Every time I've seen this rule explained, the example that comes up is the "character with a ton of hit points intentionally falling a long distance" rationale. Skip Williams even brought this up in his discussion of this rule in Kobold Quarterly.
Having run an 11th level game where a character died from a 50 hp attack that he failed the fort save on, and seeing that it made for some complications with the Breath of Life spell, it got me to wondering . . . do we really need Death from Massive Damage? Or should it remain the same as it is.
As it stands, you can die from 50 hit points of damage at any point in your career if you fail your save. Even a 20th level fighter or barbarian. Now, I know some people don't mind this, but at the same time, it seems to run counter to the feel of a nearly epic level "tank."
One of the defenses of this rule that I've heard is the possibility, however remote, for a "one hit kill" even to high level characters. I'd posit that it might be more worth while to standardize the 20-20-Confirm critical option that automatically kills a character if two natural 20s are rolled and then confirmed on the third dice.
As to the death from massive damage, if falling is a major issue, then why not institute a rule for falling that once a character reaches the 20d6 terminal velocity threshold, the character takes 20d6 and has to make a DC 15 fort save or die from the fall.
I guess my point is that at higher levels, 50 hit point attacks become more and more common, and add an extra roll to each of those attacks, and at some point, that extra roll only exists to see if a character rolls a 1. To streamline this, maybe some of the death from massive damage purposes should be rolled into specific circumstances.
Alternatively, it occurs to me that Death from Massive damage might not be a bad class ability for classes that have a full BaB, though determining what level this should come it is beyond the scope of this particular post.
I agree, this system needs to be based of of character level and/or racial hit die, in a progressive fashion.
If this adds too much complication it needs to be removed.
If you really work on getting a character's HP to the max you can easily get one with more than 400 HP but die on a nat one fort save after a mere 50 points of damage (Only 1/8th their total HP).
What if the rule were changed slightly from rolling a fort save from a single attack of 50+ hp to a single attack that does 50+ hp or 1/2 your total hp, whichever is higher?
What if the rule were changed slightly from rolling a fort save from a single attack of 50+ hp to a single attack that does 50+ hp or 1/2 your total hp, whichever is higher?
...like here ?
"Massive Damage: If you ever sustain a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of damage) or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you take half your total hit points in damage or more from multiple attacks, no one of which dealt more than half your total hit points (minimum 50), the massive damage rule does not apply." (page 141)
My bad Wraith... haven't read the massive damage rule in the new PF lately. I thought I heard that idea somewhere...
|
As to the death from massive damage, if falling is a major issue, then why not institute a rule for falling that once a character reaches the 20d6 terminal velocity threshold, the character takes 20d6 and has to make a DC 15 fort save or die from the fall.
The 20d6 cap has no relation to the real world terminal velocity threshold. It is purely a game mechanic cap on damage.
"It is estimated that the human body reaches 99% of its low-level terminal velocity after falling 573m 1880ft which takes 13-14 sec. This is 117-125mph at normal atmospheric pressure and in a random posture."
You don't reach terminal velocity in 200 feet.
As far as the save goes, why have the save kick in only when they have fallen 200' or more? That just leads to more meta gaming. "Is the cliff under 200'? Ok, I jump"
We house rule a save that scales all the way up from falls over 20'. We have also removed the d6 cap.
Creative Director
|
IF the death from massive damage rule stays in the game... it should reduce the dead person to -10 or -Con hit points; whatever it takes to make that character dead, so that then the breath of life spell can fix him.
And I'm still on my crusade to have the name of breath of life change to cure deadly wounds, so that clerics can swap spells to cast it. That's how I run the spell in my homebrew and it works really good.
|
IF the death from massive damage rule stays in the game...
Honestly, I don't think it should. The DC is so low that it basically comes down to, "on the random occasions when you take more than [ludicrously large hit point figure], you then have a 5% chance of dying," which adds so little to the game that I can't see wasting ink on it or requiring GMs to remember its there.
|
|
You could have the fort save DC scale based on the amount of damage dealt above 50 hp, say, +1 to the DC for every 10 dmg above the 50. At the same time I don't think that a DC 15 fort save is a slam dunk for those with poor fort saves (ie wizards).
Our group house rules most of the death and dying rules. Those that fail the fort save are reduced to -1 hp and are dying instead of dead outright. Any cure spell works at this point and if the character fails to stabilize and ultimately dies then breath of life is still viable.
