I think I get it now

[Draco_Argentum]

sigma, thats about how I'd do the psy warrior too. Standard actions and power points are a bad way to do it but a lot of the buffs are pretty interesting if you could use them before the fight is over.

[Maxus]

So the psychic warrior should be looking like...

-gets a selection of buffs, which he can activate with a swift, immediate, or free action. Possibly even building on a series of them, so he could do all the Metaphysical and Vampiric and Weird-Ass Claw/Weapon stuff. Maybe only having one or two active at a time, but getting a selection of them to switch between in mid-battle?

-Some lesser abilities that're always on, or possibly are class features? I can think of Skate and Wall Walker that'd fit into this category...

[JonSetanta]

Yep. Now, does anyone notice serious flaws in the concept?

Only problem I can think of is that with per-encounter buffs, if the Glowing Energy Arm-extending Claw Vamp wants to change into the Energy-bite Wall-running Tentacled Shocker, those previous buffs have still been expended and are not coming back until quick rest is taken.

The versatility is there but such warriors can't endlessly rotate tactics mid battle.

[Neeeek]

So the psychic warrior should be looking like...

-gets a selection of buffs, which he can activate with a swift, immediate, or free action. Possibly even building on a series of them, so he could do all the Metaphysical and Vampiric and Weird-Ass Claw/Weapon stuff. Maybe only having one or two active at a time, but getting a selection of them to switch between in mid-battle?

So you want to make the psychic warrior into Colossus?

[NoDot]

Perhaps activating multiple buffing spells with a Move Action (with a free Intimidate Check) or one buff with a Swift Action?

[Maxus]

So the psychic warrior should be looking like...

-gets a selection of buffs, which he can activate with a swift, immediate, or free action. Possibly even building on a series of them, so he could do all the Metaphysical and Vampiric and Weird-Ass Claw/Weapon stuff. Maybe only having one or two active at a time, but getting a selection of them to switch between in mid-battle?

So you want to make the psychic warrior into Colossus?

I meant, take a look at the Psychic Warrior powers list. It's loaded with thematically similar powers at multiple levels.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/power ... riorPowers

-The Claw series gives you a Natural Weapon to start with, and there's buffs to give it an enhancement bonus, increase its threat range, make it poisonous, inflict acid damage, and make it heal you when it does damage to someone else.

-There's an almost totally identical identical series for weapons.

-There's a list of mobility powers to speed you up, let you walk on walls and water, and the like.

-There's a series of sense-enhancing/altering powers.

-There's a series of defensive powers that seem to involve force screens and whatever.

-There's a grab bag of utility powers.

-There's others, too.

I mean, the list has continuity. You could do a path system so you pick and choose what you advance, and let a character activate one whole path at once. And eventually get into having multiple paths open at once. A character could probably spend, at most, an entire round's worth of actions and activate all the paths he'd need for a hardcore fight. For more ordinary skirmishes, he could seriously spend a free action and a swift action and an immediate action (losing his swift action next round) and be fine for the entire fight.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

That is a common misconception.

The damage a character can take from falling a great distance is capped at 20d6.

The damage a character can take from a falling object landing on him is uncapped, and dependant upon the weight of the falling object. If you dropped a rock the size of a combine on somebody from 11 feet up, they die.

I hate to break it to you, but page 303, second paragraph of the Falling Object rules(the paragraph after the table), says differently.

But, I could see how someone might interpret that the damage from the size of the object is uncapped, and the damage from the distance is capped. It's a poorly written section.

It is poorly written. If we go by my interpretation, it is not too bad. If we go by your interpretation, it is extremely poorly written. Here is the relevant passage:

For each 200 pounds of an object's weight, the object deals 1d6 points of damage, provided it falls at least 10 feet. Distance also comes into play, adding an additional 1d6 points of damage for every 10-foot increment it falls beyond the first (to a maximum of 20d6 points of damage).

