gizmo33 said:

Actually, DCAS' pointed seem to be to propose a falling damage system - which was the subject of my post. The bottom line is that DCAS's system IS NOT a linear system, it proposes a non-linear increase in damage based on distance fallen (which is compounded by the non-linear relationship of distance to time, as you point out).

No no.

I was simply using numbers (20, 50, 80) that are easier to remember than 16, 48, and 80. In the first second of fall one falls approximately 16 feet (distance ~= 16*t^2), the second second 48 feet, and the third second 80 feet. One has a velocity of 32ft/sec. in the first second of fall, 64 in the 2nd, 96 in the third, etc. I know my system doesn't model the real physics exactly. I didn't want to make the calculations to heavy. Of course one could determine the exact velocity from the distance fallen. But who has time to do this at the gaming table? I wouldn't want to extract a square root at the table (that is, unless I could do it in my head). I suppose one might create a table that listed distance in increments of 10 feet, along with velocity, and then approximate damage from that. For example

10 feet ==> t ~= 0.8 ==> v ~= 25.3 ft/sec.

20 feet ==> t ~= 1.1 ==> v ~= 35.8 ft/sec.

IOW one wouldn't take much more damage from falling 20 feet than falling 10 feet.

30 feet ==> t ~= 1.4 ==> v ~= 43.8 ft./sec.

40 feet ==> t ~= 1.6 ==> v ~= 50.6 ft./sec.

Falling 40 feet would cause about twice as much damage as falling 10 feet. And falling 160 feet would cause four times the damage. Oof!

Yes, I guess my proposed system did a poor job of estimating. Oh well. I didn't really think about it too much when I came up with it (this afternoon).

Sorry. In this light I would argue that the first ten feet cause approx. 3 points of damage, the next 30 about 1 point each, and anything over 40 is automatic death. I would be inclined to give the first 10 feet "free," then have 3 points per foot from 10 to 20, and 1 point per foot from 20 to 50. ::shrugs::