Proposal -- YAFDHR (Yet Another Falling Damage House Rule)

[Herzog]

A lot of con-based rules switch to cha-based for creatures that don't have a constitution score (like fortitude save)

You could switch to cha-damage for falling damage (representing the reduced 'presence' the creature can impose?)

Also, this is only valid for corporeal creatures of course....

 

[Jeff Wilder]

A lot of con-based rules switch to cha-based for creatures that don't have a constitution score (like fortitude save)

Is that true for CON damage effects? I thought that was only true for things like calculating save DCs and the like.

In any event, doing CHA damage doesn't really feel like anything is breaking, you know? Does scuffing the brushed metal finish really make an iron golem less imposing?

 

[Herzog]

Is that true for CON damage effects?

No, creatures without a CON score are immune to con damage.
However, they shouldn't be immune to falling damage, so you need to find a replacement for that.
Since other con-related rules have shifted to CHA, that seemed the most reasonable to me.

Creatures without a CON score seem te be held together by something other than a normal life energy.
Undead are held together by negative energy, golems by some other type of magical force.
Reducing CHA for such creatures would make them look 'less together', as in their 'life force' has been reduced, giving them the appearance of being damaged, without having their hp reduced.

Of course, you can look for other ways to include creatures without con scores into this falling damage rule, but I think this is the most easy solution.

 

[Kerrick]

And none of these things will help you miss the ground, when you fall 40 feet. You are almost certainly going to suffer major trauma, and the only thing that's going to help you is some serious luck. (That's why I prefer 1d6-2 to 1d4 for base damage, and that's why I allow a last-ditch saving throw.)

The average damage for 1d6-2 is 1.5, as opposed to 2.5 for 1d4.

Not as simple: Roll CON damage normally. If the CON damage is equal to or greater than the creature's DR or hardness (or maybe twice the DR?), the creature is destroyed. DR X/bludgeoning is ignored for this purpose. If the CON damage doesn't meet or exceed the DR, the creature is unharmed.

I'd just roll damage (1d6/10') normally for constructs, but reduce it by 2 points per die (to a minimum of 0). This represents their inherent toughness - they're pretty sturdy and can take a lot of punishment. As for undead... I'd just roll damage for them too. Since they're still flesh and blood, not solid stone/metal/whatever, you would reduce damage by 1 point per die.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The average damage for 1d6-2 is 1.5, as opposed to 2.5 for 1d4.

The average damage for 1d6-2 is actually 1.67. My point was that I wanted the possibility of 0 damage per 10 feet, to represent sheer luck making a fall survivable.

I'd just roll damage (1d6/10') normally for constructs, but reduce it by 2 points per die (to a minimum of 0).

Why, if I'm doing hit point damage anyway, would I want constructs and undead to take less damage than they would by RAW?

 

[Kerrick]

The average damage for 1d6-2 is actually 1.67. My point was that I wanted the possibility of 0 damage per 10 feet, to represent sheer luck making a fall survivable.

Ah. Good point.

Why, if I'm doing hit point damage anyway, would I want constructs and undead to take less damage than they would by RAW?

It's like I said - constructs are sturdy. A stone golem falling 20 feet isn't going to suffer much more than a couple cracks (maybe) - it's solid stone. Undead are flesh and bone (or just bone), but they a) don't feel pain; and b) can take much more damage than a normal living being and keep coming. This is modeled in part by their huge Hit Die, but I don't see any reason why they couldn't take slightly less damage than a living being from a fall - a broken ankle or even a leg isn't going to slow a zombie much, if at all.

Sure, it's less than RAW, but if we're going to a Con-based damage system, who's going to notice? It should be in the RAW, really, but 3.5 isn't a really good exception-based system.

On a side note: Have you considered secondary effects based on the amount of Con damage a victim takes from falling? Say, if he's reduced to half his Con score, he suffers serious injuries and additional penalties (reduced move, attack/damage penalty, whatever).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It's like I said - constructs are sturdy. A stone golem falling 20 feet isn't going to suffer much more than a couple cracks (maybe) - it's solid stone. Undead are flesh and bone (or just bone), but they a) don't feel pain; and b) can take much more damage than a normal living being and keep coming.

All true, but why can't that just be represented by normal falling damage? A stone golem has 107 HP. Taking 15 or 20 points of falling damage does represent nothing worse than a couple of cracks, right?

(BTW, I'm actually not sure and my Rules Compendium is downstairs ... is normal falling damage subject to DR?)

On a side note: Have you considered secondary effects based on the amount of Con damage a victim takes from falling?

The only thing I considered was introducing a stun effect, but I eventually decided that wasn't really necessary. My goal with this is to make it as close to RAW as possible, while meeting my desire to have falling damage be largely unavoidable, as it should be. While secondary effects from CON damage (of all kinds) are more realistic, they're also part of the "death spiral," and D&D just doesn't want a death spiral, IMO.

 

[Ashtagon]

Why not just say "falls do Con damage (as written above) if the creature has a Con score. Creatures that have no Con score take hp damage according to RAW".

 

[Kerrick]

All true, but why can't that just be represented by normal falling damage? A stone golem has 107 HP. Taking 15 or 20 points of falling damage does represent nothing worse than a couple of cracks, right?

Yeah, I suppose so. Since everyone else is taking Con damage, having these two take straight hp damage would be different enough on its own.

(BTW, I'm actually not sure and my Rules Compendium is downstairs ... is normal falling damage subject to DR?)

No, it's not.

The only thing I considered was introducing a stun effect, but I eventually decided that wasn't really necessary. My goal with this is to make it as close to RAW as possible, while meeting my desire to have falling damage be largely unavoidable, as it should be. While secondary effects from CON damage (of all kinds) are more realistic, they're also part of the "death spiral," and D&D just doesn't want a death spiral, IMO.

True.

 

[Herzog]

My players finally came back with some feedback, and raised some valid points.

Some of them I could explain by quoting more recent parts of this discussion, but one of them remained:

the variation in falling damage according to size, coupled with the possibility to end up with 0 dmg when using negative modifiers on your dice creates the situation where large creatures will always take damage (1d6+2, a minimum of 3 con per 10') while smaller creatures might not get damaged at all (1d6-2', a minimum of 0 con per 10')

also, even when all size categories would use negative modifiers, the smaller creatures would have higher chances for survival from ANY height, since the chance to get 0 dmg per die would be larger.

My suggestion would be to switch to different dice (as in, use the size increase for damage die, Large creatures taking d8-2 dmg instead of d6-2, Huge creatures taking d10-2, etc.)

One of my players has started responding with his own progressions, using decreasing negative modifiers per height, but I think he's making things to complicated. To be complete, I'll post his suggestion here:

(NB: damage is per 10'):

Small(-1) Medium (0) Large(+1) at Height
1d6-5 ... 1d6-4 ...... 1d6-3 ...... 10ft
1d6-4 ... 1d6-3 ...... 1d6-2 ...... 20ft
1d6-3 ... 1d6-2 ...... 1d6-1 ...... 30ft
1d6-2 ... 1d6-1 ...... 1d6 ......... 40ft
1d6-1 ... 1d6 ......... 1d6+1 ...... 50ft