|
The real world physics explanation is that the energy of a fall is linearly proportional to the length of the fall. That is, a 20' drop has twice as much energy as a 10' drop, and a 30' drop has three times the energy. So if 10' worth of falling is always worth 1d6 damage, then the linear model makes sense. Of course, just because the energy doubles doesn't mean that the potential for injury doesn't more than double, so the summation model also makes sense.It really just depends on how lethal you want your falling (and dropping objects on people) to be.
Except the way the randomness works with dice means that extra height doesn't actually "triple" the base damage. You could fall 10 feet for 6 damage, but increase the fall to 70 feet for only 12 damage - so to tag onto your statement, the "potential" for injury is indeed lower for high-level falls then perhaps it should be.
If you fall 10 feet for 6 damage (enough to knock out a normal commoner), the same "result" of a fall (let's say 6 damage is landing badly on your head) from 70 feet should be 42 damage (SPLAT!)
The summation model helps a bit with this.
Except the way the randomness works with dice means that extra height doesn't actually "triple" the base damage. You could fall 10 feet for 6 damage, but increase the fall to 70 feet for only 12 damage - so to tag onto your statement, the "potential" for injury is indeed lower for high-level falls then perhaps it should be.
It does still triple the potential for damage, though.
If you fall 10 feet for 6 damage (enough to knock out a normal commoner), the same "result" of a fall (let's say 6 damage is landing badly on your head) from 70 feet should be 42 damage (SPLAT!)
The summation model helps a bit with this.
If I fall 10 feet and land on my head, rolling a 6, I was unlucky. It's just as likely that I land on my feet and merely twist my ankle (rolling a 1). The average result would be for me to break a leg or something (3.5 damage).
If I fall 70 feet, the potential for damage is more bell-curve shaped, since there are more dice. If I get really lucky, I might take no more than 7 points of damage, but this is unlikely. I might also get 42 points. On average, though, I'd suffer something like 24.5 points. It does make sense to me that the farther you fall, the less important it is exactly how you land, thus making the damage conform to a bell curve.
I'm not exactly attached to either system. They both make perfect sense to me.
I'm sceptical that THE MAN himself ever actually endorsed the model though he may have mentioned it in passing. If he had, you know, gone on the record as saying its better, I think a lot more of us would have used it.
It was on the stone tablets containing the original rules that Thor gave to Gygax on Mount Doom. But Gygax dropped one of the tablets and it broke. (This also explains why flumphs are not a standard PC race.)
EDIT: Heh. Mr. Gygax's endorsements lost much of their credibility when I read the unarmed combat rules in the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, in which you were vastly better off "pummeling" with a quarterstaff than striking with it -- to the point where every character wanted to abandon their swords, and switch them out for staves to pummel with, until we all cried "foul!" and discontinued using those rules.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I seem to recall that Gygax mentioned in Dragon that he'd originally intended it that way, but the rules were edited and published without the clarification, reading "1d6 per 10 feet" without his added "cumulative".
I remember that article in DRAGON, too. And I remember the controversy. Should falling damage scale with momentum (velocity) or kinetic energy (velocity squared)? Did we really want to reach terminal velocity after a fall of 60'? And so on.
If I recall correctly, the "1d6 + 2d6 + 3d6" rule was written into Castles & Crusades.
And I remember the controversy. Should falling damage scale with momentum (velocity) or kinetic energy (velocity squared)? Did we really want to reach terminal velocity after a fall of 60'? And so on.
Falling twice as far doesn't double your velocity. It doubles your kinentic energy. If falling damage were based on velocity, it would be sqrt() progression.
I seem to recall that Gygax mentioned in Dragon that he'd originally intended it that way, but the rules were edited and published without the clarification, reading "1d6 per 10 feet" without his added "cumulative".I remember that article in DRAGON, too. And I remember the controversy. Should falling damage scale with momentum (velocity) or kinetic energy (velocity squared)? Did we really want to reach terminal velocity after a fall of 60'? And so on.
If I recall correctly, the "1d6 + 2d6 + 3d6" rule was written into Castles & Crusades.
I guess I just prefer my character not to fall off of things. Helps me avoid the falling debate
;-)
|
The way I've gotten around this is for polearms designed for adventurers (as opposed to standing armies) to have a hinged or collapsable haft. The most common designs are two- part and three-part. They can be readied with a full-round action. Then again, I have a steam-fantasy setting. I'm really kind of surprised he didn't just stick the thing in the ground with the butt spike (which it probably should have had if it didn't have one) and then draw his bow. Much more convenient.
I'm really kind of surprised he didn't just stick the thing in the ground with the butt spike (which it probably should have had if it didn't have one) and then draw his bow. Much more convenient.
The guy was flying at the time, so putting it in the ground wouldn't have been possible.
|
|
And I remember the controversy. Should falling damage scale with momentum (velocity) or kinetic energy (velocity squared)? Did we really want to reach terminal velocity after a fall of 60'? And so on.Falling twice as far doesn't double your velocity. It doubles your kinentic energy. If falling damage were based on velocity, it would be sqrt() progression.
