Falling Damage

[Lobo316]

Do you allow saving throws to reduce falling damage? If so, do you restrict (penalize) these saves by armor type worn, or grant bonuses to certain classes on these saves?

[Rigon]

Do you allow saving throws to reduce falling damage? If so, do you restrict (penalize) these saves by armor type worn, or grant bonuses to certain classes on these saves?

No and no. Falling is deadly, so be careful.

R-

[Arduin]

Do you allow saving throws to reduce falling damage? If so, do you restrict (penalize) these saves by armor type worn, or grant bonuses to certain classes on these saves?

Nope. Although I DO allow a Dex check if intentionally jumping 20' or less. (to avoid damage).

[alcyone]

I'd allow a saving throw if you have a parachute.

[Arduin]

I'd allow a saving throw if you have a parachute.

[Lobo316]

I've not been allowing a save on those myself, but got to thinking if anyone was allowing them, how were they doing it. And this brings me to an "issue" with the rules...

In the PHB, it's stated "For every ten feet fallen, the number of d6 used for damage increases by one. The damage for each 10
feet fallen is cumulative. For example, if a character falls 18 feet, they take 1d6 damage for the first ten feet and 2d6 damage for the next 10 feet for a total of 3d6 damage."

And that's an 18 foot fall....3d6 damage. ouch! Brutal...maybe. Clear...definatley.

But, then we get to the CKG, where under traps (page 139, the Pit Traps).

Pit Trap CL1 is listed with 1d6 per 10 feet the standard??
Pit Trap CL3 is listed as "30 feet deep" and causing 3d6 falling damage??

<blinks>

SO, which is it supposed to be? Is it 1d6 per 10 feet, or is it the "culmative" +1d6 for the first ten feet + 2d6 for the next ten + 3d6 for the next, ten, etc, etc.

I don't mind the tried and true D6 per 10ft (C&C is pretty brutal in that aspect), so if the falling damage in the CKG is supposed to overwrite (or update) the falling damage in the PHB, that's OK, but is that clarified anywhere?

[Lobo316]

I'd allow a saving throw if you have a parachute.

Nice!

[Arduin]

SO, which is it supposed to be? Is it 1d6 per 10 feet, or is it the "culmative" +1d6 for the first ten feet + 2d6 for the next ten + 3d6 for the next, ten, etc, etc.

I really don't know which it is supposed to be but, I use 1D6 for every 10'. NOT cumulative. I find that to be plenty dangerous.

[Lobo316]

SO, which is it supposed to be? Is it 1d6 per 10 feet, or is it the "culmative" +1d6 for the first ten feet + 2d6 for the next ten + 3d6 for the next, ten, etc, etc.

I really don't know which it is supposed to be but, I use 1D6 for every 10'. NOT cumulative. I find that to be plenty dangerous.

And, as I eluded to above, I agree with you. That culmative thing just seems overkill. I don't mind it, mind you, but I do think it is a bit brutal.

Also, I'm not sure if I'll change that or not, but it's definatley something I'm aware of.

[Lobo316]

Do you allow saving throws to reduce falling damage? If so, do you restrict (penalize) these saves by armor type worn, or grant bonuses to certain classes on these saves?

Nope. Although I DO allow a Dex check if intentionally jumping 20' or less. (to avoid damage).

BTW, I do like this ruling, at least for rangers, rogues, assassins and barbarians. And probably only when wearing light armor. Something you can move and roll in to absorb the impact.

I'd even go so far as to say whether intentional or not allow the save (or maybe just the above classes can make this save whether intentional or not).

[kreider204]

Do you allow saving throws to reduce falling damage? If so, do you restrict (penalize) these saves by armor type worn, or grant bonuses to certain classes on these saves?

No and no. Falling is deadly, so be careful.

R-

I'm with Rigon. The randomness of the damage roll already accounts for luck (good or bad ... ), but it's not like a character can dodge or resist the ground ...

(Unless you're talking about special abilities of some sort. Like the magic power that cats have.)

