NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6284978" data-attributes="member: 4937">Sure. But Batman can do it.  Neo from the Matrix can do it.  There are plenty of settings where it would be plausible.  Once they understand that we are in that sort of reality, it gets more plausible.But, if that means that you aren't playing in the setting you wanted to play in, then you'll have to make some changes in the rules.Incidently, I do have modified rules for falling.  Although the average damage from jumping off a 200 foot cliff is a paltry 68 or so, the maximum damage for doing so even if you land on ordinary turf is 400.  This is because the RAW rules on falling, though they produced on average what I wanted, did not threaten the PC's enough to make jumping from a high place a sufficiently heroic risk.  When they choose to do so, there is a tension there that wouldn't be if the damage was more predictable.It just so happens that I feel these changes are also to a certain extent more realistic as well.  People can fall off a 10' ladder and die.  People can also jump out of an airplane at 10,000 feet, have their parachute fail to open, and yet live.  It's fairly easy to generate both results under my rules, though in some cases they would be statistically improbable by those same rules.  But then, it's statistically improbable that you jump out of an airplane at 10,000 feet, have your parachute fail to open, and yet live.  Improbable isn't the same as implausible.  Throw in that it is realistic for a mouse to jump from an 8 story building and walk away without injury or a cat to just suffer major but perhaps not lethal injury, and my system accounts for that too.Of course, my rules aren't for everyone or every setting.  Some people would have fewer plausability concerns and so want less fiddly rules.  Some people would want more lethal rules.   Some people would want less lethal rules.  I understand the concern.  Rules seldom explain themselves clearly.  And, provided that it really is your intention that in the setting falls of a certain height aren't threatening to heroes with 200 hit points, then the problem is again that the DM needs to communicate the hows and whys of the setting to the player who is suffering from loss of suspension of belief.  If that wasn't your intention and the loss of faith in the rules is justified, you should create some coherent rules expressing your intention regarding the setting.   I find that once you express to players the reasonings behind the rules so that they realize it isn't an oversight on your part, then some of that mistrust of the rules goes away.</blockquote>

Verification