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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 5358952" data-attributes="member: 29398">The cap, oddly enough, had something of a rationale: to try and simulate terminal velocity.There comes a point - a friend who knows more about physics than I do tells me it's at about 500' for a normal-size human - when your falling speed generates so much air resistance that you just won't fall any faster.  Which means you could in theory fall from orbit and hit the ground at about the same velocity as if you'd fallen 600' - provided, of course, you didn't burn to ash on re-entry. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Therefore, a cap of 50d[whatever] makes sense.That said, 4e's changes make falling more sensible at higher levels/longer falls (it's deadlier) but less sensible at lower levels/shorter falls (not dangerous enough, given 4e characters tend to have more h.p. at very low levels than characters of other editions).I still think I'd like to see the first point from each die go straight against WP, though discussions in our games here have got me thinking I'd skip this if the die roll was a natural 1.  Rationale: people have occasionally been known to survive falls from extreme heights; and this would put the possibility of such in play, however unlikely.Bows and crossbows are another one.  If someone shoots you from 10' and you're mostly defenseless (e.g. it's a stick-up and you've raised your hands in surrender) that damage should go mostly or all to WP...if the roll to hit is 5 better than required, perhaps. Lan-"too much thinking - my brain hurts"-efan</blockquote>

Verification