[Arduin]

Do you allow saving throws to reduce falling damage? If so, do you restrict (penalize) these saves by armor type worn, or grant bonuses to certain classes on these saves?

Nope. Although I DO allow a Dex check if intentionally jumping 20' or less. (to avoid damage).

BTW, I do like this ruling, at least for rangers, rogues, assassins and barbarians. And probably only when wearing light armor. Something you can move and roll in to absorb the impact.

I'd even go so far as to say whether intentional or not allow the save (or maybe just the above classes can make this save whether intentional or not).

Ya, you can dice that one a lot. Give a minus if encumbered (more weight for the legs to handle), etc.

[Lobo316]

Do you allow saving throws to reduce falling damage? If so, do you restrict (penalize) these saves by armor type worn, or grant bonuses to certain classes on these saves?

No and no. Falling is deadly, so be careful.

R-

I'm with Rigon. The randomness of the damage roll already accounts for luck (good or bad ... ), but it's not like a character can dodge or resist the ground ...

(Unless you're talking about special abilities of some sort. Like the magic power that cats have.)

Agreed, but do you do "by the book", or simply a straight 1d6 per 10 feet?

[kreider204]

Do you allow saving throws to reduce falling damage? If so, do you restrict (penalize) these saves by armor type worn, or grant bonuses to certain classes on these saves?

No and no. Falling is deadly, so be careful.

R-

I'm with Rigon. The randomness of the damage roll already accounts for luck (good or bad ... ), but it's not like a character can dodge or resist the ground ...

(Unless you're talking about special abilities of some sort. Like the magic power that cats have.)

Agreed, but do you do "by the book", or simply a straight 1d6 per 10 feet?

Just 1d6 per 10'.

[Lobo316]

Thanks for the input folks!

[Buttmonkey]

It's been cumulative since I started playing 1E back in the day, and it's still cumulative as far as I'm concerned. The accumulation is a product of acceleration. I would give the PC a break and stop adding more damage dice when they hit terminal velocity, but I'm a softie.

[Arduin]

It's been cumulative since I started playing 1E back in the day, and it's still cumulative as far as I'm concerned. The accumulation is a product of acceleration. I would give the PC a break and stop adding more damage dice when they hit terminal velocity, but I'm a softie.

That's about a fall of 1,500' and the speed (spread eagle) is about 120mph.

[Litzen Tallister]

Falling should be brutal, as has been said the ground knows no mercy. I would allow a dex check for managing to do something to stop or slow their fall (grabbing at a scraggly tree clinging to a hill side, aiming for the pile of hay in the farmer's field, etc.).

[alcyone]

Actually, I've changed my mind. Mostly the falling won't do any damage at all.

Now, *landing* damage, that is pretty serious.

[Fiffergrund]

Actually, I've changed my mind. Mostly the falling won't do any damage at all.

Now, *landing* damage, that is pretty serious.

That's the worst part, but the good thing is that it is over quickly.

[kreider204]

Actually, I've changed my mind. Mostly the falling won't do any damage at all.

Now, *landing* damage, that is pretty serious.

"It's not the fall; it's the sudden stop at the end ... "

[Traveller]

Just to clear up any confusion Lobo may have, the CKG is wrong and the PHB correct. The falling damage is cumulative and, even better, has no cap like AD&D. If it wasn't, a high level fighter could deliberately jump off a cliff and survive. It happened all the time in AD&D, until TSR addressed the issue.

[Lobo316]

Just to clear up any confusion Lobo may have, the CKG is wrong and the PHB correct. The falling damage is cumulative and, even better, has no cap like AD&D. If it wasn't, a high level fighter could deliberately jump off a cliff and survive. It happened all the time in AD&D, until TSR addressed the issue.

Ok, you have convinced me, i don't need to mess with that, falling should hurt...bad (the high level fighter example is a good example).

I'm still goin to use the idea inspired by Arduin on saves from up to 20ft though, at least for rangers, rogues, barbarians and assassins When wearing no/light armor. I just like the flavor.

[Relaxo]

yeah the trolls have made it clear its the cumulative version.
I thought it was not cumulative in 2nd ed, but I may not be recalling it correctly.(not that it matters)
and no save.

