Falling

[Fizz]

Does anyone use a more standard system for falling damage? C&C's core rule seems awfully harsh.

A 30 fall inflicts 6d6 damage- that's an average of 21 points, enough to kill a standard human 4 times over. Unless you're a mid-level warrior or very high-level wizard or rogue, you're usually dead.

I am curious as to why the Trolls went this route. I've always felt that 1d6 per 10 feet was sufficient, since kinetic energy is linearly proportional to the height fallen.

Of course it's easy to house rule. I'm just curious. Thoughts?

-Fizz

[Omote]

I use falling damage BTB. The reason for this is that I don't think that damage suffered for the 1d6 route is enough. Mechanically it may make sense, but a 30 foot fall should be more then 3-18 points of damage.

.....................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Treebore]

The beauty of C&C is doing things the way you like them to be. If your fine with 1d6/10 feet then go with it.

I however prefer to keep falling dangerous no matter what level you are. In fact if you fall 200 feet or more I also throw in a CON save versus death CL10 +1 for every 10 feet fallen past 200 feet, so 300 feet would be CL 20. To survive the massive impact shock (from one hit) to your body. Kind of like the save versus massive damage in 3E and other games.

[gideon_thorne]

Omote wrote:
Mechanically it may make sense, but a 30 foot fall should be more then 3-18 points of damage.

A 10 foot fall hurts like hell. Especially when encumbered by heavy equipment. I still feel the bruise (in bad weather) where I landed on a musket after just such a fall and that was 20 something years ago. ^_~`

At 30 feet, if you havent broken something, your either hardened, know how to land well, or just plain lucky, not damage resistant.

If your parachute fails to open and you only break a leg, thats very lucky. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[phadeout]

Just remember, Terminal Velocity. There is a point where you will reach a max speed and at that point the damage or saving throw should be at max as well.

It also makes a difference depending on what you hit.

Hitting Concrete is almost gauranteed to kill you if you parachute fails.

Hitting sand, might not.

[Traveller]

C&C's falling damage Fizz was identical to the AD&D version after the DMG errata regarding falling damage in AD&D was applied. Prior to that, you had 20th level fighters getting up and walking away after a 100 foot fall. Where the two differ though is in the damage cap. Castles & Crusades doesn't cap the damage at all (a good thing), whereas AD&D capped the damage at 20d6.

Falling is not a good thing. Period. I find the rule as written to be sufficiently deadly without having to add to it. Of course, you always could do the damage as some mathematical genius did once:

(number of feet fallen/10)!d6

The exclamation point represents the mathematical function known as a factorial. Up to thirty feet, the damage is the same. Forty feet or more though and the damage escalates dramatically. At forty feet, damage under the rule as written is 10d6. Under the factorial system, it's 24d6.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

[Fizz]

gideon_thorne wrote:
At 30 feet, if you havent broken something, your either hardened, know how to land well, or just plain lucky, not damage resistant.

True, even a fall of 10 feet can kill you if you land the wrong way. But when an average human has only 4.5 hit points, you're pretty much guaranteeing death from a height of 30 feet. Most people will survive that (provided they can avoid landing on their head).

Quote:
If your parachute fails to open and you only break a leg, thats very lucky. ^_^

Well yes, but parachutists jumping from thousands of feet. But that just enhances my point. It may be unlikely to survive such a fall, but it is possible. At only 100 feet, a character btb will suffer 55d6. No character will survive that.

(Don't have my book with me- is there a terminal velocity rule? Max damage regardless of height?)

-Fizz

[gideon_thorne]

Fizz wrote:
(Don't have my book with me- is there a terminal velocity rule? Max damage regardless of height?)