Lets use my example of a combine sized rock being dropped on somebody from 11 feet above them:

My interpretation: The first sentence describes the damage from the size of the combine-rock as uncapped. The second sentence describes bonus damage if an object weighing 200+ pounds falls an additional 10 feet or more. The cap on this damage is 20d6. This 20d6 damage cap also applies to smaller objects as described on Table 8-4. Since the combine-rock only falls 11 feet, there is no additional damage, and the sentence is not applied.

Your interpretation: The first sentence describes the damage from the size of the combine-rock as uncapped. The second sentence describes bonus damage from falling a great distance. But the distance fallen is only 11 feet, so the sentence isn't relevant or applicable. Here is the heart of your misinterpretation:

For your interpretation to be correct, you would have to assume that the parenthesized phrase in the second sentence is modifying the first sentence, when the second sentence doesn't even come into effect.

________________

Your interpretation can also lead to situations like Absentminded Wizard conclusion that "...there's a cap on 200+-pound objects but not on lighter objects."

You might be arguing from a point that only the RAW matters, and nothing else does. In that restricted case, my interpretation has more evidence, and is read sentence by sentence, applying the second one if necessary. Your interpretation requires an illogical reading where you are mixing and matching sentences whether they apply or not.

Finally, if you care about intent or gameworld verisimilitude, my interpretation wins out. Dropping a combine sized rock on somebody would do more than an average of 70 points of damage. Using your interpretation, the combine-rock would do exponentially more damage if you simply broke it with a hammer 11 feet before it fell on somebody, so it would break into multiple smaller rocks (each doing 70 damage).

In sum: My interpretation is correct, and falling damage is broken no matter how you rule it.

Actually, the section is so poorly written that it's hard to tell which interpretation to follow. If they'd just used the phrase "additional damage" in the parenthetical, it would have cleared things up immensely.

I think you're wrong about the effects of K's interpretation on the rest of the rules, though. Either way, there's a convincing case that the RAW doesn't cap damage in any way on objects lighter than 200 lbs. That's because there's no mention of a cap in the description of damage from those objects:

Objects smaller than 200 pounds also deal damage when dropped, but they must fall farther to deal the same damage. Use Table: Damage from Falling Objects to see how far an object of a given weight must drop to deal 1d6 points of damage.

For each additional increment an object falls, it deals an additional 1d6 points of damage.

That omission is there no matter how you interpret the paragraph about objects weighing 200+ lbs.

Now, I'm not saying this is how it was supposed to work or that I would ever run it that way, but that's how they wrote it.

[Voss]

Perhaps activating multiple buffing spells with a Move Action (with a free Intimidate Check) or one buff with a Swift Action?

There is a point where I start to wonder about this. Are 'I have to fucking turn these on' buff-powers really worthwhile? Isn't there a point where just having a few always-on abilities wouldn't just be preferable?

The loss of real actions seems too much, and turning them into non-actions means they have no real downside.

[K]

I hate to break it to you, but page 303, second paragraph of the Falling Object rules(the paragraph after the table), says differently.

But, I could see how someone might interpret that the damage from the size of the object is uncapped, and the damage from the distance is capped. It's a poorly written section.

It is poorly written. If we go by my interpretation, it is not too bad. If we go by your interpretation, it is extremely poorly written. Here is the relevant passage:

For each 200 pounds of an object's weight, the object deals 1d6 points of damage, provided it falls at least 10 feet. Distance also comes into play, adding an additional 1d6 points of damage for every 10-foot increment it falls beyond the first (to a maximum of 20d6 points of damage).

Lets use my example of a combine sized rock being dropped on somebody from 11 feet above them:

My interpretation: The first sentence describes the damage from the size of the combine-rock as uncapped. The second sentence describes bonus damage if an object weighing 200+ pounds falls an additional 10 feet or more. The cap on this damage is 20d6. This 20d6 damage cap also applies to smaller objects as described on Table 8-4. Since the combine-rock only falls 11 feet, there is no additional damage, and the sentence is not applied.

