Should falling damage scale with size

radthemad4 · Post by **radthemad4** » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:47 pm

SRD rules

Falling Damage

The basic rule is simple: 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6.

If a character deliberately jumps instead of merely slipping or falling, the damage is the same but the first 1d6 is nonlethal damage. A DC 15 Jump check or DC 15 Tumble check allows the character to avoid any damage from the first 10 feet fallen and converts any damage from the second 10 feet to nonlethal damage. Thus, a character who slips from a ledge 30 feet up takes 3d6 damage. If the same character deliberately jumped, he takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 2d6 points of lethal damage. And if the character leaps down with a successful Jump or Tumble check, he takes only 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and 1d6 points of lethal damage from the plunge.

Falls onto yielding surfaces (soft ground, mud) also convert the first 1d6 of damage to nonlethal damage. This reduction is cumulative with reduced damage due to deliberate jumps and the Jump skill.

Falls tend to be deadlier for larger creatures in real life. And insects that can't fly are often unharmed from falling great distances. Should there be different damage rates for different sized creatures?

Also, should huge and above creatures take damage for being tripped?

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:54 pm

No. It's a game. In real life you don't "take damage" when you get hurt. You get a fucking injury that could range from a bruise to a broken bone to instantaneous death.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:11 pm

From a realizarm standpoint, yes falls should be less severe for small creatures and more severe for large creatures. That's extremely basic physics and fits with natural experience. From a combat strategies standpoint, absolutely big creatures should take damage from being tripped. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" is totally true in real life, it's not just an empty saying. But beyond that, figuring out ways to tip over titans is cool. It's an important genre convention that D&D should attempt to emulate.

It's of course extra complexity, but extra complexity that makes fights with cloud giants more interesting inherently is probably worthwhile.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:24 pm

I hate multiplication and especially division, but, how would this work for a quick-and-dirty fix for 3E D&D?

[*] Fine and diminutive creatures: divide falling damage by four.
[*] Tiny and small creatures: divide falling damage by two.
[*] Large and huge creatures: multiply falling damage by two.
[*] Gargantuan and colossal: multiply it by four.

Moreover, if you're taller than 10 feet (generally, huge-sized creatures) you take falling damage equal to your height if you become prone without at least taking a move action to sit down.

Finally, for objects that are dropped the hardness is doubled and subtracted from the falling damage before applying size multiplication. Damage reduction gets applied last, as normal.

Yes, this means that if an adult dragon falls out of the sky, they risk getting killed and the best way to hurt large flying non-hovering creatures is to nail them with tanglefoot bags and nets mid-flight.

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:42 pm

Nahhhh, multiplications is bad m'kay. Just use....

Fine and diminutive: 1d6-2 per 10ft
Small and tiny: 1d6-1 per 10ft
Medium creatures: 1d6 per 10ft
Large and Huge: 1d6+1 per 10ft
Gargantuan and Collossal: 1d6+2 per 10 feet

Anything taller than 10 feet takes falling damage equal to it's height if it is tripped or otherwise knocked prone.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:49 pm

If you don't like multiplication, add or subtract a 1d6 damage per size bigger or smaller.

I'm guessing "Fine" would simply, well, not take falling damage.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:04 pm

A simple way would be to subtract 10 feet of falling damage per size categorycategory smaller than medium and add 10 feet for every size larger.

Small creatures would need to fall 20 feet to take 1d6; Tiny 30 to take 1d6, etc.

A large creature that falls (trip) takes 1d6 and would take 2d6 for falling 10 ft.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:35 am

I'd combine Deanrule's and Deaddmwalking's. Something like:

+1/-1 per d6 per size category and add or subtract 10ft to the fall per size category.

So a Colossal creature gets tripped? That counts as a 40ft fall, dealing 4d6+16. A large creature being tripped takes 1d6+4. A medium or smaller creature takes no damage from being tripped.

