|
Ok now as much as I love playing D&D sometimes think my blood pressure is going to go so high that either my head explodes ruining my fine collection of gaming material or I am just going to have a heartattack and realizing that I am dying will try to set my library on fire so I can go out viking style. Ok here's my latest complaint, I think I am going to need a wee bit of advise also.
Ok so I have my Pc's in this tree top city, they are incredibly high off the ground when the resident cleric, who has the fly spell, decides he wants to jump off the edge of the city and hold off casting his spell until he has fallen a bit. Ok now what in the name of Zeus' b~*~*~~# would be the concentration DC for falling at terminal velocity towards almost certain doom? I really didnt know what the DC would be and when I talk to the player himself about making concentration checks, he thinks I am screwing him over, not just in this instance but all the freakin time. Could somone help me out by helping me figure out a DC for falling quite quickly towards the earth?
-V-
I guess part of what you’ve got to figure out is how much the falling is really messing with his concentration. Having talked with people who have been into sky-diving they say there’s a really peaceful feeling one can get during the fall, sort of Zenish-one-with-the-universe sort of thing. If that’s the case, I don’t see any need for modification above his normal chances unless you want to throw a couple of points in for wind pressure messing with any hand movements he might have to make.
Casting time vs. how long the drop lasts gives you the time he has allotted before he has to begin. If there’s any lag time between spell completion and the beginning of the effect, that has to be factored in too, or he’s mush. Also…we cannot forget instantaneous deceleration trauma. If he’s at terminal velocity and the spell kicks in to stop his fall (even 2 inches above ground) the sudden cessation of movement could splat him as though he’d impacted. He’ll have to curve out of the fall like an airplane coming out of a steep dive (unless of course you want to plead “magic” preventing all this realism from taking place). I prefer the more realistic approach…there’s so much story drama to it!
Personally, because of all the hassle he's caused with this stupid move, I say let him crash and teach him a lesson.
Don't you fall like 30ft per second per second (not a typo) so in the first second you fall 30, second second you fall 60 and so on. Um, major high DC, make sure he writes out a will and gets all his affairs in order before attempting this stunt. Oh, and a heartfelt "goodbye cruel world!" Would be a nice touch.
You're screwing him.
At the worst, it's extremely violent motion which is DC20. Personally, I'd call it Vigourous Motion, DC10, which he makes without even rolling so why bother interrupting his cool action with some piddly ruling?
>> Also…we cannot forget instantaneous deceleration trauma.
I stand corrected. Compared to this, you're completely reasonable.
You're screwing him.
At the worst, it's extremely violent motion which is DC20. Personally, I'd call it Vigourous Motion, DC10, which he makes without even rolling so why bother interrupting his cool action with some piddly ruling?
>> Also…we cannot forget instantaneous deceleration trauma.
I stand corrected. Compared to this, you're completely reasonable.
Have to disagree with you. The player isn't screwed at all. Asking for a DC20-25 roll while falling from the top of a giant tree and casting a spell? That's why the concentration skill is there. Don't forget that aside from speed and that sudden stop at the end are branches. He did say he was falling from a tree top.
And don't complain about deceleration trauma. If the cleric were smart he would have grabbed the sorc/wizard for the featherfall. ;)
|
I concur that you aren't being unreasonable. I think DC 20 or 25 would be completely appropriate...especially if he's getting pelted in the face, torso and extremities with branches while he's trying to cast. And, the fact that he's trying to cast a spell would preclude him from making any kind of reflex check to grab a limb as he falls.
I WOULD caveat this by saying that the PC might deserve some kind of situational bonus (up to +2) because it wasn't an unexpected action against him (as if he had been knocked off by a giant eagle or bullrushed off the edge). So maybe a DC of 23? I wouldn't go overboard with the real world physics explanations or rationalizations. Just the basic action/consequence should be enough.
For extra fun, have a dire opposum lapping up the last of the grease-spot he makes and trundle off into the underbrush as the rest of the party gets down to help him. It's best when character deaths can serve as a good example of bad behavior.
Don't you fall like 30ft per second per second (not a typo) so in the first second you fall 30, second second you fall 60 and so on. Um, major high DC, make sure he writes out a will and gets all his affairs in order before attempting this stunt. Oh, and a heartfelt "goodbye cruel world!" Would be a nice touch.
Bah, at the absolute most it's 20d6 or about 70 points of damage on average and the first d6 is non-lethal because he did it intentionally. A DC 15 Jump or Tumble check will allow him to negate the first 10 feet fallen and turn the next 10 into non-lethal. Heck, if the ground is soft and spungy he gets another d6 turned to non-lethal as well. I say live a little.