I think it needs to stay...if pc's cant die then there is no danger, we get folks jumping off building or cliffs as its only 20d6 max damage... thats what 120 hp at best pfffff it won't kill me
The 20d6 cap has no relation to the real world terminal velocity threshold. It is purely a game mechanic cap on damage.
I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I was talking game mechanics, not physics, since it was a thread about game rules. Sorry about that. The point is that 20d6 is the most damage anyone is ever going to take from falling in the game, under the current rules.
The reason I proposed the save is that one of the biggest arguments that has always been posited about the save from massive damage rule has related to the fact that characters with a lot of hit points can fall hundreds of feet and walk away ready to fight.
Not capping the d6 doesn't address this, as a high level barbarian is still probably going to be able to outstrip the extra d6 damage for longer falls.
I don't know if we absolutely have to have a rule for this, but there seem to be a fairly large number of people over the years that don't even like the fact that its possible, no matter how likely, that a character will jump off a mountain, brush himself off, and say "wow, two or three more encounters and I'll need healing."
That's why I mentioned what I did in my original post. For some people, its not that they want to see a character die in one shot or to automatically die if they jump off a mountain, but they do want it to be a threat real enough to deter over the top behavior.
IF the death from massive damage rule stays in the game... it should reduce the dead person to -10 or -Con hit points; whatever it takes to make that character dead, so that then the breath of life spell can fix him.
And I'm still on my crusade to have the name of breath of life change to cure deadly wounds, so that clerics can swap spells to cast it. That's how I run the spell in my homebrew and it works really good.
That was kind of the clarification I was wondering about. In our 11th level campaign this came up with the monk getting hit with a critical from an elder black pudding, and I wasn't sure where the monk should be as far as Breath of Life works, or if it was suppose to. I allowed it to heal him 0 hit points, but I figured that was only a stop gap ruling until I figured out if this was suppose to work and how.
|
Creative Director
|
That was kind of the clarification I was wondering about. In our 11th level campaign this came up with the monk getting hit with a critical from an elder black pudding, and I wasn't sure where the monk should be as far as Breath of Life works, or if it was suppose to. I allowed it to heal him 0 hit points, but I figured that was only a stop gap ruling until I figured out if this was suppose to work and how.IF the death from massive damage rule stays in the game... it should reduce the dead person to -10 or -Con hit points; whatever it takes to make that character dead, so that then the breath of life spell can fix him.
And I'm still on my crusade to have the name of breath of life change to cure deadly wounds, so that clerics can swap spells to cast it. That's how I run the spell in my homebrew and it works really good.
The intent of breath of life is to be able to save anyone who's been killed by damage (as long as you can cast enough of the spell in time); death from massive damage is still death from damage.
|
|
I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I was talking game mechanics, not physics, since it was a thread about game rules. Sorry about that. The point is that 20d6 is the most damage anyone is ever going to take from falling in the game, under the current rules.The reason I proposed the save is that one of the biggest arguments that has always been posited about the save from massive damage rule has related to the fact that characters with a lot of hit points can fall hundreds of feet and walk away ready to fight.
Not capping the d6 doesn't address this, as a high level barbarian is still probably going to be able to outstrip the extra d6 damage for longer falls.
I don't know if we absolutely have to have a rule for this, but there seem to be a fairly large number of people over the years that don't even like the fact that its possible, no matter how likely, that a character will jump off a mountain, brush himself off, and say "wow, two or three more encounters and I'll need healing."
That's why I mentioned what I did in my original post. For some people, its not that they want to see a character die in one shot or to automatically die if they jump off a mountain, but they do want it to be a threat real enough to deter over the top behavior.
And that is why in our home game we have removed the 20d6 cap and made a fort save for any fall over 20' (the DC of which scales the further you fall). I posted this in another thread but I'll quote the relevant parts here:
The DC is 10 + (1 for every d6 worth of lethal damage rolled excluding the 1st)
So an unintentional fall from 10 still does 1d6 and requires no save.
An unintentional fall from 20' does 2d6 damage and requires a DC 11 Fort save or die. (to -1 HP actually in our house ruled death and dying)
An unintentional fall from 100' does 10d6 damage and requires a DC 19 Fort save.
