tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post8394402567779070019..comments2021-01-19T21:53:14.145-05:00Comments on Delta's D&D Hotspot: Falling RevistedDeltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-44416405255506436472019-10-20T02:33:15.249-04:002019-10-20T02:33:15.249-04:00How about this?
To determine fall damage in d6, d...How about this?<br /><br />To determine fall damage in d6, determine height in 10s of yards, divide by two and square. Maximum of 50d6.<br /><br />1" - 1 HP<br />2" - 1d6<br />4" - 4d6<br />6" - 9d6<br />8" - 16d6<br />10" - 25d6<br />12" - 36d6<br />14" - 49d6<br />15"+ - 50d6 terminal velocity<br /><br />For greater fidelity you could add +1 HP damage per die for each odd number step, i.e. a 5" fall becomes 6d6+6.<br /><br />I think you could also easily variations for weight of victim, as we know KE will vary linearly by weight:<br />+2 per die: armored men, plate<br />+1 per die: armored men, chain<br />+0 per die: normal men, leather<br />-1 per die: elves<br />-2 per die: halflings, goblins, etc.<br /><br />That may be more fiddly than needed but it isn't terribly hard to do.<br /><br />This has a few benefits:<br />- Lethal distance for 50 percent of normal men is 2" or 60' which matches our real world data.<br />- A lord falling 150' (5") is taking 6d6+6... If in plate that becomes 6d6+18. Ouch. Quite possibly lethal.<br />- Fairly easy to calculate.<br />- Matches real world terminal velocity... close enough. Our game example reaches terminal at 420' which is close enough.<br />- 10 yard "inches" are commonly used in Chainmail, and the 2" height is probably a good approximation for castle towers and the like.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17407530889660573874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-34368012232761152662018-09-20T00:45:53.956-04:002018-09-20T00:45:53.956-04:00The short story for me is that in the past I used ...The short story for me is that in the past I used to work such systems. More recently I want to honor the higher hit dice as really super-humanly more durable to falling, exposure, cold, etc., and so more simply not adjust damage in that way. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-39948129032721098922018-06-13T09:36:11.900-04:002018-06-13T09:36:11.900-04:00Forgive me if you had already alluded to this in y...Forgive me if you had already alluded to this in your post and I just missed it, but would it not be sensible to multiply the damage by the hit dice of the creature? Then you could have a flat die progression and calibrate it to what the hp of a normal man is in your system. In mine, a healthy adult has 4 or 5 hit points. Taking into account the save vs death, I'd assign 50' a damage of 1d10, as 5.5*0.65+2.75*0.35=4.5375.<br /><br />So, for my hp values, I'd have a progression something like<br />10': 1d2<br />20': 1d4<br />30': 1d6<br />40': 1d8<br />50': 1d10<br />60': 1d12<br />70': 2d6<br />80': 2d8<br />90': 1d20<br />100': 2d10 Nicohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10029290540082770497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-85988527091060859312018-03-01T18:18:32.773-05:002018-03-01T18:18:32.773-05:00:)
Just after posting, I realized the following sh...:)<br />Just after posting, I realized the following short-cut:<br />KE to overcome = Work = Force * distance.<br />The distance is the the height you cover between firstly touching the ground and the final stop. This distance is independent of the falling height, and thus force must scale with KE.pileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06008654668836414680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-50343019469994500272018-02-28T09:46:23.700-05:002018-02-28T09:46:23.700-05:00Thanks for posting that. Feels nicely Socratic. :-...Thanks for posting that. Feels nicely Socratic. :-)Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-18917095183445260372018-02-28T04:17:18.904-05:002018-02-28T04:17:18.904-05:00In the falling damage discussion I always have won...In the falling damage discussion I always have wondered, why should damage scale linearly with height? <br /><br />Yes, work, and kinetic energy, I see that, but why is damage linear with energy? I would have guessed that damage is linear with the (resultant) force. <br /><br />It is force that breaks bones and splits skulls, right!?<br /><br />So, I sat down and started to scribble:<br />Force (F) determines how fast (time t) momentum (p) can be changed: F = dp/dt. Momentum is mass times velocity (p = mv). <br />So, from this I would have guessed that damage scales linearly with force which scales linearly with momentum (and thus velocity for a given mass)!?