I also dig the 20' houserule, though.

[tylermo]

First off...thanks to whomever pointed out the "falling" discrepencies between the phb and the ckg. I'll try to add that to the ckg errata thread later. If one you beats me to it, that's great. The ckg is the next book in line for a reprinting, and we want to fix as much as possible before then. Anyway....

In a recent game, my players were using a grappling hook and rope to climb a 20 foot wall. For those who didn't have climb as a class ability, they didn't add their level. Either way, most of them made their rolls each time. However, when a couple of them failed their second roll, I allowed them a dexterity save to grab the rope to keep from falling. I don't think it was unreasonable given the use of rope and a grappling hook. Any thoughts?

[Arduin]

The falling damage is cumulative and, even better, has no cap like AD&D.

You'll want to cap it after 1,500'. As if that'll make a difference

[Buttmonkey]

In a recent game, my players were using a grappling hook and rope to climb a 20 foot wall. For those who didn't have climb as a class ability, they didn't add their level. Either way, most of them made their rolls each time. However, when a couple of them failed their second roll, I allowed them a dexterity save to grab the rope to keep from falling. I don't think it was unreasonable given the use of rope and a grappling hook. Any thoughts?

My instinct would be to not require a SIEGE check at all. These are adventurers. Climbing a 20 foot rope isn't that much of a challenge. We climbed way higher than that in gym class when I was a kid and no one fell. Granted, we weren't wearing armor and carrying gear, but we also weren't professional adventurers.

[Lobo316]

First off...thanks to whomever pointed out the "falling" discrepencies between the phb and the ckg. I'll try to add that to the ckg errata thread later. If one you beats me to it, that's great. The ckg is the next book in line for a reprinting, and we want to fix as much as possible before then. Anyway....

In a recent game, my players were using a grappling hook and rope to climb a 20 foot wall. For those who didn't have climb as a class ability, they didn't add their level. Either way, most of them made their rolls each time. However, when a couple of them failed their second roll, I allowed them a dexterity save to grab the rope to keep from falling. I don't think it was unreasonable given the use of rope and a grappling hook. Any thoughts?

I would not have required any rolls myself, since were talking a simple 20ft climb with a rope. Now, where I would require a roll is if the climb was made under duress (being chased by guards, escaping a raging troll, etc) or, if they were trying to climb "stealthily". But, to answer your question, allowing a DEX save to grab the rope was not out of line at all. In fact, I'd do the same thing, I just would not bother with rolls unless the climb was higher. How much higher depends on the CK and the situation. For me, likley climbs beyond the 20ft mark.

[Relaxo]

In a recent game, my players were using a grappling hook and rope to climb a 20 foot wall. For those who didn't have climb as a class ability, they didn't add their level. Either way, most of them made their rolls each time. However, when a couple of them failed their second roll, I allowed them a dexterity save to grab the rope to keep from falling. I don't think it was unreasonable given the use of rope and a grappling hook. Any thoughts?

My instinct would be to not require a SIEGE check at all. These are adventurers. Climbing a 20 foot rope isn't that much of a challenge. We climbed way higher than that in gym class when I was a kid and no one fell. Granted, we weren't wearing armor and carrying gear, but we also weren't professional adventurers.

Nor did you have Goblins firing arrows at you that you were trying to dodge while climbing... or if you did, that's a f'ed up school.

[Lobo316]

First off...thanks to whomever pointed out the "falling" discrepencies between the phb and the ckg. I'll try to add that to the ckg errata thread later. If one you beats me to it, that's great. The ckg is the next book in line for a reprinting, and we want to fix as much as possible before then. Anyway....

In a recent game, my players were using a grappling hook and rope to climb a 20 foot wall. For those who didn't have climb as a class ability, they didn't add their level. Either way, most of them made their rolls each time. However, when a couple of them failed their second roll, I allowed them a dexterity save to grab the rope to keep from falling. I don't think it was unreasonable given the use of rope and a grappling hook. Any thoughts?

I put this in the CKG Errata thread...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12090