Intentional falls (jump downs) and other methods of avoiding damage from falls (acrobatics) are still calculated using the formula.
So a character intentionally jumping down 20' takes 1d6 non-lethal, 1d6 lethal and requires no save.
The same 100' fall from above? Jumping intentionally gets you 1d6 non-lethal, 9d6 lethal and a DC 18 save versus death.
That 200' intentional jump? 1d6 non-lethal, 19d6 lethal and DC 28 save. Not so much fun now is it?
This means surviving falls/jumps from great heights is still possible, but not necessarily probable, and falls from low heights are possibly lethal too.
Cheers
And that is why in our home game we have removed the 20d6 cap and made a fort save for any fall over 20' (the DC of which scales the further you fall). I posted this in another thread but I'll quote the relevant parts here:
The DC is 10 + (1 for every d6 worth of lethal damage rolled excluding the 1st)
So an unintentional fall from 10 still does 1d6 and requires no save.
An unintentional fall from 20' does 2d6 damage and requires a DC 11 Fort save or die. (to -1 HP actually in our house ruled death and dying)
An unintentional fall from 100' does 10d6 damage and requires a DC 19 Fort save.
Intentional falls (jump downs) and other methods of avoiding damage from falls (acrobatics) are still calculated...
owww love that rule
The point is that 20d6 is the most damage anyone is ever going to take from falling in the game, under the current rules.
It's not in the SRD, but I could have sworn I read somewhere that if you failed the jump check to reduce falling damage by 5 or more, you hit head-first and take double damage. Which translates into 40d6. I'll keep poking around. Maybe that was in 3.0...
|
|
The point is that 20d6 is the most damage anyone is ever going to take from falling in the game, under the current rules.
You could fall into lava. [sarcasm] ;)
It's not in the SRD, but I could have sworn I read somewhere that if you failed the jump check to reduce falling damage by 5 or more, you hit head-first and take double damage. Which translates into 40d6. I'll keep poking around. Maybe that was in 3.0...
Wow. That would be one wicked DC fort save under the house rule I use. ;)
You could fall into lava. [sarcasm] ;)
Okay, you win . . . ;)
|
In my games, it is based off of 3/4 your total normal HP. If a single attack deals that much damage, you have a 50/50 chance of just dropping dead.
I also sometimes use the normal rules, but instead of instant death, you drop to -8 H.P., and have to make stabilization checks. There is a Con Check to avoid this, D.C. 15 + 2/10 damage (beyond the first 50).
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Just an aside IRL you can die from a fall of as low as 6 feet. It's a fact. Ironically I just took my working at heights refresher last week!
I do like the scaling DC for falling... I have a Goliath Barbarian who jumps off cliffs and out of airborn Ships of Chaos all the time. The landing armor enhancement doesn't help (stupid ignore 60 feet of a fall)...
--Vrocket Launcher!
|
|
Just so I actually post something relating to the OP, and just for the record, I think there should be a death from massive damage rule.
I think the current threshold calculation scales fine. You can look to Wraith's pre-made characters in another thread for examples. At 15th level the wizard and a few of the other non melee types have thresholds right around 50 hp of damage, while the fighter and other melee types are up around 100 hp. Seems fine to me.
What I would look at more closely is the fort save DC. When and if you are forced to roll the save even the lowly wizard makes his save 80% of the time. The fighter types due indeed only fail on a 1. If you are unfortunate to be the recipient of epic level damage, the save should not be a unlucky roll means you die kind of thing. The DC should scale.
What we need is a simple (read easy to remember) way for the DC to scale in proportion to the damage dealt. Suggestions?
On the flip side, there should be a way for characters to protect themselves from death from massive damage. A new spell perhaps that wards specifically against such occurrences? Maybe a feat that can be taken? Any ideas?
|
|
Just so I actually post something relating to the OP, and just for the record, I think there should be a death from massive damage rule.
I think the current threshold calculation scales fine. You can look to Wraith's pre-made characters in another thread for examples. At 15th level the wizard and a few of the other non melee types have thresholds right around 50 hp of damage, while the fighter and other melee types are up around 100 hp. Seems fine to me.
What I would look at more closely is the fort save DC. When and if you are forced to roll the save even the lowly wizard makes his save 80% of the time. The fighter types due indeed only fail on a 1. If you are unfortunate to be the recipient of epic level damage, the save should not be a unlucky roll means you die kind of thing. The DC should scale.