Your interpretation: The first sentence describes the damage from the size of the combine-rock as uncapped. The second sentence describes bonus damage from falling a great distance. But the distance fallen is only 11 feet, so the sentence isn't relevant or applicable. Here is the heart of your misinterpretation:

For your interpretation to be correct, you would have to assume that the parenthesized phrase in the second sentence is modifying the first sentence, when the second sentence doesn't even come into effect.

________________

Your interpretation can also lead to situations like Absentminded Wizard conclusion that "...there's a cap on 200+-pound objects but not on lighter objects."

You might be arguing from a point that only the RAW matters, and nothing else does. In that restricted case, my interpretation has more evidence, and is read sentence by sentence, applying the second one if necessary. Your interpretation requires an illogical reading where you are mixing and matching sentences whether they apply or not.

Finally, if you care about intent or gameworld verisimilitude, my interpretation wins out. Dropping a combine sized rock on somebody would do more than an average of 70 points of damage. Using your interpretation, the combine-rock would do exponentially more damage if you simply broke it with a hammer 11 feet before it fell on somebody, so it would break into multiple smaller rocks (each doing 70 damage).

In sum: My interpretation is correct, and falling damage is broken no matter how you rule it.

Actually, the section is so poorly written that it's hard to tell which interpretation to follow. If they'd just used the phrase "additional damage" in the parenthetical, it would have cleared things up immensely.

I think you're wrong about the effects of K's interpretation on the rest of the rules, though. Either way, there's a convincing case that the RAW doesn't cap damage in any way on objects lighter than 200 lbs. That's because there's no mention of a cap in the description of damage from those objects:

Objects smaller than 200 pounds also deal damage when dropped, but they must fall farther to deal the same damage. Use Table: Damage from Falling Objects to see how far an object of a given weight must drop to deal 1d6 points of damage.

For each additional increment an object falls, it deals an additional 1d6 points of damage.

That omission is there no matter how you interpret the paragraph about objects weighing 200+ lbs.

Now, I'm not saying this is how it was supposed to work or that I would ever run it that way, but that's how they wrote it.

Actually, my interpretation is: size of object damage + distance damage, with the cap being 20d6 for the total (which is why it was mentioned last).

There is actually nothing broken with that. Yes, the paranthesis applies to the first sentence, but that's because the formula for calculating damage is size damage + distance damage.

Why would one part of the formula be capped and the other not? That actually does lead to crazy.

I agree its a poorly written section. They really should have just had an actual formula for something that complicated.

Sadly, since 3e will never have another FAQ, we'll never know who's right.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Even without a mathematical formula, all they had to do was either use the phrase "additional damage" in the parentheses (to support Sphere's interpretation) or delete the parenthetical and put in a sentence at the end of the section saying, "Damage from any falling object is capped at a maximum of 20d6" (to support your interpretation).

[Judging__Eagle]

Ugh, i must have gotten distracted and failed to put this up a few hours ago.

Do the Psy Warr as a Dungenomicon Monk.

A list of abilities that you can have X amount active from Y number of lists at once.

So:

-The Claw series gives you a Natural Weapon to start with, and there's buffs to give it an enhancement bonus, increase its threat range, make it poisonous, inflict acid damage, and make it heal you when it does damage to someone else.

-There's an almost totally identical identical series for weapons.

-There's a list of mobility powers to speed you up, let you walk on walls and water, and the like.

-There's a series of sense-enhancing/altering powers.

-There's a series of defensive powers that seem to involve force screens and whatever.

-There's a grab bag of utility powers.

-There's others, too.

We have:

1 Natural Weapons

2 Regular Weapons

3 Mobility

4 Sensory

5 Defensive

6 Utility

So... have them make up 2 styles every level and they can have 1 active at any one time.