-Fizz

Not that I am aware of. But, I do have an 'out' for unlikely chances. Someone, falling from a great height, can roll a d20. If they make a natural 20, the damage is adjusted enough so they will survive the impact. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Fizz]

Traveller wrote:
(number of feet fallen/10)!d6

What? No 2nd order differential equations?
Really, the problem is the hit point system. I don't have a problem with a 10th level fighter surviving a 100-foot fall and walking away, any more than i have a problem with the same fighter walking away after getting bashed by a giant a dozen times.

Falling just seems extra-deadly compared to other threats characters face. I mean, if this were the real world, would you rather take a hit from 50-lb club swung by a storm giant, or a fall 30 feet?

Quote:
It also makes a difference depending on what you hit.

This is very true. It's not the fall, but the stop at the end that kills you- that sudden impulse.

-Fizz

[Omote]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Not that I am aware of. But, I do have an 'out' for unlikely chances. Someone, falling from a great height, can roll a d20. If they make a natural 20, the damage is adjusted enough so they will survive the impact. ^_^

Crap! I was thinking along these exact lines a few minutes ago. GT, you beat me to the post again *shakes fist*

Alternatively the CK could make adjustements for various kind of elements; sand, boulders, water, DC-737 or whatever. However, I think I like the saving throw method of rolling a d20. A nat 20 on a certain death fall results in the PC being reduced to only 1 hp.

.....................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[gideon_thorne]

Omote wrote:
Crap! I was thinking along these exact lines a few minutes ago. GT, you beat me to the post again *shakes fist*

Alternatively the CK could make adjustements for various kind of elements; sand, boulders, water, DC-737 or whatever. However, I think I like the saving throw method of rolling a d20. A nat 20 on a certain death fall results in the PC being reduced to only 1 hp.

.....................................Omote

FPQ

*chuckles* Im not so fixed as that. I tend to adjust according to a number of factors including my mood, and what bald faced silly reason someone had for falling from an altitude in the first place. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Omote]

gideon_thorne wrote:
I tend to adjust according to a number of factors including my mood...

Straight from the CK's mouth... be nice to him/her. Your PCs life WILL depend on it.

..................................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[moriarty777]

I've always loved and used this method for falling damage!

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Tadhg]

This is a very interesting thread. I've realized that no one has yet fallen in our game, but damn, better watch out if you do!
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Traveller]

Fizz wrote:
Really, the problem is the hit point system. I don't have a problem with a 10th level fighter surviving a 100-foot fall and walking away, any more than i have a problem with the same fighter walking away after getting bashed by a giant a dozen times.

Falling just seems extra-deadly compared to other threats characters face. I mean, if this were the real world, would you rather take a hit from 50-lb club swung by a storm giant, or a fall 30 feet?

The hit point system is not a problem, as long as you keep in mind that hit points reflect far more than physical stamina in combat. They also reflect ability and skill in avoiding damage, such as turning that "can't miss" shot to the arm that would render you armless into a nice long scrape. In falling, only luck or an appropriate spell (e.g. feather fall) can help you avoid damage, and luck is in rather short supply in a 100-foot fall.

Falling seems extra-deadly compared to other threats, but that is because those other threats allow the character to use their abilities and skills they may have to avoid most of the damage. In a fall, they have to suck it up and deal.

Oh...and the real world has no bearing on this. It's a game, not a life simulation.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

[serleran]

Certainly discourages the whole "I'll jump down on top of them, knowing I'll survive, and easily be able to handle those orcs.... Who cares if they're 100 feet below?! HAHAHA!!" Of course, one can still this Wuxia style, but C&Cs default assumption is quasi-medieval fantasy, not HKAT.

[Metathiax]

Quote:
since kinetic energy is linearly proportional to the height fallen.

Actually (translational) kinetic energy isn't linearly proportional to the height fallen. Et = [m*(v^2)]/2. Since gravity provides a 9.8 m/(s^2) acceleration, every second of free-fall increases the falling object's speed by 9.8 m/s up to a terminal velocity which is essentially dependant on air resistance (drag).