If you want to get all scientific though:
Every planetary body, including the Earth, is surrounded by its own gravitational field, which exerts an attractive force on any object. This field is proportional to the body's mass and varies inversely with the square of distance from the body. The gravitational field is numerically equal to the acceleration of objects under its influence, and its value at the Earth's surface, denoted g, is approximately 9.8 m/s². This means that, ignoring air resistance, an object falling freely near the earth's surface increases in speed by 9.807 m/s (32.174 ft/s or 22 mi/h) for each second of its descent. Thus, an object starting from rest will attain a speed of 9.807 m/s (32.17 ft/s) after one second, 19.614 m/s (64.34 ft/s) after two seconds, and so on. According to Newton's 3rd Law, the Earth itself experiences an equal and opposite force to that acting on the falling object, meaning that the Earth also accelerates towards the object. However, because the mass of the Earth is huge, the measurable acceleration of the Earth by this same force is negligible, when measured relative to the system's center of mass.....
and....
the terminal velocity of a skydiver in a normal free-fall position with a closed parachute is about 195 km/h (120 mph or 54 m/s). This velocity is the asymptotic limiting value of the acceleration process, since the effective forces on the body more and more closely balance each other as it is approached. In this example, a speed of 50% of terminal velocity is reached after only about 3 seconds, while it takes 8 seconds to reach 90%, 15 seconds to reach 99% and so on.
Higher speeds can be attained if the skydiver pulls in his limbs (see also freeflying). In this case, the terminal velocity increases to about 320 km/h (200 mph or 89 m/s), which is also the maximum speed of the Peregrine Falcon diving down on its prey.
On August 16th, 1960 U.S. Air Force Captain Joe Kittinger came close to breaking the sound barrier during a free-fall from the high altitude balloon Excelsior III, at an altitude of 102,800 feet (approximately 20 miles), hitting a speed of 614 mph (274 m/s) as reported by National Geographic. This made Captain Kittinger the fastest human on the planet.
An object falling will fall 9.81 meters per second faster every second (9.81 m/s²). The reason an object reaches a terminal velocity is that the drag force resisting motion is directly proportional to the square of its speed. At low speeds the drag is much less than the gravitational force and so the object accelerates. As it speeds up the drag increases, until eventually it equals the weight. Drag also depends on the cross sectional area. This is why things with a large surface area such as parachutes have a lower terminal velocity than small objects like cannon balls.
So in the course of one 6 second round and allowing for wind, a planet the size of earth, a mostly stationary start, and my lack of math skills he will have fallen roughly - what like about 500-600 feet, how high was this tree again? Assuming that one standard action (the time it takes to cast the fly spell) takes about half a round (3 seconds) the cleric in question best be sure the tree is at least 250 feet high and that he's wearing a cape to create some drag or else he's not going to have time to get the last syllable out.
I wouldn't make it too difficult (it might be good practice for an dragon dogfight in the future). I figure it's maybe as hard as trying to cast off the back of a charging mount not specifically trained for war. Still, if he's got more than 140 hp what does he care? He's a cleric. It's just hit points (to misquote a major complaint about Palladium's game engine).
Triple G
Simply put, the acceleration of gravity is equal to 32 feet per second squared. Therefore, in a single six-second round the PC would fall:
32 feet x 1' in the first second +
32 feet x 4' in the second second +
32 feet x 9' in the third second +
32 feet x 16' in the fourth second +
32 feet x 25' in the fifth second +
32 feet x 36' in the sixth second.
That character had better hope he was really, really high up.
Actually, I've had this situation come up in my own game. Showing the character how the math works out usually keeps them from doing it again. In situations where the PC is featherfalling or flying, I usually call for a DC 20 Concentration check since they're not used to falling or flying and need to overcome their own reactions.
Don't forget, the guy wasn't pushed. He jumped on purpose. Why, exactly, should he be freaking out when everything is going according to plan?
[in reply to a witty Wolf remark --kruelaid]
I agree. Btw are you ever not online?
I wish I could get a laptop for when I'm driving to work.
And a guy's gotta sleep....oh well, nobody posts much in the wee hours anyhow.
Wolfie, the Earth is round. People live on the other side AND they play D&D.
;)
Simply put, the acceleration of gravity is equal to 32 feet per second squared. Therefore, in a single six-second round the PC would fall:
32 feet x 1' in the first second +
32 feet x 4' in the second second +
32 feet x 9' in the third second +
32 feet x 16' in the fourth second +
32 feet x 25' in the fifth second +
32 feet x 36' in the sixth second.That character had better hope he was really, really high up.
Actually, I've had this situation come up in my own game. Showing the character how the math works out usually keeps them from doing it again. In situations where the PC is featherfalling or flying, I usually call for a DC 20 Concentration check since they're not used to falling or flying and need to overcome their own reactions.
Don't forget wind resistance.