The reason the summation method is appealing to me now is because it matches other D&D concepts of scaling damage based on kinetic/potential energy - namely weapon and creature size.
Now, early on damage starts by increasing die size, then number of dice, but it soon reaches a breaking point where dice start increasing numbers rapidly.
Hmm. I had an idea for treating falling damage as a weapon, but that doesn't scale the way it should (more dangerous at extreme heights).
Perhaps an easier solution would be to just add a flat bonus to falling damage to avoid rolling too many dice, say +2 per 10ft after the first, which would look like this:
10ft = 1d6
20ft = 2d6+2 (average damage of 9 rather than 7, enough to knock out a warrior)
30ft = 3d6+4
...
200ft = 20d6+40 (average damage of 110 rather than 70, enough to knock out your average rogue)
I could get behind that.
Yeah... that's not bad, Jal. Anything to reduce dice rolling is usually a good thing.
I'd probably do +3.5 instead of +2, to simplify trap CR calculations (based on multiples of 7 mean damage).
Was this a standard rule in an earlier edition? Some of the guys I play with (who've been playing longer than I have) use this rule, but I'm not sure where it came from.I seem to recall that Gygax mentioned in Dragon that he'd originally intended it that way, but the rules were edited and published without the clarification, reading "1d6 per 10 feet" without his added "cumulative". Or I might be misremembering. Anyway, it was in Dragon back around the time that Def Leppard was recording their first album -- too far back for me to remember clearly, but the rule stuck with us.
That is correct--I've been using that rule for years. The article still capped falling damage at 20d6, however.
|
|
Yeah... that's not bad, Jal. Anything to reduce dice rolling is usually a good thing.
I'd probably do +3.5 instead of +2, to simplify trap CR calculations (based on multiples of 7 mean damage).
I thought about using the average damage, but that might (just a teeny bit, but only a bit) be a little high at low levels, at the high levels it has minimal impact (an extra 30 damage for 200 feet is not a huge change).
Yeah, I'm sold. I also realized my multiplication was wrong in my original chart for 200 feet. So, revising:
10ft = 1d6 (average 3.5)
20ft = 2d6+3.5 (average 10.5)
30ft = 3d6+7 (average 17.5)
40ft = 4d6+10.5 (average 24.5)
...
200ft = 20d6+66.5 (average 136.5)
This gives you almost double the normal average damage at high heights, but much less at low heights (which is what I wanted). In addition, the swing range at 200 feet goes from 20-120 to 86-186, much more lethal but still survivable.
I would recommend this method, as Kirth said it makes adjusting falling-trap CRs much easier. But if you want to reduce the damage, switch to +2 or use a lower die size (d6 is good because most people have more than one...sometimes hundreds).
EDIT: Apologies for the thread jack. I have moved this topic to a new thread.
|
|
Even so, no one 5' tall will be carrying a 6-8' weapon on his back.
Not really. You'll want to suspend your weapon some distance above its center of mass. If you hang a headed weapon head-down, the suspension point will be somewhere around the midpoint of its total length. Even with an 8' weapon, that means you'll have about 4' below the attachment point, which would work for a 5' character.
You'll also have about 4' above the attachment point, which can be a bit awkward, but not really much worse than the sort of things that are handwaved all the time. (Say, for instance, a character with a 50# backpack, a shortsword, a greatsword, a longbow, a quiver, and a bedroll fighting without encumbrance penalties.)
The length is based on the guisarme being a reach slashing weapon--considering that at least 2-3' of the haft will be taken up by hand space, it's hard to justify a reach weapon being 6'-8' long using the 5' spacing rules.
As an aside, could you refer me to a reputable source on polearm lengths? I write up detailed descriptions on the appearance of all my player's major magic items, & wasn't able to find anything online about guisarme lengths--thus, I assumed a 10' haft (with 2' blade) was appropriate for reach purposes.
A weapon with a 6" length beyond the grip point (a sap or small dagger, for instance) has a reach out to 5' from the character's square or 7-1/2' from the center of the square (ignoring diagonals). I don't see it as unreasonable that a weapon with a length of 5' beyond the forward grip point would have a reach of 10' from the edge of the character's square. If the latter is a problem, so is the former.
Sorry that I can't point you to any sources. But having used a 12' polearm, I can tell you that it's only useful at all if used for thrusts. Its moment of inertia is just too great to swing it and expect to hit or parry; this problem would be exacerbated for a headed weapon like a glaive, halberd, or guisarme.
|
|
Out of curiosity, for those willing to houserule polearms as unsheathable for "realism" issues, what do you do with double swords, dwarven urgoshes, gnomish picks, orc double axes, dire flails, spiked chains, and all the other silly weapons?
Are they sheathable? Usable in tight corridors? Some other random limitation not covered by the rules?