<br /><br />But, then it finally dawned upon me: You also have to take into account how much there is available for the force to act on the body. <br /><br />Hmm ... how much is available? Well, the time between hitting the ground first with a body part until the full stop where the body lies (scattered?) on the floor. During this time the center of mass covers a certain height and this height is independent of speed, but the amount of time to cover this height does scale with t~1/speed.<br /><br />And thus:<br />F = dp/dt which scales as v / (1/v) = v^2.<br /><br />So, the force scales with v^2 and thus linearly with KE (and thus height), after all!?<br /><br />And, yes, now I also understand how the work argument comes into effect: work equals force times distance (W = Fx). To drop the velocity to zero, you need a force whose work nullifies the total KE. Since x is constant, as explained above, the force must scale with KE (and thus height).<br /><br />In short, I think the fundamental quantity is force and not KE per se. However, the force does scale with KE, so there is that. <br /><br />I guess I am not smart enough to see the connection right away, but with the above reasoning, I agree with your statement! pileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06008654668836414680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-82137331712937092142018-02-09T10:50:20.880-05:002018-02-09T10:50:20.880-05:00Ugh, I forgot to add in the +4 I mentioned at the ...Ugh, I forgot to add in the +4 I mentioned at the start!spaceLemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14625231244832663365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-55740649880114068902018-02-09T10:12:28.002-05:002018-02-09T10:12:28.002-05:00I wonder if a good way to handle this might be to ...I wonder if a good way to handle this might be to shift the focus onto the ST and away from HP.<br /><br />We know the LD50 is 50 ft, so set the average Death save (or whichever save you feel is most appropriate) for level 1 characters to give a 50% chance. Say, for the sake of argument, that a level 1 character saves on a 15+ (so a 6 with Target20, or 15 with straight OD&D). Then a 50 ft fall needs a +4 to the save.<br /><br />Sticking with Target 20, there are then 4 outcomes:<br />1) Fail (0-9): lose 2x max HP (probably resulting in strawberry jam on the ground).<br />2) Fail (10-19): lose 1x max HP (maybe killing you outright, but perhaps surviving with negative HP, albeit unconscious and dying).<br />3) Pass (20-29): lose 1/2x max HP (you might walk away unscathed, providing you haven't suffered too much damage already)<br />4) Pass (30+): no damage.<br /><br />However, the save needs to be modified to account for height fallen. Maybe -1 per 10 ft, so a high level character can fall about 50 ft further than a low level character. This could also be nonlinear up to however far it takes to reach roughly terminal velocity.<br /><br />Finally, modify the save depending on size. Small creatures take less damage than big creatures, so +0 for human sized characters, then +2 for each halving of size, or -2 for each doubling of size (or possibly a +2, +5, +10, +15 progression).<br /><br />As a quick test, a level 1 mouse falls 100 ft, that's 16 = 6 - 5 (height) + 15 (size). Ends up at zero HP 20% of the time, half HP 50% of the time, and full HP 30% of the time. A level 1 elephant falls 10 ft, that's 0 = 6 + 4 (height) - 10 (size). The elephant splats 50% of the time, and is knocked unconscious the other 50%. A bit of tweaking probably necessary, but it seems reasonable given a cursory look, and no worse than basing things on HP.spaceLemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14625231244832663365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-71103515846852999962018-02-08T10:43:04.762-05:002018-02-08T10:43:04.762-05:00Absolutely true. On the other hand, the pulp sensi...Absolutely true. On the other hand, the pulp sensibility/examples are that it's a lot safer, so if one made it safer in their game, that's a defensible design choice.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-44723153057849457332018-02-07T18:52:58.709-05:002018-02-07T18:52:58.709-05:00Landing in water from great height is better than ...Landing in water from great height is better than landing on concrete, but not all that much better. Water resists impact surprisingly well.Warclamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12988345125040069046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-83320274205671575752018-02-07T11:44:16.446-05:002018-02-07T11:44:16.446-05:00Cool! I agree with that latter point: game-able an...Cool! I agree with that latter point: game-able and tractable for players to estimate and make a decision about in-game. It is funny that more complicated analyses bring us back to a simple 1d6/10' in many cases.