GGG
Contributor
|
Distance = 1/2 * Acceleration * (Time * Time)
aka, distance equals one-half "a" "t" squared
He actually only falls 16' the first second.
This is correct.
In the first second, he accelerates from 0 to 32 feet per second, meaning his average velocity over the course of second one is 16 feet/ second, so in that second he fell 16 feet.
In the second second, his accelerates from 32 to 64 feet per second, meaning his average velocity over second two is 48 feet per second, so he falls a further 48 feet, for a total of 66 feet.
Every following second, his average velocity and distance traveled goes up by another 32 feet, but this does not count for wind resistance, which brings you to terminal velocity before the end of the round.
Of course, the falling rules are only a simplified simulation. I would personally rule that a wizard making a spellcraft check could calculate when to start the fly spell to time it correctly, and a concentration check would allow them to pull it off.
I wouldn't set either of these DCs to high; if he has the spell he knows how to use it, plus, this is a heroic fantasy game. What is cooler than jumping off of a bridge and casting fly spell in mid-fall? I totally encourage this kind of behaviour, and it is a classic of the genre. What would have been cooler; Gandalf jumping off the tower and landing on the eagle's back, or the eagle landing on the tower and Gandalf carefully adjusting the saddle and climbing aboard?
Craig Shackleton,
The Rambling Scribe
|
The only thing I might do, and that's only if I were feeling particularly vicious that night, is give a spell failure check like that for Deafened. It's hard to hear your own voice and it's a bit more difficult to control your somatic gestures.
For a character that flies regularly, though, none of that should apply, since the rush of air past his ears and hands is a normal thing.
(If you had the ability to fly, wouldn't you practice with it all the time? I certainly would.)
Also…we cannot forget instantaneous deceleration trauma.
Actually, yes. Yes we can.
Ahem. *pulls up a soapbox*
LEAVE PHYSICS OUT OF D&D!
Should he have to make a Concentration check? At first I thought "no, there's no check required for falling," but now I believe it would fall under vigorous motion normally, violent in this case due to the branches thrashing him. I'd also inflict anywhere from 1d6 nonlethal to 5d6 lethal for impacting said branches, depending on the exact situation he's in, but would not increase the Concentration DC or have him make another for the damage- that's already been taken into account.
So that's DC 15 if it's just violent, DC 20 if you want to play up the branches (since there's also "extraordinarily violent motion," too). Not that hard.
And no, the spell has no lag time to consider. And no, he will not go splat due to "instantaneous deceleration trauma." That's feels cheap to me. That feels like the DM pulling out some mumbo-jumbo to try and get his way without having to resort (at least openly) to pure the pure DM fiat of "no, it just doesn't work."
Anything above the most common knowledge physics, what is absolutely necessarily to retain verisimilitude and an understandable, functioning world, should be LEFT OUT of D&D.
Just curious: why is the player doing this?
LEAVE PHYSICS OUT OF D&D!
"Why does the ball return to Varisian sod when you throw it aloft like so? Why does it not continue on its way up, up, up? Because, young one, we and all around us are the world's creation. The world is our mother, and her spirit cannot stand to let any of her children go. Not even this BALL YOU HIT INTO MY YARD FOR THE SEVENTEENTH TIME TODAY!"
DC15
wizards had a looong article on aerial movement and they ruled that you fell 500 feet in the first round and 1000 feet every round thereafter. It also goes into pretty good detail about pulling out of a dive and intentional dives etc.
All about Movement (Part Five) http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040706a
|
|
Also…we cannot forget instantaneous deceleration trauma.
Deceleration trauma only applies if there is differential deceleration (9.8 m/s^2 doesn't cause any trauma when it's deceleration/acceleration by gravity, for instance). I see no reason to believe that a Fly spell wouldn't accelerate the entire body simultaneously.
LEAVE PHYSICS OUT OF D&D!
It is entirely possible to build a model that works within the assumptions of D&D, just as it's possible to build an economic model that works with D&D magic. (Not with the default D&D economic model, though.) And such a model helps to fill the holes left by a necessarily incomplete RPG model while maintaining a certain verisimilitude.
Sorry if that means that what I'm doing is badfun; I guess you'll just have to look away.
*pulls up a soapbox*
LEAVE PHYSICS OUT OF D&D!
…….
And no, he will not go splat due to "instantaneous deceleration trauma." That's feels cheap to me. That feels like the DM pulling out some mumbo-jumbo to try and get his way without having to resort (at least openly) to pure the pure DM fiat of "no, it just doesn't work."Anything above the most common knowledge physics, what is absolutely necessarily to retain verisimilitude and an understandable, functioning world, should be LEFT OUT of D&D.