*EDIT* After a couple of minutes of reflection, I came to realize that I was quite wrong about the "not linearly proportional" part of my post. It seems to be linearly proportional after all. Sorry Fizz...
An object falling 30 ft could reach 30 mph, while falling from 300 ft would make that 100 mph. Terminal velocity for a sky diver is around 120 mph in a normal free-fall position while it's about 200 mph when in a diving position. I sure wouldn't want to hit the ground at any of those speeds...
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

[Fizz]

Metathiax wrote:
Actually (translational) kinetic energy isn't linearly proportional to the height fallen.

Yes it is. Gravitational potential energy is dependent on distance. Energy = Force x distance (by definition). In this case, Force is the pull of gravity, and distance is the height fallen. All this potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Therefore, energy (including kinetic), is linearly proportional to height.

**Edit- AH, you realized it as i was typing my reply. Cool.
-Fizz

[Fizz]

Traveller wrote:
The hit point system is not a problem,

Perhaps `problem' was the wrong word. Limitation, then.

Quote:
They also reflect ability and skill in avoiding damage, such as turning that "can't miss" shot to the arm that would render you armless into a nice long scrape.

Well, does everyone subscribe to that? I never have. Perhaps i'm in the minority. That's why i do have a deadlier combat system (fewer HP, armor as damage reduction, etc) imc.

Quote:
Oh...and the real world has no bearing on this. It's a game, not a life simulation.

Pshaw... a little physics never hurt anything...
-Fizz

[serleran]

Physics? Or the reality of the setting? They can be, and often are, especially when magic is involved which outright ignores physics (like creating energy from nothing, rather than converting it from something else, and not then converting residual to heat...) entirely different animals? I'd say real-world physics should only apply to those things which have universal application. Falling may be one thing where real physics is applicable... but, as has been stated, at a certain distance, you no longer increase speed, but momentum will continue to accrue, as will force of impact... and that's what makes the difference between 1d6 and 3d6, even at a fall of 20'.

[Metathiax]

Fizz wrote:
Yes it is. Gravitational potential energy is dependent on distance. Energy = Force x distance (by definition). In this case, Force is the pull of gravity, and distance is the height fallen. All this potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Therefore, energy (including kinetic), is linearly proportional to height.

**Edit- AH, you realized it as i was typing my reply. Cool.
-Fizz

Yeah, you are absolutely right. I remembered the potential to kinetic energy conversion (because of energy conservation, Et at ground had to be equal to the object's initial Ep (= m*g*h), which is definately proportional to its height) after having carelessly implied that a non-linear proportionality of kinetic energy with speed could also be applied to the height parameter. Late night posts...
_________________
"Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy." author unknown
My C&C Page
My House Rules v8

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
Falling may be one thing where real physics is applicable... but, as has been stated, at a certain distance, you no longer increase speed, but momentum will continue to accrue, as will force of impact... and that's what makes the difference between 1d6 and 3d6, even at a fall of 20'.

Um, if you are no longer increasing speed, then you are not increasing momentum. Momentum = mass x speed. If speed is constant, so is momentum, so is kinetic energy.

In fact, momentum is proportional to the square-root of distance. So if you're suggesting that momentum is what kills you, then the BTB formula is really off.

Of course, what really kills is the sudden-stop at the end: that sudden impulse (a change in momentum). And then, will it cause damage? That depends on the material of landing as well as the object itself. That is- a human will be hurt after a drop of 30 feet on concrete, but not water. A basketball won't be hurt on either one.

So no, i don't want to go all uber-physics either. But from a fundamental standpoint (the simplest way that is consistent with basic physics) i think a linear system is the way to go, though i might do a 1d4 per 5 feet instead.

