Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 4452041" data-attributes="member: 5122">Actually, the drowning rules are significantly less lethal.&nbsp; In RAW, a PC dies in three rounds, automatically.&nbsp; In my rules, the PC can survive longer, though someone with an average CON will still die, on average, in three rounds.That's not the intent, but ... should it be?&nbsp; I admit, all I know about drowning, I learned from &quot;Baywatch.&quot;&nbsp; In TV and the movies, people drown and are fine immediatey thereafter, that's true.&nbsp; In RAW, the lost HP aren't temporary, though, and that's more what I was mirroring.Yeah, I actually considered that.&nbsp; I ultimately rejected it because it will lead to &quot;guaranteed&quot; deaths from much shorter falls.&nbsp; People do (very occasionally) survive long falls, and I wanted that reflected in the potential damage, not just in the saving throw.FWIW, I agree about the slight clunkiness, but I don't really mind.&nbsp; Falling any serious distance is a fairly rare event in our games.&nbsp; (It's just that when it happens, the mechanics bug the crap out of me.)I woulda thought this line -- &quot;[f]or falling, 3E simply uses hit points, which leads to ridiculous results&quot; -- was a pretty good indication.&nbsp; I want something that models reality slightly better.&nbsp; I'm not looking for &quot;perfect;&quot; I'm just looking for &quot;not ridiculous.&quot;&quot;Possible&quot;?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; It's very unlikely, though.&nbsp; The average CON damage per 10 feet is 1.67.&nbsp; Long falls are very likely to kill.&nbsp; Short falls may do little or nothing.&nbsp; (&quot;Just twisted my ankle.&quot;)All of that is intentional, though I'm not sure what you mean by the last.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 4452041, member: 5122"] Actually, the drowning rules are significantly less lethal. In RAW, a PC dies in three rounds, automatically. In my rules, the PC can survive longer, though someone with an average CON will still die, on average, in three rounds. That's not the intent, but ... should it be? I admit, all I know about drowning, I learned from "Baywatch." In TV and the movies, people drown and are fine immediatey thereafter, that's true. In RAW, the lost HP aren't temporary, though, and that's more what I was mirroring. Yeah, I actually considered that. I ultimately rejected it because it will lead to "guaranteed" deaths from much shorter falls. People do (very occasionally) survive long falls, and I wanted that reflected in the potential damage, not just in the saving throw. FWIW, I agree about the slight clunkiness, but I don't really mind. Falling any serious distance is a fairly rare event in our games. (It's just that when it happens, the mechanics bug the crap out of me.) I woulda thought this line -- "[f]or falling, 3E simply uses hit points, which leads to ridiculous results" -- was a pretty good indication. I want something that models reality [i]slightly[/i] better. I'm not looking for "perfect;" I'm just looking for "not ridiculous." "Possible"? Yes. It's very unlikely, though. The average CON damage per 10 feet is 1.67. Long falls are very likely to kill. Short falls may do little or nothing. ("Just twisted my ankle.") All of that is intentional, though I'm not sure what you mean by the last. [/QUOTE]

Verification