So about crashing...

[Obryn]

Alright, I want to make sure I'm reading this right because damned if I'm not a bit confused.

I'm a Manticore. I'm flying 50' above the battlefield, or 10 squares, with my Fly Speed of 8 and keeping just in range of my tail spikes. Everything is happy and I am sniping away.

Oh, crud! I just got prone'd by a spell from the Illusionist. (Damn floating illusory chasms... Why do I fall for those every time?) I am now falling. AAAAH!

...now what happens to me? According to the Compendium....

Safe Distance: A flying creature that crashes immediately drops a distance equal to its fly speed. If it reaches the ground, it lands safely.

Falling: If the flier has not yet reached the ground, it crashes.

Crashes: A creature that crashes falls all the way to the ground and takes falling damage.

Do I...

(1) Drop 8 squares, and since that isn't enough to reach the ground, crash "all the way down", or a total of 10 squares, smushing me for 5d10 damage?

or...

(2) Drop 8 squares, and since that's not enough to reach the ground, crash and fall all the rest of the way to the ground... which is only 2 squares, really, at this point. I shrug off 1d10 damage.


I am leaning towards (1), and plan on playing it this way unless told otherwise. But the more I read it, the more I think (2) could be accurate, too. Otherwise, why drop the safe distance first?

-O

 

[Turtlejay]

flier has not yet reached the ground

This is going to turn into another language parsing thread, but I'll give it a shot even so.

It says not *yet* reached the ground, leading me to believe that you attempt to land (even knowing it is not possible), and then fall if you fail at it.

Send in the clowns....

Jay

 

[DracoSuave]

In before someone uses the presence of the word 'crashes' in Safe Distance to make a rediculous claim that it's an infinite loop that makes you walk out unscathed with zero damage, and that therefore the rules are indefinate and broken because only an idiot would adjudicate it any other way, and therefore leading to a DM being either an idiot for following it or an idiot for not following it.

I know what you people will do. I am on to you. And I'm beating you to the punch.


In seriousness:

You move down your fly speed, then fall the rest of the way. If you are trained in Acrobatics, you can roll that for half damage, based on the 'rest of the way' falling.

 

[The Little Raven]

You safely fall your speed.

Anything after that is normal falling damage.

 

[Mirtek]

The funny thing is that both interpretations can be equally good for a player.

1) will reduce the damage in a situation when you fall enough this round to reach the ground.

2) will give you valuable time to catch yourself when you don't fall far enough to reach the ground this round (but would fall far enough if you would fall your safe distance + your falling distance)


E.g. the 10 squares height / 8 squares flight speed example is when 1) would be better.

However if the height were 107 squares 2) would better as you can only fall 100 squares per round and thus can use the halting a descent move action. If you would first descent your flight speed, you would descent 8 squares and then painfully die after falling 99 squares for 44d12 damage

 

[Obryn]

Cool deal - Option 2 then!

Thanks, folks!

-O

 

[Sgt_Shock]

In before someone uses the presence of the word 'crashes' in Safe Distance to make a rediculous claim that it's an infinite loop that makes you walk out unscathed with zero damage, and that therefore the rules are indefinate and broken because only an idiot would adjudicate it any other way, and therefore leading to a DM being either an idiot for following it or an idiot for not following it.

I know what you people will do. I am on to you. And I'm beating you to the punch.


In seriousness:

You move down your fly speed, then fall the rest of the way. If you are trained in Acrobatics, you can roll that for half damage, based on the 'rest of the way' falling.

I lol'd.

Anyways, this ruling seems best. However, consider rewording the errata of the Chasm and instead replace it with something else that would frighten the creature. (Obviously, falling down a chasm wouldn't scare a creature who can fly). How about an illusory predator (Dragon?), or maybe an illusory minefield?

 

[Turtlejay]

Maybe it is an illusory chasm, but it is the walls of the chasm closing in causing the manticore to pull in it's wings in an attempt to avoid hitting the walls. After it has dived it's entire move, it loses control and crashes 10 feet to the ground.

Jay

 

[Obryn]

I was just using it as a somewhat silly example. I figure reskinning a spell like that should be par for the course for any competent illusionist.

-O

 

[lukelightning]

In the air it creates an illusory chasme.

bzzzzzzzz