Each style picks 2 or 3 different abilities from the 6 different lists. Seperate what powers you get in each level bracket; so level 1-5 get one set of level appropriate abilities; 6-10 gets its own list; 11-15 it's own etc.

The same way that you had Fighting Style, Master Figthing Style and Expert (or w/e) Fighting Styles for the Dungenomicon Monk.

The list of options is geared per level, but you get each Psy warr (hopefully) picking their own style of ... "Mental Preparations"

How does that sound for a substitute, Mental Preparation. You spend a Swift Action to activate a specific Mental Preparation and can maintain it as a free action, but can only have one active at a time.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Actually, my interpretation is: size of object damage + distance damage, with the cap being 20d6 for the total (which is why it was mentioned last).

There is actually nothing broken with that.

It breaks verisimilitude harder than anything else in the game.

Yes, the paranthesis applies to the first sentence, but that's because the formula for calculating damage is size damage + distance damage.

That is circular reasoning.

Why would one part of the formula be capped and the other not? That actually does lead to crazy.

The weight is uncapped because that represents what happens. It is actually more crazy (more damage) if you just dump numerous 1 pound objects from a great height rather than an equivalently weighted single object.

Sadly, since 3e will never have another FAQ, we'll never know who's right.

There are two possible interpretations. One realistically represents what happens when you drop something big on somebody, and is consistent with all the other rules that reinforce gameworld verisimilitude. One states two 1-pound stones dropped from a great height would do twice the damage that a moon would do falling on someone.

If there are two possible interpretations, and one is ineffably ridiculous, you go with the other one.

[Username17]

If there are two possible interpretations, and one is ineffably ridiculous, you go with the other one.

But both of them are ridiculous, just in different ways. Or do you not remember the Hulking Hurler discussions?

If you are presented with two completely silly interpretations, and one of them is playable and the other one is not, then you go with the one you can play. K's interpretation moves the game forward, yours doesn't. So fundamentally, you are wrong and he is right.

Yes, it makes little sense for massively titanic objects to only do a fairly limited amount of terminal velocity damage, but without a strict cap of some sort the world goes into crazy town and fast as people empty out extradimensional spaces and unshrink objects in mid-flight. If the game arbitrarily tells you that dong so gives you no decent advantages in combat, people won't do that particular kind of bullshit and then the silliness of the rule never even comes up.

-Username17

[baduin]

The answer is quite simple. Let's read the rule again:

"For each 200 pounds of an object's weight, the object deals 1d6 points of damage, provided it falls at least 10 feet. Distance also comes into play, adding an additional 1d6 points of damage for every 10-foot increment it falls beyond the first (to a maximum of 20d6 points of damage)."

The second sentence continues the first. Because of that, it applies to the case of an object weighting 200 pounds. The cap introduced in the parentheses applies also only to 200 pound object.

To conclude, the damage is 1d6 per 200 pounds per 10 feet. The damage is capped at 20d6 per 200 pounds.

In other words, 100 pounds does 1d3 damage at 10 feet, and 20d3 damage at 200 feet. 400 pounds does 2d6 at 10 feet, and 40d6 at 200 feet.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

But both of them are ridiculous, just in different ways. Or do you not remember the Hulking Hurler discussions?

When both of them are ridiculous from a game balance perspective, and only one is ridiculous from a verisimilitude perspective, why are you advocating the one which destroys believability?

If you are presented with two completely silly interpretations, and one of them is playable and the other one is not, then you go with the one you can play.

Of course. But they both are unplayable so the point is moot.

K's interpretation moves the game forward, yours doesn't. So fundamentally, you are wrong and he is right.

K’s interpretation does not move the game forward. So fundamentally, he is no more right than I am.

Yes, it makes little sense for massively titanic objects to only do a fairly limited amount of terminal velocity damage, but without a strict cap of some sort the world goes into crazy town and fast as people empty out extradimensional spaces and unshrink objects in mid-flight.