Falling from 100ft up, colossal creature counts as a 140ft drop for 14d6+56. Large creature counts as 110ft for 11d6+11. Medium takes 10d6. Small takes 9d6-9. Fine takes 6d6-24.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:00 am

Realism is a stupid argument. With realism, colossal creatures can't pun blood to their brains because they're too tall, and die every time they stand up. With realism, they cant run, because each time their foot comes back down, they take damage. With realism, etc.

If you're complaining that fall damage isn't realistic for larger or smaller creatures, I have bad news for you: it ain't realistic for medium creatures either.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:10 am

The 'who gives a crap about realism?' argument only really works if you're making a narrative or gameplay tradeoff as to why you're eschewing it.

If the proposed change is too hard to use or remember, then fine, but otherwise I'm not really seeing the problem with modelling falling damage to be more like the real world. For one, it'd make flight a more dangerous thing to use -- and give dragons a reason to land and engage the party. And it'd be a (badly needed) advantage of small characters.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:18 am

How does this look?


Size	Falling damage	Cap
Fine	No damage	0
Diminutive	1/10ft	1
Tiny	1d6/10ft	1d6
Small	1d6/10ft	10d6
Medium	1d6/10ft	20d6
Large	3d6/10ft	60d6
Huge	5d6/5ft	100d6
Gargantuan	15d6/5ft	No cap
Colossal	50d6/5ft	No cap

Here are some data points:

A mouse (Diminuitive, 1HP) should survive maximum damage.
A cat (tiny, 2HP) hits terminal velocity after 7 stories, and often survives.
An elephant (huge, 100HP) should be severely injured (at least half its HP on average) by falling 20ft.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:26 am

How do baby colossi survive learning to walk?

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:29 am

fectin wrote:How do baby colossi survive learning to walk?

Instinct and r-strategism.

Oh, and maybe feather fall, because magic explains everything.

EDIT: And if they jump deliberately, they convert 10ft to nonlethal, and a successful jump/tumble check reduces the next 10ft. So, with some natural tumble skill, a 20ft fall just knocks them unconscious.

Logically, I'd guess that because when you trip, your average fall distance per body part is about half your height, that would make the fall distance, well, half the height.

And, also, Titans are only Huge.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:30 am

fectin wrote:How do baby colossi survive learning to walk?

Who cares? Do you know how many people have ever actually asked this question? I'll give you a hint, I'm responding to the only fucking one.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:05 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:How does this look?

Not intuitive enough. If people have to look up the falling damage every time, it's not going to get used.

MisterDee · Post by **MisterDee** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:43 pm

I'd make it part of the special qualities/defence, personnally.

As a rule, Fine and Diminutive critters are Immune to Fall Damage. Tiny and Small Critters would have "Take Half Damage from Falls". Medium and Large take normal, Huge/Gargantuan take double, Colossal take four time as much.

Then, you remove the special defense/vulnerability from monsters for which it makes no sense like incorporeal ones.

codeGlaze · Post by **codeGlaze** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:11 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:How does this look?
Size Falling damage Cap
Fine No damage 0
Diminutive 1/10ft 1
Tiny 1d6/10ft 1d6
Small 1d6/10ft 10d6
Medium 1d6/10ft 20d6
Large 3d6/10ft 60d6
Huge 5d6/5ft 100d6
Gargantuan 15d6/5ft No cap
Colossal 50d6/5ft No cap

Here are some data points:
A mouse (Diminuitive, 1HP) should survive maximum damage.

A cat (tiny, 2HP) hits terminal velocity after 7 stories, and often survives.

An elephant (huge, 100HP) should be severely injured (at least half its HP on average) by falling 20ft.

Mice should be kill-destroy-able by dropping them far enough. Unless I'm misunderstanding your use of 'cap'. But as read, it seems like you're saying they can take 1 damage max from any fall. I could see Diminutive = 1/10 ft( or 1/20, 1/30...) and Fine = 1/20 ft (1/30, 1/40...). Making something completely immune to falling hurties seems a little odd and I could see plenty of people calling shenanigans while reading that. Tinker Bell still breaks her wing or .... mumble mumble something etc.