What we need is a simple (read easy to remember) way for the DC to scale in proportion to the damage dealt. Suggestions?
On the flip side, there should be a way for characters to protect themselves from death from massive damage. A new spell perhaps that wards specifically against such occurrences? Maybe a feat that can be taken? Any ideas?
For falling:
Feather fall is an immediate action to cast.There was a thread about Stoneskin and falling too...
Just in general:
I think there was a spell in the Spell Compendium that negated crits...maybe expand upon that to effect Massive Dmg in general
|
|
And I'm still on my crusade to have the name of breath of life change to cure deadly wounds, so that clerics can swap spells to cast it. That's how I run the spell in my homebrew and it works really good.
This sounds like a very good idea to me. In fact, it would also be interesting to see how such a change would interact with some of the save or die effects that cause problems in high-level games....
There is a lot of optional death from massive damage rules in unearthed arcana (which again, is OGL), that can be used to satisfy everyone, those who want to keep more lethality, and those who don't want to.
|
|
KnightErrantJR:
The group I play with uses the following house rules for Massive Damage.
They work very well in play.
MASSIVE DAMAGE
The massive damage rule presented in the Player's Handbook is designed for games of heroic fantasy. It maintains the remote possibility that a single blow from a mighty opponent can kill a character, regardless of the character's actual hit points.
Each player should record his character's massive damage threshold somewhere on the character sheet (to avoid mid-battle calculations), and the DM may want to add massive damage threshold values to monster and NPC statistics blocks for the same reason.
MASSIVE DAMAGE THRESHOLD AMOUNT
A massive damage threshold is equal to 1/2 of the maximum hit points
for the level and hit die type of the creature.
Whenever a character takes damage from a single hit that equals or exceeds this value, he must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save (modified by any excessive damage – see scaling the saving throw) or suffer the effects of being overwhelmed by a massively damaging attack.
For example:
A 5th-level fighter has a massive damage threshold of 25 points (one-half of 5 x d10)
A 15 HD fire giant has a massive damage threshold of 75 points (one-half of 15 x d10)
And a 21 HD White Dragon has a massive damage threshold of 105 points (one-half of 21 x d10)
SAVE FAILURE RESULTS
A character that fails the saving throw is immediately reduced to at least -1 (or less) hit points. A character who fails his Fortitude save against massive damage rolls a 1d10 to determine his negative hit point total. A roll of 1 to 9 indicates that the character is dying (at -1 hp on a 1, -2 hp on a 2. and so forth). A roll of a 10 leaves the character with -10 hit points, which means he is dead.
SCALING THE SAVING THROW
For every 5 points of damage dealt by an attack in excess of a character's massive damage threshold, increase the Fortitude save DC by 1. This rule functions the same regardless of the threshold you choose to use.
Honestly, I don't think it should. The DC is so low that it basically comes down to, "on the random occasions when you take more than [ludicrously large hit point figure], you then have a 5% chance of dying," which adds so little to the game that I can't see wasting ink on it or requiring GMs to remember its there.
My players favor the rule just because of the few cases when they manage to inflict 50+ damage with a high level character. You are right that it rarely comes up, but it is interesting when it does (depending on the group). Of course I also tend to have failed massive damage saves reduce a character to -1 and dying.
Still having said all of that, it might be best to move it to a sidebar as an optional rule.
There is a simple solution to falling damage... increase the size of the damage dice. Increasing die size from d6 to d12 will go a long way towards making falling more dangerous. It is even possible to increase damage dice to d20, though that would be a bit non-standard and in any case the d12 does not get enough use!
Also, make characters take double damage from falls if they fail their Jump/Tumble/Acrobatics (however the skills end up in the final version of PFRPG) checks. Make the DC for the check something like: 0 + 1 for 10 feet fallen.
|
|
There is a simple solution to falling damage... increase the size of the damage dice. Increasing die size from d6 to d12 will go a long way towards making falling more dangerous. It is even possible to increase damage dice to d20, though that would be a bit non-standard and in any case the d12 does not get enough use!
Also, make characters take double damage from falls if they fail their Jump/Tumble/Acrobatics (however the skills end up in the final version of PFRPG) checks. Make the DC for the check something like: 0 + 1 for 10 feet fallen.