It is already in crazy town with K’s interpretation. You can simply drop innumerable 1-pound objects on somebody from a great height and destroy anybody or anything. Or you can drop multiple massive objects on somebody from 11 feet up.

If the game arbitrarily tells you that dong so gives you no decent advantages in combat, people won't do that particular kind of bullshit and then the silliness of the rule never even comes up.

Right. But the game doesn’t arbitrarily tell you that. You do get huge advantages for doing it in combat, and K’s incorrect reading does not stop that.
_______________________

Baduin, I had not considered that interpretation. In any case, that makes 2 out of a possible 3 interpretations which make damage dependant upon weight.

[Amra]

No, objects weighing 100lbs do not deal 1d3 damage per 10ft fallen. According to the rules, they deal 1d6 damage per 30ft they fall, and don't do any damage if they fall a lesser distance.

Objects smaller than 200 pounds also deal damage when dropped, but they must fall farther to deal the same damage. Use Table: Damage from Falling Objects to see how far an object of a given weight must drop to deal 1d6 points of damage.

For each additional increment an object falls, it deals an additional 1d6 points of damage.

On said table, 51-100lb objects have an increment of 30ft (although, that said, 200lb objects have an increment of 20ft on the same table; it's 201lb+ objects that have a 10ft increment) so it's 30ft for 1d6, 60ft for 2d6 and so on.

1-5lb objects do not do any damage if they fall less than 70ft, and do an extra 1d6 damage per 70ft beyond the first. So, in order to do 20d6 damage with a 5lb object, you'd have to drop it onto your target from 1400ft. In a vacuum - assuming you just dropped it rather than hurled it, and that the gravity in D&Dland is equivalent to Earth's - that would take 9.32 seconds, or a round and a half.

If you hurled it really, really fast (40ms^-1 - about as fast as a professional outfielder can throw a baseball) it'd still take 6.08 seconds to get there; and that's still without counting air resistance. So, all in all, I wouldn't worry about dropping several small objects on someone doing more damage than a single large object

Amusingly, objects that weigh less than one pound never do any damage, regardless of how far they fall or how fast they're travelling when they hit you.

Oh yeah, I forgot; we're not supposed to talk physics in a world with elves and dragons, blah. blah, blah... Silly me

[JonSetanta]

What a fucked up debate on falling rules.
Look, the local gods determine when and how a falling person dies.
If Pelor decides that a person falling X height takes Y damage, that's what you get.

Or, one could handle falling as a level-appropriate encounter.


ANYWAY.
Activating 4 buff in 1 round as Immediate, Swift, then 2 move actions would be a fair solution to the warrior's process. The best offensive or proactive buffs would be the move actions while most mobility would be Swift since one can't usually move without taking a turn anyway. Counters and defensives would be Immediate.

The actions could be used for other things, such as reacting quickly with a mobility power, or they could take their time and get the job done right.
Activating all buffs as 1 action seems too good.
There should be stages to it, or else the warrior would be essentially Going Nova; whoever wins initiative wins the battle. I for one would like to avoid that bad habit.

[K]

Just to clarify a few points before I abandon this discussion:

-The 20d6 cap applies to smaller objects as well. The base formula of "object size damage + distance damage, then capped at 20d6" is changed by the exception-based rule for smaller objects which replaces the "size damage + distance damage" part of the formula.

-There is no "verisimilitude" argument. You can swim in lava and only take 20d6 damage a turn. A high level fighter can jump off a 3000 ft cliff several times a minute and still walk away since his damage is capped at 20d6 each time. DnD isn't simulationist enough to have the "verisimilitude" you think it should have.

[Judging__Eagle]

-a 10th lvl fighter can burrow through solid stone with a steel dagger. If the fighter actually plans on burrowing through stone, by carrying a pair of adamantine wepons and two-weapon fighting, you can burrow straight to Crazy Town.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

-There is no "verisimilitude" argument. You can swim in lava and only take 20d6 damage a turn. A high level fighter can jump off a 3000 ft cliff several times a minute and still walk away since his damage is capped at 20d6 each time.