As I recall, the very first sentence of my reply stated, “I guess part of what you’ve got to figure out is how much the falling is really messing with his concentration.” From this point I didn’t make a large number of presumptions about what was going on…such as the character bouncing like a Pachinko ball off of tree branches on the way down. I simplified to merely calculating fall time vs. spell casting and activation time and then making sure to point out the deceleration and “pull out of the dive” issue (the whole trauma thing was meant to be tongue in cheek, which you obviously missed). I mentioned that I prefer the more realistic approach in my games, but left it totally up to the DM asking the question to use his own style. I merely expressed my advice (for which he asked) and left it at that.
1) However cheap you feel it is isn’t germane to the question of whether the DM asking the question feels it’s a point to consider in his own game. I was making a joke to him, not inviting you to give artistic critique of my games or my sense of humor.
2) As to “common knowledge of physics” …it’s like “common sense”…if it were common everyone would have it. In this case, the DM apparently doesn’t feel comfortable with his level of knowledge and is asking for assistance and advice…not “soap box” exposé’s on your opinion of other people’s methodologies and wit.
3) You make a gross presumption that the character is going to impact anything on the way down. This introduces more physics into the situation than warranted. Maybe the guy picked a spot that was clear all the way to the ground. I left it up to the DM to make that call, not demanding that he conform to my limited view or presuming cases that had not been expressed. Your presumption on this point is a huge act of “verisimilitude” (the appearance of being true or real; a statement that is not supported by evidence).
4) Why use gravity at all? That would certainly simplify the game. This mindset is borderline Luddite (you might look that up and get an education while you’re about it) and goes against the very concept of RPGs, which is to be able to be and do things you are not able to be and do in real life. Turning off gravity for the convenience of simplifying that bothersome physics problem is well within those parameters and meets your shouted demand quite handily.
Don’t yell..
Don’t presume things…
Don’t throw out insults unless you’re prepared to deal with the response…
Also…we cannot forget instantaneous deceleration trauma.Deceleration trauma only applies if there is differential deceleration (9.8 m/s^2 doesn't cause any trauma when it's deceleration/acceleration by gravity, for instance). I see no reason to believe that a Fly spell wouldn't accelerate the entire body simultaneously.
LEAVE PHYSICS OUT OF D&D!It is entirely possible to build a model that works within the assumptions of D&D, just as it's possible to build an economic model that works with D&D magic. (Not with the default D&D economic model, though.) And such a model helps to fill the holes left by a necessarily incomplete RPG model while maintaining a certain verisimilitude.
Sorry if that means that what I'm doing is badfun; I guess you'll just have to look away.
In my vast, immense play experience of 3.5 years (Is my play time and the current edition a mere coincidence?!?! Why, yes!), I have never found that implementing physics into D&D is a good idea. It slows the game down for an unnecessary gain in the simulation of reality, which is not what D&D has ever struck me (or anyone that I know of) as being about. Additionally, it leads to potential horrendous nightmares of players trying to exploit, bend, and circumvent rules by using real-world knowledge in the game (i.e., build laser canons), although, to be fair, this can be stopped by pointing out that, no matter how smart one is, they aren't going to just concieve of a power light-beam technology in a world that hasn't even undergone an industrial revolution; that said, it just seems like an icky situation overall.
Physics doesn't care about cinematic moments, ease of play, or levels of "fun." It has strikes me as inappropriate, out of place, and totally irrelevant to bring up arguments of physics in a world where a guy can twiddle his fingers, say "Abra Kadabra!" and produce a fireball.
Additionally, I believe the rules typically take the stance that ease of play and "fun" as a concept vastly trump any attempt at imposing realism into the game.
Finally, it is also somewhat unfair and not necessarily any sounder than just going by the RAW, wonky as they may be. Look at this very thread, where physics have been called out, only to be corrected by other posters. The RAW, though complicated in their own way, are far, far simpler than the science of physics, and are completely understandable by anyone who plays the game. However, physics may be understood perfectly, incompletely, or not at all by players and DMs at just one table. To invoke them as the basis for making a mechanical game decision runs the risk of the knowledge upon which said decision is being made being wrong/poorly understood, and even the risk that someone who has studied physics and is good at bluffing will try and use that knowledge unfairly to manipulate his fellow players and the game.
Obviously, anyone can run any game they want, and there's no objective "right" or "wrong" way... but then again, even the DMG has suggestions about good and bad game structure.
So I can't seem to find a good reason to include physics in D&D, and really feel that DMs/players who try to do so are making a large mistake, just as much as if they were railroading players at every turn.
All that being said, I would truly love to know what you mean by building a "model" for a world, working within the assumptions of D&D and somehow contributing to gameplay.
Ugh... what a mistake I made! First of all, let me apologize for what was percieved with such strong emotion, and also for missing the tongue and cheek/humorous part of the post (Seriously, I just didn't realize it; limits of the written word).