<br /><br />I can also see the attraction of some more hit points at 1st level; there are times I wish that the 1st-level increment was 3d6, so that progression to 2nd level wouldn't be so radical. But then we'd have to possibly re-gauge all the combat damage, because a legitimate criticism would then be "a sword thrust should have at least a chance of killing a normal man".Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-83308945508160287972018-02-06T23:33:50.089-05:002018-02-06T23:33:50.089-05:00interstingly, right after putting some numbers dow...interstingly, right after putting some numbers down for falling rules, I get my computer and ... here is this post!<br /><br />my conclusion, based of simplistic calculation is that the rule of 1d6 per 01 feet is the average of linear and squared damage for speed (so I decided to postpone any more calculations).<br /><br />If you want to poke more holes in my logic, here it is:<br />-I simplified the situation by deciding that the acceleration would be "instant" and "after the fall: for example, after 1 seconde, you're going exactly 30 feet/second. I used this as base damage (3d6).<br />If you go twice as long (2 seconds), you now move 60 feet/second, for a total of 90 feet (9d6 per AD&D, 6d6 if damage proportional to speed and 12d6 if you square the speed (twice as fast, so 4 times 3d6)...<br /><br />anyways, as I mentionned: extremely simplistic, as there is no wind resistance. I decided for 3d6 as the base because it's the amount of damage that would seriously hurt a first level character (I give some bonus HP at first, from Tao of D&D's rules). Without being able to decide, I averaged the results, and we're back to 1d6 per 10 feet.<br /><br />Maybe they were unto something: this rule is very gameable, players can quickly judge their survival odds and the results are good enough.<br /><br />and by the way, I love your complex mathematical analysis of rules, good food for thoughtsMichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02363668416664911106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-76672606376148618452018-02-06T17:08:06.571-05:002018-02-06T17:08:06.571-05:00Thanks for the clarification!Thanks for the clarification!Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-63043978719267462532018-02-06T15:45:14.593-05:002018-02-06T15:45:14.593-05:00Oh bypassing HP wasn't my personal viewpoint, ...Oh bypassing HP wasn't my personal viewpoint, just exploring a line of thought. It is probably valid for some settings, game types.<br />I am comfortable with high level folk surviving/doing crazy stuff.Baquieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08357103428591599364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-75627937480830827082018-02-06T11:42:48.881-05:002018-02-06T11:42:48.881-05:00Encumberance was my thought as well, that perhaps ...Encumberance was my thought as well, that perhaps Gary Gygax had in mind the weight of the armour that typical adventurer is wearing when falling and so thirty feet may have 'felt' about right. Certainly a knight in plate would have a different LD than a man in a tracksuit.Pete Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03438651595079082035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-63977387482166820142018-02-06T11:23:13.428-05:002018-02-06T11:23:13.428-05:00Well, since kinetic energy is proportional to mass...Well, since kinetic energy is proportional to mass (KE = 1/2 mv^2), having more encumbrance does increase KE proportionally. Although then one debates how much that extra stuff soaks up the KE at the end of the fall (e.g., sack of rations and potions squashing and partly breaking your fall). Maybe an overall wash in terms of damage to the person?Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-48333862025049715632018-02-06T11:19:20.263-05:002018-02-06T11:19:20.263-05:00From 10-60' it seems like the same average res...From 10-60' it seems like the same average results with greater complication. (To me, the Nd6 is variable enough.) The 70-90' extra damage is like Gygax's cumulative rule: exponentially more aggressive than reality. As in the post above, if 10' is 1d6, then the 50d6 average shouldn't be reached until 500'. <br /><br />Of course, if one thinks that HP simply shouldn't provide linear resistance to environmental factors like falling (e.g., Baquies above), then that's a different story -- but not what Stuart seems to be arguing.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-84804552062904219152018-02-06T11:13:57.106-05:002018-02-06T11:13:57.106-05:00I haven't seen it broken down that way. Since ...I haven't seen it broken down that way. Since the majority of falls are construction accidents (off a ladder or roof of a home), I think that cases of falling into water is probably negligible. Also, cases tend to only get documented where there is some injury. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-44316860074240216252018-02-06T10:41:43.292-05:002018-02-06T10:41:43.292-05:00What would be the effect of the character's en...What would be the effect of the character's encumbrance upon the kinetic energy of the impact? Would it increase lethality?<br /><br />What if the falling damage were something like "1d6 + level per 20 ft."? This might balance the "HP are just for combat" and "extra survivability" arguments. <br />...<br />My hastily made spread-sheet shows that the average-HP and average-falling-damage intersect at 5th level (with the above formula)(for a d6 HD). Not knowing the math behind the saving-throw calculations, I have to leave the rest as an exercise for Dan.welbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234798241485093836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-33796813008929125462018-02-06T08:51:56.223-05:002018-02-06T08:51:56.223-05:00This is quite relevant to me, as I'm currently...This is quite relevant to me, as I'm currently running Patrick Stuart's Deep Carbon Observatory, and the group are just about to head down into the Veins. In the last session, they dropped the white Giant off the bridge into the darkness below, and it's important to know if it survived. On the one hand, it's a huge creature, liable to take more damage, on the other, it is entirely cartilaginous, and fell into water. And it had a lot of HP and a very good ST.spaceLemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14625231244832663365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-16696265387579610742018-02-06T03:57:50.359-05:002018-02-06T03:57:50.359-05:00Patrick Stuart's excellent take on the Underda...Patrick Stuart's excellent take on the Underdark, "Veins of the Earth", has the following rules for falling damage:<br /><br />FEET FALLEN DAMAGE<br />10 1d6<br />20 1d6 x 1d4<br />30 1d6 x 1d6<br />40 1d6 x 1d8<br />50 1d6 x 1d10<br />60 1d6 x 1d12<br />70 1d6 x 1d20<br />80 1d6 x 1d50<br />90 1d6 x 1d100<br /><br />He has this to say about it:<br />"This is longer and more annoying than the standard falling damage chart, and harder to use. But it is a more consequential, and less predictable system which makes falling both more dangerous for high level characters and also possibly-survivable for low level ones."<br /><br />What do you think about this?Johannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13448463364076631580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-68124964902243139512018-02-06T00:26:13.453-05:002018-02-06T00:26:13.453-05:00I confess the sin of not reading the linked refere...I confess the sin of not reading the linked references before commenting, but: do the sources on falling-damage LD50 also consider the surface landed upon? Perhaps many of the survivors landed in water, while many of those who died landed on concrete?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-34243174526568824122018-02-06T00:25:43.828-05:002018-02-06T00:25:43.828-05:00Conan is essentially a panther in sandals and a ch...Conan is essentially a panther in sandals and a chain mail hauberk. Of course he lands "catlike on his feet" and is made of "steel springs and whalebone". He's fantasy Chuck Norris.BigFellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052419088140204154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-7381016870032214422018-02-05T18:41:57.184-05:002018-02-05T18:41:57.184-05:00I used to think that myself (that environmental st...I used to think that myself (that environmental stuff should not be linear with HP), but I've come around in the other direction over the years. On the hand, the pulp literature seems to give characters extra-survivability in those cases (see my Conan fall above); on the other real-world hand, we have the many examples of spectacular survivorship by certain lucky or iron-willed people (far more than twice the average in falls, lack of air, survival with no food, e.g.). So I've grown more comfortable with high-level PCs being extra-tough in all kinds of pursuits. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-15515261334762093262018-02-05T18:37:42.511-05:002018-02-05T18:37:42.511-05:00From Slithering Shadow: "He did not fall any ...From Slithering Shadow: "He did not fall any great distance, though it was far enough to have snapped the leg bones of a man not built of steel springs and whalebone. He hit catlike on his feet and one hand, instinctively retaining his grasp on his saber hilt..."Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.com