I have always used a geometric damage chart for falling but I have been thinking that it ramped up a little to fast.
This new table is a geometric root sequence based on the Newton's motion equations. Using the free fall equations and solving for velocity it goes up by the root of the distance traveled. This chart is a reflection of damage based off the velocity that you hit at.
With this scale even a high level character is screwed at the max end of a 300' fall without magic. By my calculations a 300' drop still occurs in less than a round but any drop over 100' gives enough time for a standard action.
V = a*t
D = 1/2*a*t^2
V = (2*d/a)^.5
10' ---- 1d6 - DC15
20' ---- 3d6 - DC17
30' ---- 5d6 - DC17
40' ---- 7d6 - DC17
50' --- 10d6 - DC19
60' --- 13d6 - DC19
70' --- 16d6 - DC19
80' --- 19d6 - DC19
90' --- 22d6 - DC19
100' -- 26d6 - DC21
110' -- 30d6 - DC21
120' -- 34d6 - DC21
130' -- 38d6 - DC21
140' -- 42d6 - DC21
150' -- 46d6 - DC21
160' -- 50d6 - DC21
170' -- 55d6 - DC23
180' -- 60d6 - DC23
190' -- 65d6 - DC23
200' -- 70d6 - DC23
210' -- 75d6 - DC23
220' -- 80d6 - DC23
230' -- 85d6 - DC23
240' -- 90d6 - DC23
250' -- 95d6 - DC23
260' - 101d6 - DC25
270' - 107d6 - DC25
280' - 113d6 - DC25
290' - 119d6 - DC25
300' - 125d6 - DC25 MAX
Now if you think that is to harsh the scale I was using before hit 55d6 at 100'.
I'm seeing the appeal of putting more inherent danger into falling damage, so I like the table. What is the DC listing for?
Creative Director
|
WARNING! Falling damage variants are one of my pet peeves, so take the following with a grain of salt! :)
Having played in Jason Nelson's campaign for several years (he uses similar rules to these for falling damage), the higher level the game got the more ridiculous falling damage seemed to become. The problem is that monster hit points and character hit points are more or less set in stone and form a core assumption for the game. All other elements that interact with hit points are built on these assumptions, so that if you have a monster or trap that's say, CR 14 you should know just about how many points of damage that thing should do and still be a reasonable challenge or danger.
While it might be more "realistic" to have such incredibly high damage scaling for falling... it's not very fun in play, in my experience. And in fact, it starts to feel pretty silly, especially at higher levels where falling damage is so far out of sync with EVERY other element in the game that can do damage that it feels silly.
When a fall does four to five times the amount of damage an ancient red dragon can do, the focus of the game's peril has shifted, in my opinion, from a flavor of heroic fantasy to something else.
Jason's game was a LOT of fun, and it's probably the longest I've ever played a single character (this is in fact the PC that I'm putting into our upcoming NPC guide)... but his rules for falling damage have always stuck in my craw as being over the top.
Now... if everything ELSE in the game was adjusted to scale at the same rate, that might not be a problem. But when being stabbed in the heart with a sword does, say, 2d8+20 points of damage (assuming it's a critical hit from a competent fighter)... the thought that a fall out of a mid-sized tree is going to do 30d6 points of damage feels weird.
|
Creative Director
|
Uh wow, beware the caster with Telekinesis?
Edit: As my standard action I use the skill "Crap Myself". Luckily I get a +20 bonus on this skill when falling over 100'.
Yeah. Or more to the point, reverse gravity suddenly becomes one of the biggest damage dealer spells in the game, which makes the glabrezu demon one of the most deadly monsters in the book (since it can cast reverse gravity at will). And it makes feather fall the most important 1st level spell in the game too.
Changing the falling damage scale does a LOT to change the game in ways that aren't immediately apparent. In most cases, I think those changes are not for the better.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Changing the falling damage scale does a LOT to change the game in ways that aren't immediately apparent. In most cases, I think those changes are not for the better.