I was actually trying to use that same element of tongue and cheek by putting in the part about the soapbox (as well as in the opening line regarding my play experience in the above post).
However, I will also say that I was not trying to insult anyone, nor did I consider my words to be delivered in an insulting manner. Obviously, I was wrong.
However, you also made an assumption in your comment about my education. I am an ardent devotee of all things academic, a 19 year old who hopes to complete a double major and eventually go on to get a doctoral degree. Looks like we both fell to the same trap.
I also never said to dismiss gravity. I feel, quite strongly (as I'm sure you've realized), that almost anything you would actually find in a physics textbook has crossed the line of relevancy and will often throw a large monkey-wrench in the works of play balance.
I wasn't trying to start a flame war, and I'm trying to avert further development of what seems to be becoming one. I apologize for offending anyone; it wasn't my intent.
How about calling a truce and not detracting from this thread any further?
Just jokes on my part, babe. Don't sweat it. I've always thought gravity was for losers. I'm typing this from the stratosphere.
|
|
All that being said, I would truly love to know what you mean by building a "model" for a world, working within the assumptions of D&D and somehow contributing to gameplay.
Several things, and they'll be a bit disconnected (sorry) as I don't have time to write an essay:
1) There are many situations that do not involve magic even in a world with pervasive magic like that assumed by D&D. And many of those non-magical situations aren't covered by the rules. In such cases, the DM must make a decision about what happens.
As a DM, you can make a ruling based on extrapolation from vaguely related mechanics that are defined in the rules, "common sense", rolling a die, or by applying experience of what happens in a non-magical of which you have some experience. Standard physics is just a rigorous description of that world, so using it to help determine what might happen if you were to try to catch a 430 lb. PC falling from 380' while standing on a rickety wooden bridge might be useful.
2) Just as you can build a non-Euclidean geometry, you can build a non-Newtonian (and non-Einsteinian, etc.) physics. Your postulates must necessarily be different, but that doesn't prevent an internally consistent physics.
For instance, in D&D, cold is a type of energy and also (apparently) a lack of heat energy. Now this is certainly different from what we're used to, but it's not entirely foreign to what we're used to. In the instant example, physics is useful to determine both terminal velocity and rate of acceleration and was so used in that referenced WotC article. The fact that there is a Fly spell that violates the physics of our world doesn't say anything about other elements of the physics of the D&D world.
Now, when you go to some outer plane with extraordinarily strange physics, figuring out what the system is might be very difficult. In that case, perhaps just rolling dice is the right answer. If you don't have a good grasp of physics (and many or most people don't), it may well be that your best choice is to simplify your physics dramatically or follow the most nearly applicable written rules without worrying much about where they lead you.
If you find that those tactics work best for you and your players, great. I often make similar simplifying choices (say, with economics), and it only pains me part of the time.
Had you initially said, as you did here, "I have never found that implementing physics into D&D is a good idea", I might have simply let it pass or responded that my experience was different. But shouting "LEAVE PHYSICS OUT OF D&D!" anywhere but in your own game is unnecessarily rude.
Edit: As you graciously noted in a message that cross-posted with this one. I hope you don't take this as insulting, as I didn't intend it that way. If I crossed the line, I apologize.
No, you're good.
And my counter contention is that the feeling I get from reading the DMG is that the promoted philosophy is one of using the vaguely related rules covering other circumstances to determine what should be done in a situation not covered by the rules.
I know Lawgiver uses 2e, of which I have no experience, but in 3.x there is a strong trend to make massive simplifying assumptions at every turn, often in the interest of consistency and ease of play.
Take, for example, the recent thread about pulling a fighter on a rope. Physics were also dismissed in there; an attempt was made to try and calculate the fighter's weight into the calculation, to which many posters replied that it was needlessly complicated. A simple ruling based on other, vaguely similar rules was what the general community seemed to advocate.
My stance remains that anything above a layman's understanding of any science, be it economics, physics, biology, etc., is unnecessary in the game, and more often than not a hinderance. Attempting to conform any specialized level of knowledge in a science seems like an exercise in futility in a game that wantonly treads over all of them.
But, that's just my 2cp, in a slightly less aggressive format.
I think you're going about this all wrong, Zealot. Here's WotC's official ruling on this topic from their Official Game Rule FAQ. The subject question was about falling from a flying mount.
This ends up being both a rules and a physics question. The short answer is, “In a single round, you fall far enough to hit the ground in the vast majority of circumstances that come up in the game.”
Here’s the long answer: A falling character accelerates at a rate of 32 feet per second per second. What that means is that every second, a character’s “falling speed” increases by 32 feet.