While I like the simplicity of changing the damage die used, I don't think that rolling and adding up 20d12 or 20d20 qualifies as simple in and of itself. (or 20danything for that matter)
"Hold on everyone. Can I borrow all your d20s? I need to add this up. It should only take a few moments." ;)
That is why the scaling DC fort save works so well IMO. You roll the save first, and if you make that save then you roll your damage. One die rolled is pretty simple and a time saver no?
Oh yeah, I would totally be in favor of the switching the falling damage die to d12 and putting in an scaling fort save versus death.
I agree, show the d12 some love!
About the scaling Fortitude save in addition to using bigger damage dice - sure I have no problem with that. We might want to have a unified system for the said Fortitude save and for the massive damage rules though.
IF the death from massive damage rule stays in the game...Honestly, I don't think it should. The DC is so low that it basically comes down to, "on the random occasions when you take more than [ludicrously large hit point figure], you then have a 5% chance of dying," which adds so little to the game that I can't see wasting ink on it or requiring GMs to remember its there.
I tend to agree.
Iterative attacks and multiple attacks do not add their total damage to invoke this rule, so somoene getting hit by a Giralon four times for 15 HP each takes 60 damage, but this does not require Massive Damage rule because these are separate hits.
As far as taking 50 HP in a single hit?
That almost never happens. Even really big scary things hardly ever do that.
Except on critical hits. And those are bad enough, since the game is not balanced around them.
Not balanced? Consider a little old orc with his greataxe scoring a critical hit against a level 1 fighter. He can easily do 25+ HP with that critical hit, which kills outright just about any first level character unless you're using optional HP rules to start with extra HP.
What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
That quote is from the same page as the page on which the description of Massive Damage can be found.
If 50 HP doesn't mean "50 HP of broken bone and slashed flesh" but it means "50 HP of ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one" then why is it necessary at all to roll to see if you die?
Aren't HP the tool we use to abstractly represent how tough we are, and how lucky we are, and how well we dodge and duck and twist and minimize the abuse our bodies would otherwise take from damage?
Do we need two abstract rules, one to numerically track our damage/loss of luck/loss of vitality and one to arbitrarily terminate our existence if we lose too much of that luck all at once?
And lastly, once you're high enough level to handle the kinds of foes that dish out 50+ HP single hits, then many classes are probably high enough level with good enough Fortutude saves to shrug off the trivial little DC 15 save, while other classes are at a significantly higher risk of failing this save.
Which means this Massive Damage rule strikes me as an arbitrary way to kill off most spellcasters with a lucky fireball/cone of cold/etc., while the fighters keep making their saves and the rogues keep evading.
Aren't those poor squishy little mages already tender enough without adding this extra risk on top?
Now, as for falling damage, yeah, a new rule there to prevent wacky high-HP jumps/falls with only trivial injury is definitely called for.
I just don't think Massive Damage is the right way to go.
What about flipping the whole take a lot of damage and make a fort save on its head?
In instances when a creature falls a great distance, why not make it a save or die? If you save, then you take the damage? Perhaps that may discourage a PC with boatloads of HP to simply jump off 1,000 ft cliff and dust himself off.
I've had a bunch of luck with tying massive damage to greivious damage to a specific portion of the victim's body.
In a nutshell:
Threashold based on Size (50 for medium)
Fort save which increases per 10 hp beyond threadhold
Failed save indicates that a randomly determined appendage/torso/or head is severed/mangled/shishcabobed, or otherwise rendered unoperable (for head wounds that means death, torso is massive con loss, appendages blood loss and loss of function.
Vorpal weapons halve the threashold needed to lop things off but has no unussuall effect on crritical hits.
Furthermore many things that would be immune to criticals can be dismembered or decapitated (though stone golem's don't seem to mind much)
I find it puts the fear into my players while actually making the game less deadly particularly so far as vorpal weapons are concerned. Getting killed by an giant's blow is lame, getting your arm lopped off then winning the day anyways is awesome.
Full rules details here:
Massive Damage Rules on my Tusk Mountain Wiki.
|
|
Bottom line for me, I think we need a harsher rule set to deal with falling while death from massive damage can be moved to the sidebar as an optional rule. I tend to believe that most groups either ignore death from massive damage already or house rule it to meet their play style. Falling happens pretty often while death from massive damage is a rare occurrence until your hit the upper levels.