FWIW, I believe the statement I've used at the beginning of several campaigns is, "Stupid weapons like double-headed axes and spiked chains offend me and therefore don't exist in my world."
Note that I said, "... at the beginning of several campaigns...." This is a departure from the default rules and noted as such before character creation. Conveniently, my players have intuitions adequately similar to mine, so this hasn't become a problem.
|
|
Slings have a higher distance record in real life than a longbow and can blast through a sheet of 3/4" plywood with ease leaving a 3-4" round hole. If you go for realism you are gonna end up with everyone trying to inject their own personal ideals for realistic options.
While I have different views about the value of simulation in an RPG than Fakey, the general point he is making is a serious one. There's a long road available there, and it's not obvious how far down it one should travel.
And, FWIW, that slings (particularly staff slings) have range, accuracy, and damage equivalent to or better than most bows is simply not controversial among those who have studied ancient warfare. They are widely reported in contemporary sources to be equal or better weapons and modern tests have confirmed this. They're quite difficult to use, though, so if you want realism, I'd recommend making them exotic. 8-)
Oh, and before I stop, a Mongol horse bow (short composite bow in D&D) had a better rate of fire and better range than an English/Welsh longbow and better energy at short range. (At long range, the better sectional density of a longbow arrow might have maintained a higher delivered energy on target.)
FWIW, I believe the statement I've used at the beginning of several campaigns is, "Stupid weapons like double-headed axes and spiked chains offend me and therefore don't exist in my world."
Note that I said, "... at the beginning of several campaigns...." This is a departure from the default rules and noted as such before character creation. Conveniently, my players have intuitions adequately similar to mine, so this hasn't become a problem.
House Rules at the start of the campaign are a very different beast than house rules that spring up mid-play ... especially when they directly affect what characters can and can't do. :)
Based on your previous post, I'd assume you'd let someone sheath a polearm as a move as standard?
I'm sceptical that THE MAN himself ever actually endorsed the model though he may have mentioned it in passing. If he had, you know, gone on the record as saying its better, I think a lot more of us would have used it.
See Gygax's "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" in Dragon #69 & Frank Mentzer's "Falling Damage" article in #70.
EDIT: Heh. Mr. Gygax's endorsements lost much of their credibility when I read the unarmed combat rules in the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, in which you were vastly better off "pummeling" with a quarterstaff than striking with it -- to the point where every character wanted to abandon their swords, and switch them out for staves to pummel with, until we all cried "foul!" and discontinued using those rules.
See Dragon #67, p. 66: "Speaking of tables and charts, I do
have one severe problem with my own game system. I got talked into doing the complicated and time-consuming series for grappling, pummeling, and overbearing in a weak moment. I have regretted them ever since. I tend to use a very simple system which we initially developedfor such close-quarters combat in about 1974." --EGG
|
|
Based on your previous post, I'd assume you'd let someone sheath a polearm as a move as standard?
As long as the character made a special arrangement previously, sure. 8-)
I would not assume that a polearm had any sort of sling or sheath by default. And getting something that would work without causing a problem with using the weapon would cost money. (I would assume that warhorse tack would have a scabbard for a lance by default.)
I have played a character who used a polearm as his primary weapon. That character never tried to sheath it in play, because I didn't think it was particularly reasonable, especially for a character that regularly tumbled.
See Dragon #67, p. 66: "Speaking of tables and charts, I do have one severe problem with my own game system. I got talked into doing the complicated and time-consuming series for grappling, pummeling, and overbearing in a weak moment. I have regretted them ever since. I tend to use a very simple system which we initially developed for such close-quarters combat in about 1974." --EGG
Nice one! Thanks. His credibility is restored!
Having a spear that breaks down into 2 halves to be joined together before battle is not only practical, but historically accurate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissa
"The sarissa or sarisa (Greek: σάρισα) was a long spear or pike about 4–6 metres (13–20 ft) in length.
...
The sarissa, made of tough and resilient cornel wood, was very heavy for a spear, weighing approximately 5.5 kg (12 lb) to 6.5 kg (14 lb).[3] It had a sharp iron head shaped like a leaf and a bronze butt-spike that would allow it to be anchored to the ground to stop charges by enemy soldiers.[4] The bronze material of the butt-spike prevented it from rusting. The spike also served to balance out the spear, making it easier for soldiers to wield, and could be used as a back-up point should the main one break.
The sheer bulk and size of the spear required the soldiers to wield it with both hands, allowing them to carry only a 60 cm (24 in) shield (pelta) suspended from the neck to cover the left shoulder.[5] Its great length was an asset against hoplites and other soldiers bearing shorter weapons, as they had to get past the sarissas to engage the phalangites. However, outside the tight formation of the phalanx the sarissa was of limited utility as a weapon and a hindrance on the march. As such, it was usually composed of two lengths and was joined by a central bronze tube only before a battle.[6]"