The distance he falls in that second is equal to the average of his falling speeds at the beginning of that second and at the end of that second. Thus, during the first second he falls 16 feet (the average of 0 feet and 32 feet, which are his speeds at the start and end of that second). During the next second he falls 48 feet (the average of 32 feet and 64 feet). He falls 80 feet during the third second, 112 feet the fourth second, 144 feet the fifth second, and 176 feet the sixth second. That’s a grand total of 576 feet fallen in the first round alone, hence the short answer given above—the number of falls occurring in any campaign longer than this is probably pretty small. For ease of play, you could simply use 500 feet as a nice round number—it’s easier to remember.
Of course, the character falls even farther the next round, although acceleration soon ends due to the resistance of air on the falling body (this is what’s called terminal velocity). If the Sage remembers his high-school physics, terminal velocity for a human body is roughly 120 mph (equivalent to a speed of 1,200 feet per round, or 200 feet per second); thus, the character’s falling speed hits its maximum in the first second of the second round. It’s safe to say that after 2 rounds the character will have fallen nearly 2,000 feet, and will fall another 1,200 feet per round thereafter.
In the example you give, other characters would clearly have no more than a round to react, and it’s possible they’d have even less time. Remember that despite the sequential nature of D&D combat actions, things are happening very quickly—virtually simultaneously, in many cases. As a DM, I’d probably allow every character a chance to react to a long fall (such as the one you describe), as long as their action occurs before 1 full round has passed from the start of the fall. (As a side note, that’s why feather fall allows its caster to cast it even when it isn’t her turn—otherwise, adjudicating its timing would be a nightmare.) The difference between “you watch the character fall all the way to the ground before you can react” and “the character starts to fall, what do you do?” is really just up to the DM’s sense of fun and fair play. Off the top of my head, I’d say that anything up to 50 or 60 feet is clearly too fast to react to (barring a readied action, of course), and anything that approaches 250 feet or more should probably allow characters some chance to react, but that’s purely a personal opinion.
Whatever decision you make, try to make the same decision every time, so that players know what to expect. If this situation comes up a lot in your game, it’s probably worth creating a house rule so you don’t have to try to remember what you did last time. (If your campaign routinely features 300-foot falls, your characters might want to invest in some rings of feather falling!)
Now, if you start altering certain assumptions—such as the force of gravity, or the density of air that’s resisting the falling character, or even the mass of the falling character—these calculations become less useful. Yet, unless your numbers are much different than the standard values, you can still use these as benchmarks.
Personally, I would make this a matter of reacting in time if the fall is less than 250 ft. Have the PC roll Initiative and set the impact time in the round at 10 and let the player know that this is how you're going to handle it and see if they still want to risk it. This creates a sense of Russian Roulette, which can be kind of fun, but the player has to know that they are going to go "SPLAT!" if they fail to beat 10 on Initiative. Anything less than 60 feet, as has been said above, there simply isn't time to react fast enough to get a spell off with a casting time any longer than a swift action (or quickened). And anything over 250 ft. just let the player have his fun with gravity and magic and move on.
One other thing worth mentioning is that the fly spell provides Good maneuverability. NOT Perfect maneuverability. It's worth studying up on the rules in the DMG pg. 20 on Moving in Three Dimensions if this kind of thing is going to become a frequent occurance. Skip Williams' article Rules of the Game: All About Movement is also worth checking out where it touches on flying.
The “presumption” I made about education was because the use of the word verisimilitude didn’t seem very appropriate to the statement made. If that constitutes a mistake on my part, I take blame and let it lay there.
I will stipulate to the desire to avoid a flame war, but wish to explain some of my view point on my statements. What follows is rhetorical and any “questions” posed need not be responded to.
Playability and realism are inversely proportional. As one increases the other necessarily decreases. Each DM’s comfort level on that line will be different. Mine sits further along towards realism, to be sure. I use this level of realism as a tool to get players to consider consequences of their actions; to get them to “think before they leap” (pun intended), not as “pulling out some mumbo-jumbo to try and get his way without having to resort (at least openly) to pure DM fiat of "no, it just doesn't work." That line felt like a cheap shot accusing me of cowardice, which is why I responded as I did.
I play 2nd Edition, not 3rd because I feel 3rd Edition goes too far towards this “heroic fantasy” concept for my taste. “Metagameing” or “munchkin” gameing, or “Monte Hall” gaming (or whatever one wants to call it nowadays) is something I’ve always found a bit objectionable. There just doesn’t seem to be the same Challenge-to-Reward (accomplishment) ratio I get with 2nd Edition.
“I have never found that implementing physics into D&D is a good idea. It slows the game down for an unnecessary gain in the simulation of reality…”
That’s exactly why I use it, because without it the game accelerates too fast and my players and I don’t get that feeling of accomplishment. The whole thing becomes “too easy” and therefore unrewarding; a waste of time.