Cheers
|
|
What about flipping the whole take a lot of damage and make a fort save on its head?
In instances when a creature falls a great distance, why not make it a save or die? If you save, then you take the damage? Perhaps that may discourage a PC with boatloads of HP to simply jump off 1,000 ft cliff and dust himself off.
That is precisely what I suggested further up the thread.
This is the way we play our house ruled damage from falling. When you fall, you make a fort save versus a scaling DC <see above if you are interested> and if you fail you are reduced to -1 HP, if you save you then roll the damage as normal. We also remove the 20d6 cap. The DC is usually enough to discourage intentional jump downs from greater heights.
Upon further reflection, your 1,000 foot cliff example convinces me to make the adjustment to my house rule making the difference by which you miss the DC the negative HP level you are reduced to upon falling and failing your save. (again, as I suggested further up this thread)
This would further eliminate the meta game tactic of jumping from 1,000 (or any height for that matter) secure in the knowledge that at the bottom you are only going to be at dying (-1hp) and a cure spell away from being totally fine.
Fighter, "Can you see the cleric down there?"
Fighter, #2 "Yes"
Fighter, "Last one down buys the ale! Geronimo!"
Cheers
PS and you still have breath of life to save you if you really want to jump down (and have a cleric handy) ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
You also have to remember the effect that changing the die size will have on low level characters. d12 or d20 will result in a lot of low level character deaths from falling (even relatively short falls).
Just saying.
Like I said... from as low as six feet can rupture internal organs and cause death. Fact.
--Vrocknrolla!
What about flipping the whole take a lot of damage and make a fort save on its head?
In instances when a creature falls a great distance, why not make it a save or die? If you save, then you take the damage? Perhaps that may discourage a PC with boatloads of HP to simply jump off 1,000 ft cliff and dust himself off.
That is precisely what I suggested further up the thread.
This is the way we play our house ruled damage from falling. When you fall, you make a fort save versus a scaling DC <see above if you are interested> and if you fail you are reduced to -1 HP, if you save you then roll the damage as normal. We also remove the 20d6 cap. The DC is usually enough to discourage intentional jump downs from greater heights.
Guys, your suggestion is a good one for saving time and I like it in that respect, but there is a snag. The problem is that this can induce certain situations where the character would prefer to fail his saving throw, because failing would yield a higher chance of survival. This applies to characters with low hit points and high Fortitude saving throws - for example a Barbarian who has already been through many fights during the day and has only few hit points left (but he of course, retains his high saving throw). If he jumps/falls of a cliff, he will have a higher chance of survival if he fails his saving throw, which will only bring him to -1 (or -whatever the amount of points he failed his saving throw by if you use that rule), but if he succeeds on the saving throw and takes damage, he will almost certainly die.
A potential solution could be for the 'save or die' saving throw to also cause damage, but not dice-based damage. Perhaps a character that fails the saving throw automaticelly takes damage equal to 10 x his level. This would be the equivalent of falling being a save or die spell/death effect under Pathfinder rules with the caster level being replaced by the character's own level. Because the damage is flat per level, no time has to be spent rolling dice in case of saving throw failure. Thoughts?
You also have to remember the effect that changing the die size will have on low level characters. d12 or d20 will result in a lot of low level character deaths from falling (even relatively short falls).
Just saying.
Like I said... from as low as six feet can rupture internal organs and cause death. Fact.
--Vrocknrolla!
Yes, I too would consider that a positive effect.
|
|
Here I was thinking that my falling rules were borderline overly harsh and then I find a bunch of you who want to make them positively lethal. :)
Well, one way I can see of making falls more likely to be fatal is to just go ahead and make the damage dice double for every 10' fallen. 10'=1dX, 20'=2dX, 30'=4dX...200'=524288dX
Seems pretty lethal no? I sure don't want to have to roll that 200' fall either. ;)
Serious now. Any system you come up with has work with both high level and low level characters. You should also keep in mind that it isn't just the uber HP, high fort save fighter types who do the falling, sometimes it is the wizards (yes it is possible, especially at low level).
I am assuming that we still want falls to be survivable, right? Especially falls from low(er) heights? And what we are most concerned about is the meta game jump downs ("I know this fall can't do more damage than I have HP so I'll jump").