What if your damage is doubled every step above medium? At least that's a bit easier to remember.

Maybe add the creatures HD to damage as well for creatures over large (one step away from medium).


Size	Falling damage
Fine	1/30ft
Diminutive	1/20ft
Tiny	2/10ft
Small	1d4/10ft
Medium	1d6/10ft
Large	2d6/10ft
Huge	4d6+HD/10ft
Gargantuan	8d6+HD/10ft
Colossal	16d6+HD/10ft

i.e. A Storm Giant takes 4d6+17 damage per 10 ft

It was mentioned falling over is roughly half your height.
So a terrasque just falling over would take (16d6+48)*2 which averages to... what, 208 HP? (between 128 and 288 for falling 20(25)ft)

Maybe throw some status effects in there as well. (Stunned, Dazed, etc)

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:13 pm

I don't think you're misunderstanding what I mean by damage cap. There is no distance you can drop a cat through air that it can't survive, if it's conscious.

But, simplicity is a thing, so I'll revise slightly:

Diminutive and fine creatures never take falling damage
Tiny creatures never take more than one die of damage (but it's the nastiest die)
Small creatures take 1/3 damage (after cap)
Medium creatures take full damage (after cap)
Large and larger creatures take 3x damage per size above medium, and have no damage cap.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:58 pm

This means I cannot have Pacific Rim style fights. That makes me sad.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:00 pm

ubernoob wrote:This means I cannot have Pacific Rim style fights. That makes me sad.

On the contrary, it makes pacific rim style fights more likely to happen, because knocking your giant monsters or giant fighting robots down, or knocking them back 50 ft, is a way to deal serious damage to them in a way just punching them doesn't.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:06 pm

Seerow wrote:
ubernoob wrote:This means I cannot have Pacific Rim style fights. That makes me sad.
On the contrary, it makes pacific rim style fights more likely to happen, because knocking your giant monsters or giant fighting robots down, or knocking them back 50 ft, is a way to deal serious damage to them in a way just punching them doesn't.

I was saying more in the sense that the first one to lift up the other 30' (easily enough done with colossal) wins because 300d6 is 1050 damage. The tarrasque only has 900 hit points. A 30' drop OHKOs it.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:11 pm

ubernoob wrote:
Seerow wrote:
ubernoob wrote:This means I cannot have Pacific Rim style fights. That makes me sad.
On the contrary, it makes pacific rim style fights more likely to happen, because knocking your giant monsters or giant fighting robots down, or knocking them back 50 ft, is a way to deal serious damage to them in a way just punching them doesn't.
I was saying more in the sense that the first one to lift up the other 30' (easily enough done with colossal) wins because 300d6 is 1050 damage. The tarrasque only has 900 hit points. A 30' drop OHKOs it.

Okay yeah, some of the scales people have given are kind of crazy (I'd also never want to roll 300d6 damage).

But the general premise is good.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:12 pm

The Tarrasque can lift above its head 102.4 tons. A colossal creature with a strength score 2 points higher than the tarrasque can lift 133.12 tons above its head. The tarrasque only weighs 130 tons.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:14 pm

1m thick iron has almost 1200 HP. 1m thick magically treated adamantine has almost 3200 HP.

So, I'd expect that you'd need to lift a truly gigantic mecha around 90ft to reliably kill it. 110ft with the slight adjustment I added later. More if it's built more heavily than that.

You'd also get a tumble check to negate the first 10ft.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:24 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:1m thick iron has almost 1200 HP. 1m thick magically treated adamantine has almost 3200 HP.

So, I'd expect that you'd need to lift a truly gigantic mecha around 90ft to reliably kill it. 110ft with the slight adjustment I added later. More if it's built more heavily than that.

You'd also get a tumble check to negate the first 10ft.

I don't think that's how the rules for constructs work. Frankly, no one cares how many unattended walls you can break. Constructs have hit dice and hit point pools that are unrelated to the amount of damage needed to destroy the metal they are made of.