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

[Jeff Wilder]

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')

Yes, that's possible. It's the point, in fact. (Although it'll help to be careful with terminology. A Large creature (as opposed to large creature) takes 1d6-1/10 ft. It's not until you get to Colossal that you're looking at 1d6+2/10 ft.)

A squirrel falling from 30 or 40 feet will very often end up uninjured. (Squirrels fall from trees pretty constantly.) A horse is in a lot more trouble.

The simplest thing to do if you don't like the size modifiers is to simply say the 1d6-2/10 ft. applies to all sizes. The system is still 10 times better than the RAW. (He said, modestly.)

 

[Herzog]

My players agree with the squirl/horse differences.

What they have problems with is the difference between Small and Medium sized creatures. (and, to a lesser degree, Large creatures) They think the difference in survival chance is unrealistic:

Small creatures have a 50% chance each 10' to take NO damage (1d6-3)
Medium creatures have a 33% chance each 10' to take no damage (1d6-2)
Large creatures have a 16,67% chance each 10' to take no damage (1d6-1)

The chance a dog (Small creature) survives a fall from a specific height is not significantly higher than the chance a human (Medium creature) survives.

I think dropping the scaling thing might be a bit too drastic, but maybe something spanning two size categories? (1d6-2 for Small and Medium, 1d6-3 for Tiny and Diminiuative, 1d6-1 for Large and Huge?)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I think dropping the scaling thing might be a bit too drastic, but maybe something spanning two size categories?

I actually do like that more from a damage-results perspective. I'm just not sure I like it enough more to mess with the otherwise simple size-category/increase-or-decrease mechanic.

What do other folks think?

 

[Achan hiArusa]

I always preferred to keep Gygax's maximum, but not within 200 feet. I just make it 1d6/10' with a maximum of 210d6 for a fall of 2100 feet. The character may make a reflex save vs. DC 10 + 1 per 10 feet fallen to halve the damage (evasion does not apply) or an acrobatics check of the same DC to reduce the amount fallen.

But if you want to do physics:

Terminal Velocity is 200 mph which is 1760 feet/rd
The acceleration due to gravity is 32.2 ft/s² which is 193.2 ft/rd
Using v²-v_o² = 2gx we get terminal velocity is reached at 8016 feet, with significant figures that would be 8020 feet. So max falling damage should be 802d6.

But then I've always ran with the idea that increasing damage is exponential. Based on the Masque of the Red Death dynamite rules and the 1st Edition DMG, I made explosive damage equal to 6*(log₂{number of dynamite sticks} + 1)d6 which allows me to make nukes without going crazy on damage dice. There are about 3556 sticks of dynamite (using an 0.62 pound stick) to a metric ton, but dynamite has 1.6 times the explosive power of TNT, thus making the equivelent 2181 sticks of dynamite to a ton.

Long story short, in that case max falling damage is 58d6.

 

[Janx]

just saw this from the stuff to use from 4e thread for 3e.

the drowning rule is good. HP damage should be for things that obviously damage your body (stabs, broken limbs, etc). Make note that damage is temporary.

the falling rule, not so good. It looks cumbersome. It's also not immediately clear how to heal the damage (assuming they survive), without looking up such rules for stat damage.

The real problem is the 20d6 cap. They justification of "it takes 200 feet to reach terminal velocity" is what I remember from 2e's justification of it. Fact is, the higher you fall from, the lower your chance of survival. You can simulate that by making the damage rolled higher, based on the height.

Barring the inconvenience of rolling 100d6 for a 1,000 foot fall, that'll get the message to the barbarian that falling is bad. And make it unlikely he'll survive (though it is possible).

Heck, throw in a rule that after 100feet, you just roll 2d6 and multiply it by how many 20' intervals there are (thus making it 2d6x10)

 

[Sylrae]

I would think there should be a few ways out of the falling damage thing.

1. A Con Save, prior to damage, to reduce damage (not divide it by half, but just like a DR based on the result of the save), if you bend your legs as you hit the ground, youre less likely to hurt yourself. obviously, this will become less important at large heihts, so you should be able to completely negate it from 10 feet, (for instance) and by 100 feet, the amount you negate is likely negligible.
2. A Reflex Save, on impact, for people with training, if you maneuver properly, falling momentum can be transformed (mostly or partly) into forward momentum. Thats why when you throw a martial artist and they roll they take less damage then some idiot in a bar who gets thrown and takes it all on their head.
3. There should be a reflex save every so many feet to catch stuff on the way down, either to slow your fall, or to not have to hit the ground.

as for undead, I dont like your variants for them, but ill see if i can come up with something. I think theyre in the right direction, but I think they need tweaking.

 

[el-remmen]

I think I am going to adapt your drowning rules. Thanks!

I don't like the falling as much, but since we are talking about consequences of falling, and having the unfortunate experience of having the wind knocked out of me from a bad fall (I remember the first time it happened thinking that I always considered that just an expression! Holy crap is that unpleasant!) - since my 1E days I have required saves to avoid being stunned immediately after a fall.

For all falls greater than 10' - I require a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 2 / 10' for fall - thus a fall of 40' would required a DC 18 Fort save) or be stunned for 1 round per 10' of the fall.

A successful Jump or Tumble check to lessen the height lessens the DC for the Fort save and duration the same amount and adds a +2 circumstance bonus to the save roll.

 

[Kerrick]

I like that. I've had it happen to me, too, and it's not pleasant.

 

[Noumenon]

since my 1E days I have required saves to avoid being stunned immediately after a fall.

Hey! I really like that! #1 -- it is realistic. #2 -- it hurts all characters no matter how many HP they have (doesn't slay the first levels or let the 20th levels off scot free).

For all falls greater than 10' - I require a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 2 / 10' for fall - thus a fall of 40' would required a DC 18 Fort save) or be stunned for 1 round per 10' of the fall.

A successful Jump or Tumble check to lessen the height lessens the DC for the Fort save and duration the same amount and adds a +2 circumstance bonus to the save roll.

This seems a little complicated. Would just being stunned and prone for one round be enough penalty? How about making the Fort DC equal to the damage dealt? With d6s that would be DC 7 for a 20 foot fall and DC 35 for a 100 foot fall -- that seems right on. With d10s like 4E uses it would be DC 11 for 20 feet and DC 55 for 100 feet -- basically auto stun after 60 feet.

 

[Kerrick]

This seems a little complicated. Would just being stunned and prone for one round be enough penalty? How about making the Fort DC equal to the damage dealt? With d6s that would be DC 7 for a 20 foot fall and DC 35 for a 100 foot fall -- that seems right on. With d10s like 4E uses it would be DC 11 for 20 feet and DC 55 for 100 feet -- basically auto stun after 60 feet.

It would certainly be simpler, yes. DC = damage works for me.