-Fizz

[serleran]

I don't claim to be an expert in the applications of real-world physics, and my "explanation" wasn't explained the way I intended... I shouldn't use words that have formulas attached to them... hehe. In any event, the rule for damage formula is geometric in expression (multiplicative?), and not linear... or additive, I guess would be a bit more proper. The surface of impact should always factor in the damage sustained... but you're wrong if you think simply falling into water helps. The way one hits water is vital... if its flat, like say a "flop" its just as good as hitting concrete. However, if one hits with "pinpoint precision" like say, the way a cliff diver does it, then the result is obviously very different. All this sort of stuff overcomplicates the otherwise very easy result of "you fell, take damage." There is also the whole problem of depth of the water. Hell, even the temperature of water affects its "buoyancy" or "how far can one dive easily factor." So, if one really wanted to do this "right" then a whole massive series of variables would need to be factored in. To use some of it, without making it too difficult, would be to have a water fall reduce damage by one fourth, and other "soft surfaces" doing similar, or slightly less... and then, perhaps allowing a save with a difficulty of the distance fell / 10 to reduce damage by a further half. So, if Joe Bob the Magnificent fell 30 feet, into damage, that's (3!) 6d6 damage. He'll auto-take 1/4 less, and gets a save against a difficulty of 3 (let's make it a normal save vs. breath weapon (Dex save, to pull off the "perfect dive"), and Joe Bob succeeds (yay him!). The 6d6 results in average damage at 21 points (3.5 * 6) which is reduced by 1/4 to 16, before being cut in half to 8. He takes 8 whole points of damage, which is probably not enough to kill him unless he's low level.

[Fizz]

serleran wrote:
but you're wrong if you think simply falling into water helps. The way one hits water is vital... if its flat, like say a "flop" its just as good as hitting concrete.

Oh, yes, water can hurt, depending on how you hit it. My example was from a height of 30 feet. Heck, i've made such a jump into water and i'm no diving expert.

Quote:
So, if one really wanted to do this "right" then a whole massive series of variables would need to be factored in.

.

Exactly. Every possible factor would become unwieldly for a rules-light system like C&C. The CK, as always, gets the adjudicate where necessary to account for such situations, such as the one you exemplified.

Mind you, i think you were still too harsh in your example- a dive of 30 feet, even by a low level character, ought to be very survivable, imo.

-Fizz

[serleran]

Ahh, well, in that case, then I suppose one could give a PC a sort of "free space", say 10 feet where its assumed a "jump" rather than a "fall." So, a fall of 20 feet, unless the CP was unconscious , immobilized, or otherwise rendered unable to move/think would suffer full normal damage, but under normal circumstances, the damage would be from a fall of 10 feet less, whioch can make a huge difference. In the above example, the fall would be from 20 feet, which is 3d6 damage, quartered, and then halved. If average is rolled, that's 4 points. Few PCs, even of low level, should have a problem with that amount, and it would not kill any of them by default (not by the rules as written anyway, with the "bleeding out;" at worst, it would make a PC "dying.") Even without the assumed save, or falling into water, the average damage is 11, which is only enough to kill a PC with 1 HP if average is rolled... and it only gets better with a save, or a fall to soft surface.

So, then, the basic rule would be to "ignore the last 10 feet." Or, "(distance fallen - 1)!" or somesuch.

[Traveller]

Fizz wrote:
Well, does everyone subscribe to that? I never have. Perhaps i'm in the minority. That's why i do have a deadlier combat system (fewer HP, armor as damage reduction, etc) imc.

Gary Gygax did, all the way back in 1978, when the Player's Handbook was released.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook, page 34 wrote:
A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment that can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors.

I want to make it clear that there is nothing wrong with changing the hit point system to something that works for you. In fact, I'm one of those who will tell you up front that you should make the game your own, and not worry overly much about what the book says is the rule as written. But, a lot of people who did change the hit point system did so because they neglected to actually read the section about hit points, didn't understand WHY hit points were set up that way in the game, or simply didn't care. On the flip side though, there were plenty of people who DID understand the system and changed it anyway.

In the end, they made the game their own, just as you have done. Nothing wrong with that.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.