Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 7114424" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Well, my thought here is that falling damage (1d6 per 10', to a maximum of 20d6) is unchanged since 2nd edition, despite the fact that HP in 5E are inflated by a factor of perhaps two or three relative to AD&D. (Look at trollish regeneration (3x); look at Ogre HP (3x); look at the HP of a typical 20th level fighter (2x to 3x); look at the HP of a typical 20th level wizard (2.5x to 3.5x); etc.) Therefore, one obvious tweak would be to simply re-calibrate falling damage: 3d6 per 10' fallen, rounded down to the nearest d6. (So, 15' fall would be 4d6, 25' would be 7d6, etc.) Coincidentally, the numbers you get wind up looking very much like the proposal in the OP, though of course the OP proposal levels off more gradually.This will at least keep 5E characters as reluctant to jump off a 200' cliff as their AD&D equivalents would have been, which is to say "it's not totally crazy but also not something to do lightly either."Edit: I should say explicitly that I think the OP proposal is reasonable. I wouldn't use it myself, I think, just because I have no idea how to calculate the physics of a falling elephant or human or T-Rex; but I might claim it as the backing explanation for my falling damage rules, and if so I'd listen to and perhaps be swayed by any argument for why such-and-such a situation should result in faster or slower falls than the average (and therefore deserves a special ruling on damage). But I could not calculate the values myself, and that makes me disinclined to use it as a general rule.Another thought: I know that Gygax played around with variant falling rules. I think I saw one of his posts here on Enworld where he mentioned that he'd recently been using quadratic falling damage: 1d6 for the first 10', then 2d6 for the next 10', then 3d6 for the next 10', etc. In this case, a 50' fall would be (1d6+2d6+3d6+4d6+5d6) = 15d6 damage, which is respectable. You could certainly adapt this sytem to 5E. It has interesting implications.</blockquote>

Verification