsistent also: The rogue can be in the middle of a quartet of meteors falling direclty beside him, escaping unharmed, yet he cannot avoid the damage from falling?

I mean, sure: Surviving a fall from great heights, or even escaping it unharmed is absurd, but so is surviving the direct hit from a very big weapon or even a meteor. D&D isn't about realism, but when you want to put it in, go all the way. (If your rules contain rules to make every damage more dangerous, risking crippling wounds etc., you can ignore everything above and I just say: I don't like it too realistic)

 

[Cheiromancer]

Players don't have direct experience of falling meteors and scythe-wielding barbarians, and so are willing to accept a more abstract treatment. Falling, however, is within our experience, and a little more detail helps us suspend our disbelief.

And as for its complexity... if it is something to be feared and avoided, a certain recondite quality to the calculations is appropriate.

 

[Storminator]

I've long toyed with the possibility of including ability damage as a result of personal experience in even 10ft falls... my dexterity and strength were dramatically reduced for a week or so. I've never actually bitten the bullet and decided to introduce it though.

At present I discourage jumping by the thoroughly unscientific method of adding dice at each 10ft increment. 1d6 for 10ft, +2 for 3d6 at 20ft, +3 for 6d6 at 30ft, 10d6 at 40ft etc.

Cheers

This is what I use as well. Works beautifully. Also makes those Jump and Tumble checks, as well as Slow Fall, very important. A mid level monk can Jump down, Slow Fall 20', and Tumble at the end to take 1d6 from a 50' fall. The fighter will take 15d6, which makes the monk's jump look really impressive.

PS