The purpose of rules in an Rpg are to describe how a gameworld functions. Rules which create a reality different from the real world are especially important, and contribute to a “gameworld verisimilitude.” This helps the player believe in the world, and promotes fun. When a high level character can survive fights with demons, it doesn’t break suspension of disbelief that he can fall a long distance and still live.

If something violates both real world understanding and the gameworld’s internal consistency, then it doesn’t have value. A swim in lava does a lot more damage than being hit with a flaming torch, and verisimilitude is the reason why.

DnD isn't simulationist enough to have the "verisimilitude" you think it should have.

Dnd isn’t simulationist enough to have a falling moon do more damage than two falling 1-pound rocks? That is a surprise.

[JonSetanta]

Dnd isn’t simulationist enough to have a falling moon do more damage than two falling 1-pound rocks? That is a surprise.

I already have plans for such an event in a (longterm) fiction work.
It's a summoning magic for one of the lead female characters.
Her magic would begin small, summoning critters and decent sized heavy objects, but later it scales to planetary proportions. The abilities are the same but the scope and intensity changes.

Is there anything similar in Epic D&D? How would one go about using Epic rules to summon moons?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Is there anything similar in Epic D&D? How would one go about using Epic rules to summon moons?

I am only vaguely familiar with FR, but I think there is something along those lines during the time of troubles. Or was that Dragonlance and the high priest or something? I'm pretty sure that there have been stories that have touched on this topic, maybe someone could explain?

As to Epic rules...honestly you are better off just making rules that sound cool to you. They would be better balanced if you never looked at the epic rules.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

-The 20d6 cap applies to smaller objects as well. The base formula of "object size damage + distance damage, then capped at 20d6" is changed by the exception-based rule for smaller objects which replaces the "size damage + distance damage" part of the formula.

I have no doubt that was the intent, but there's no language that screams out, "Lighter objects behave exactly the same except for this one thing." To be fair, on further examination, the language about falling farther "to do the same amount of damage" implies that lighter objects can't do a higher maximum damage than objects that weigh 200+ pounds. I'm even willing to hang my hat on that. My original point in bringing up that interpretation was to point out another way in which that section is really badly written, so much so that you don't have to be a moron to come away with a completely different interpretation.

[Amra]

I am only vaguely familiar with FR, but I think there is something along those lines during the time of troubles. Or was that Dragonlance and the high priest or something? I'm pretty sure that there have been stories that have touched on this topic, maybe someone could explain?

T'was Dragonlance. The Kingpriest - ruler of the city of Istar and batshit-crazy-right-wing leader of the "Good" clerics - prayed to Paladine to destroy all Evil creatures outright. Paladine, the Platinum Dragon, defender of the weak and innocent and bringer of justice, considered this request for multiple genocide from his most senior representative on Krynn and responded by... getting all Old Testament about it and dropping a burning mountain on the biggest city on the planet, killing tens of thousands of people and reaffirming once and for all his rightful status as moral compass to the world.

Or something.

Hmmm...

[Talisman]

The Kingpriest - ruler of the city of Istar and batshit-crazy-right-wing leader of the "Good" clerics - prayed to Paladine to destroy all Evil creatures outright. Paladine, the Platinum Dragon, defender of the weak and innocent and bringer of justice, considered this request for multiple genocide from his most senior representative on Krynn and responded by... getting all Old Testament about it and dropping a burning mountain on the biggest city on the planet, killing tens of thousands of people and reaffirming once and for all his rightful status as moral compass to the world.

The moral here is: if someone asks you for help, drop a burning mountain on them and everyone around them. If you don't have a burning mountain, use a sledgehammer coated with napalm.

Sig: When The Sky Falls, from Malhavoc Press, has rules for throwing big ol' meteorites around...it's probably the closest you'll get to dropping an actual moon on somebody.