“…it leads to potential horrendous nightmares of players trying to exploit, bend, and circumvent rules by using real-world knowledge in the game…”
That’s up to each DM to control. If I’m comfortable with it and can control it, isn’t that call up to me?
“Physics doesn't care about cinematic moments, ease of play, or levels of "fun."
It’s up to the DM to make that determination. If I can describe this more realistic event in a cinematic manner and make the players “see” the event as though they were watching it in a movie, all that much better, yes? My players really like this level of realism and have lots of fun with it. It comes down, again, to what the DM is capable of and comfortable with; not an edict from outside.
All that said, agreed…truce. Apology accepted and returned in its spirit.
To get on to the question of DC for the fall…
Did the character deliberately place himself in a position to get a clear drop to the ground? The fact that the character stipulated that he would deliberately hold off casting for “a bit” before casting indicates he wasn’t anticipating any branches entering into the equation. This presumption would indicate that branches are not an issue. It would then come down to purely how much the actual falling (wind pressure, noise, comfort level with falling sensation, practice at flying, et al) effects the situation. I would put the base DC at 20-25 and let it go from there. It would be up to the character (player) to calculate (or miscalculate) when to begin casting.
If branches are an issue, I would randomly determine how many branches he hits…say 1d3 branches (minimum) per 100 feet fallen, so a 600 foot fall would yield 6d3 (6-18) branches. He would have to make his Concentration check (at whatever number has been determined) on each impact. If he blows the check he has to start over. His whole “waiting” thing could really work against him. Storms, high winds, earthquakes, or other violent activity taken against a caster tends to ratchet up the DC. I would treat any branch impact as falling into this category. The further the character has fallen since the last impact, the more violent the damage (up to a maximum because of terminal velocity).
I would place the base DC at 20-25. If there have been multiple impacts and/or one or more previous DC failures (for whatever other reason), perhaps a +2 or so increased DC from base for each additional failure might be warranted; the more battered he is the more difficult to mend the shredded tatters of his concentration and get the spell off, the more frightened he is of the next failure and possible death, etc. etc.
Beyond that, Steve Greer's post would seem the most enlightenign, useful and sensible (unless one wants to get more technical, like me).
Monty Haul, we used to call it.
Group hug!
|
|
"Why does the ball return to Varisian sod when you throw it aloft like so? Why does it not continue on its way up, up, up? Because, young one, we and all around us are the world's creation. The world is our mother, and her spirit cannot stand to let any of her children go. Not even this BALL YOU HIT INTO MY YARD FOR THE SEVENTEENTH TIME TODAY!"
LEAVE PHYSICS OUT OF D&D!
Feh. Physics is overrated.
Group hug!
Secondedededed.
We all agree that physics are a silly nesecity. Yay! Let's make cookies!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I agree with Saern, including the disparagement (but minus the overlooked soapbox disclaimer which should have given sufficient warning that he was ranting, and not being intentionally rude). I read the post earlier on my blackberry and wanted to say something similar but with a greater deal of sarcasm. I'm tired now, so if you really want that, go dig up an old post, pretend I said those things to you, and then respond.
At most this is a Concentration check for vigarous movement. There is no decelleration (sp?) damage. It's not in the rules, it's complicated to calculate, it doesn't add to playability. I'm a little more open to the timing issue, but generally spells are cast instantly on your turn, they don't take 6 seconds. If they did, you could interrupt casting through a successful attack prior to the spellcaster's turn like in 2e. Steve's got the best idea with initiative, but I'd still be inclined to say that the character got off the suprise round against gravity, if you will, and got to cast the spell before falling very far. It's not as if he fell unaware and then realized he had to cast.
But all of this is a side issue.
The real issue here is why the player needs to be punished for the stupid act. If the player knew the spell would take longer to cast than it would take to hit the ground, presumably, the character wouldn't have done it. So, if the character took this action with the understanding that: (a) he would cast before he hit the ground;(b) he would not suffer damage for casting fly in a freefall; and (c) no concentration check was necessary and this understanding was incorrect, and that understanding was incorrect, he should be allowed to change his action.
That's the real issue: did the player understand the full consequences of his character's action? It's a stupid action, but he should still have the appropriate information available before being forced to commit to it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
One more thing. Saern used the word verisimilitude correctly. The below is not so correct.
3) You make a gross presumption that the character is going to impact anything on the way down. This introduces more physics into the situation than warranted. Maybe the guy picked a spot that was clear all the way to the ground. I left it up to the DM to make that call, not demanding that he conform to my limited view or presuming cases that had not been expressed. Your presumption on this point is a huge act of “verisimilitude” (the appearance of being true or real; a statement that is not supported by evidence).