Stepping outside the game for a second, falling really is an equal opportunity killer in real life. You take a highly trained athlete, one who is is phenomenal physical shape, and drop them from 200' along with your average john q public and their chances of survival are pretty much equal. Both around zero. I know that we are devising rules in a game that involves all sorts of fantastical elements but...
HP have always been put forth as an abstract representation of life force, luck and skillful avoidance of things that would do one harm. HP that you gain due to advancing levels is meant to represent the improvement of the second two more than a supposed increase in the bodies ability to withstand physical abuse. That is why a helpless defender, regardless of level can be killed in one stroke by a coup-de-gras (and yes I realize the higher level helpless guy is harder to kill but that has more to do with the luck part).
Given that interpretation, then falls, especially ones from greater heights, should be positively lethal. And equally so across the board, regardless of level and class etc. The trick is making the lower falls survivable while making the greater falls highly unlikely to be survived.
One thing we can't do is say that falls under X height follow these rules and falls over that X height you die. That just leads to more meta gaming.
If you want falls to be positively lethal then you could use the system I propose but up the initial value of the DC for the save. Instead of a base 10 use a base 15 or a base 20 plus 1 (or 2,3 etc.) for every lethal die rolled (excluding the 1st). Just keep in mind that low level characters will hardly ever make that save (and do not have the means and/or resources with which to overcome their untimely deaths). The old 10' pit trap won't change things much but anything deeper and low level characters = dead (most of the time) while high level characters = dead quite often.
Keeping in mind that I would most assuredly use the missed DC by this much = your -HP part of the rule above.
Cheers
|
|
A potential solution could be for the 'save or die' saving throw to also cause damage, but not dice-based damage. Perhaps a character that fails the saving throw automaticelly takes damage equal to 10 x his level. This would be the equivalent of falling being a save or die spell/death effect under Pathfinder rules with the caster level being replaced by the character's own level. Because the damage...
As a purely game mechanic fix this has potential, however the 10 x level part is pretty much an instant kill anyways. Even classes that can reach 10 HP per level, how many players average that amount each level? And the other classes? It is pretty much impossible to overcome that kind of damage.
You could make it (variable amount) X (level) but that seems a little arbitrary to me. Maybe it would work.
I have to think on it more. :)
Cheers
|
|
HP have always been put forth as an abstract representation of life force, luck and skillful avoidance of things that would do one harm. HP that you gain due to advancing levels is meant to represent the improvement of the second two more than a supposed increase in the bodies ability to withstand physical abuse. That is why a helpless defender, regardless of level can be killed in one stroke by a coup-de-gras (and yes I realize the higher level helpless guy is harder to kill but that has more to do with the luck part).
Seems odd to quote myself, but I realized this is the same reason that I like/keep death from massive damage rules in my game. When a character is forced to make a save or die because he has received an epic amount of damage from a single attack this is representative, to me at least, of his luck being tested. His skill has been overcome (at least in regards to the attack doing damage) his life is in peril and it is up to his luck to save his bacon so to speak.
Just my thoughts.
Cheers
|
|
You know this started out as a death from massive damage thread, and is now, 'why the ---- are my characters skydiving' thread. That aside.
Make it a percent of max hp/save for half damage(no evation)
say.... 5% for your first ten foot drop, add 10% for every ten feet after that. makes skydiving very unhealth. Also have a scaling DC that is fairly hi for the Fighter, barb. (most other classes would use a fly spell). so a hundred foot fall kills everyone.
Have the DC start at 15, and scale with the Barbarians fort save. I don't really like percentages, but they maen equal death at all levels.
That said. insta-death. Get rid of it. it is to arbitrary. something that only starts happening, at maybe 12th level, is not concordant with the game system.
Guys, your suggestion is a good one for saving time and I like it in that respect, but there is a snag. The problem is that this can induce certain situations where the character would prefer to fail his saving throw...
Roman I'm not sure what you mean. I suggested that if you failed the save you DIE. If you made it you take normal falling damage. Who'd prefer to fail their saving throw under such circumstances?
Without going into detail, I'd assume that it scaled with height.
Lord oKOyA, I should have re-read the thread before posting, but yes I support a proposal such as yours at least for falling damage.
I never liked the rule. And never DMed it at any of my Living Greyhawk tables, nor did anyone from my local group.