Dictionary.com, from which the definition you provided appears to have been taken, provides an example of the proper usage in the context of describing a play and its level of verisimilitude.
It's an adjective or noun though, not a verb, you can't have an act of verisimilitude any more than you can have an act of pretty or act of blue.
Zealot, don't let a stupid idea rule your game. A concentration check, whether they like it or not, is all I would ask for. And if the player in question gives you guff about it either ask if they want to reconsider what they're doing or suggest that they get rolling if they don't want to be a pancake.
I've had a lot of stupid (or "cool") ideas at my table (like almost any DM): from throwing one's own eye down a tunnel to "see what's down there" to characters trying to use a grappling hook to bring down a flying enemy. And ultimately, I just think up a check if the idea is even REMOTELY possible or describe their ridiculous failure if it isn't. If you have an attention hog, arguing about the ruling feeds their desire to hog the spotlight. If they just want to goof around, give it as little thought as possible. All of this is, however, in my opinion.
It's an adjective or noun though, not a verb, you can't have an act of verisimilitude any more than you can have an act of pretty or act of blue.
When applied to an act of speech (vocal or written) as in “a statement that is not supported by evidence” it is a verb and my reference is correct. Other than that, I stipulate to the remaining issue on verisimilitude. I was upset and trying to make a dig. Issue closed.
Dictionary.com, from which the definition you provided appears to have been taken…
Incorrect, I used my own knowledge of English vocabulary.
The real issue here is why the player needs to be punished for the stupid act.
Incorrect. The issue is helping this DM determine a DC for a Concentration check, as requested. I think that’s been handled. Potential punishment for “stupidity” is a side-issue to be determined by the DM, not us, unless he requests further input on it.
As can be seen by the many responses to your question by gamers whose opinions I respect greatly, there isn't necessarily a clear "right" answer. I think the "right" answer is the one that makes sense for your group, made by you (assuming your the DM), at the given point in time.
I'd have to honestly say that as DM, my ruling (target DC, or the lack thereof) would probably vary based on my mood, who was attempting the manuever, and the overall value the stunt would add to the game.
really, it depends on how experienced the caster is in like situations; is this really any more frightening than a big burly monster charging you about to bash your brains in; i doubt it; sure the threat of impact from a fall is serious, but this is really a guy just trying to play his character with flair and should not be overly penalized; so I would say; is he hitting branches on the way down or anything else that might affect his concentration? Does the spell require any material components? I would have him make a dex check at dc 20 to hold any material components properly for the spell and a concentration check about the same or equal to a combat situation; I dont think it should be overly difficult; if he has practices this sort of thing or has done it before then I would give a bonus; might also make him make a dc 15 or so Int roll to determine rate of fall and best time to cast the spell; failure might mean he miss timed it either early or two late; equal chance.
I don't have the books with me, but what are the Verbal, Somatic and Material components for the spell? I'd say that there should be a Concentration Check to cast the Fly spell, say +7DC for every casting component required. Now a DC21 Concentration Check is very difficult for a 6th level caster, but fairly easy for a more experienced adventurer, say 16th level.
When you're PC is falling, use the Feather Fall spell, which requires but a single word to cast. That's it's purpose. Your PC chose the wrong spell to cast, and must therefore learn from his mistakes.
Or you can just say that he casted the Fly spell BEFORE he jumped, explaining to him the consequences of doing otherwise...
Ultradan
Of course, one could handle it like this:
Player: I am going to jump from the top of the tree and wait until the last moment to cast my fly spell.
DM: Be advised that this is not a good idea. There are branches to contend with possible concentration checks. Timing will be absolutely critical as well.
Player: Yes, but I don't care about those.
DM: Okay. Go ahead and let me know when you cast.
Player: I jump then....
DM: After one second, the ground seems to be rushing at you awful quickly. A few grazes of branches has destablized your fall and you are tumbling. One second has elapsed. Do you start casting?
Player: I'm hanging in there....
DM: The next second and you only get momentary glimpses of the ground rushing at you, due to your tumbling and the obscuring branches. Do you cast now?
Player: Ummm. Yeah...
DM: You start casting. One more second elapses. With a sickening thud, you hit the ground at the end of the your turn. Take [rolls 20d6] X of damage....
Player: *&^%$#@!
DM: Well, as a consolation, the rest of the party gave your full marks for artistic impression but your marks tanked due to your score on the technical points.... 7.5 out of 10 overall.
DM: Well, as a consolation, the rest of the party gave your full marks for artistic impression but your marks tanked due to your score on the technical points.... 7.5 out of 10 overall.
Or just have a few gnomes line up holding cards.
I don't think anyone is being "punished" with a concentration check while in freefall. I generally don't discourage my players, but I do warn them if their characters would know something they don't. And of what will be needed to pull it off.