Disagree. Any change that requires you to roll 125d6 is a net positive change in my book.
Though...come to think of it...you could just have the dagger do 125d6 damage. That'd be pretty sweet.
Oooh! Or better yet: the katana!
|
no one can survive 125d6 not even the terrasque (unless the character was way beyond epic and burned several epic feats) you would have to change the games scaling. please no broken uber katanas. a katana is basically a longsword. (Books say bastard sword, i say longsword) (or possibly elven thinblade)
Changing the falling damage scale does a LOT to change the game in ways that aren't immediately apparent. In most cases, I think those changes are not for the better.Disagree. Any change that requires you to roll 125d6 is a net positive change in my book.
Though...come to think of it...you could just have the dagger do 125d6 damage. That'd be pretty sweet.
Oooh! Or better yet: the katana!
Sounds reasonable. After all, a katana can cut through a tank, so 125d6 sounds like a good number.
Hey James,
The reason that I like the high damage rules for falling is that I want to keep a feeling of mortality in my games. The Cliff's of Certain Doom towering 100' over the valley should be something that every sane person should stay clear of.
With the current rules a 100' drop is almost certainly survived by any character over level 5 even if they fail the save.
It is a not a question of should you fear the Dragon. It is a question of what does the dragon fear? Falling off a 300' cliff should make people terrified. That is why the dragon is going to live up there.
Besides this is me watering down my falling damage rule I was using 55d6 at 100' before.
The DC is the reflex save to take half damage the faster you are going the more difficult it is to roll with the hit.
Also if we are talking about spell effects. A telekinesis spell will only move a person 20' a round so unless the target will have several rounds to act before getting to lethal levels. In the case of reverse gravity the victim has at least 2 rounds (one on the way up and one coming down) to save himself or be rescued.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
please no broken uber katanas. a katana is basically a longsword. (Books say bastard sword, i say longsword) (or possibly elven thinblade)
Fact: The katana is the greatest weapon every created by humankind. It is more powerful than a nuclear weapon. The damage it does should reflect this. Really, 125d6 is a bit low, and I wouldn't recommend it unless the katan also crits on a 10+ and has a x5 multiplier.
please no broken uber katanas. a katana is basically a longsword. (Books say bastard sword, i say longsword) (or possibly elven thinblade)Fact: The katana is the greatest weapon every created by humankind. It is more powerful than a nuclear weapon. The damage it does should reflect this. Really, 125d6 is a bit low, and I wouldn't recommend it unless the katan also crits on a 10+ and has a x5 multiplier.
So how did Japan loose WWII?
We must not let there be a Katana gap!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So how did Japan loose WWII?We must not let there be a Katana gap!
Because they didn't drop Katana's on any U.S. cities. The falling damage plus the nuclear explosion is what made the a-bomb so deadly. If a katana had been dropped from a similar height, it would've done 250d6 damage!
BTW, I like the heart behind your system, even if I'm not sure it's an ideal mechanic. Thanks for posting it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I like the intent behind this rule; while I can see your point, James, that the falling rules were designed with certain assumptions in mind, any aspect of the game to me is ruled by how cinematic it is.
True, but I think the other half of this is how uncinematic it is to have the players change tactics to throw bad guys into the air/push them off cliffs or find other ways to use falling as their weapon of choice.
|
Hey James,
The reason that I like the high damage rules for falling is that I want to keep a feeling of mortality in my games. The Cliff's of Certain Doom towering 100' over the valley should be something that every sane person should stay clear of.
With the current rules a 100' drop is almost certainly survived by any character over level 5 even if they fail the save.
It is a not a question of should you fear the Dragon. It is a question of what does the dragon fear? Falling off a 300' cliff should make people terrified. That is why the dragon is going to live up there.
Besides this is me watering down my falling damage rule I was using 55d6 at 100' before.
The DC is the reflex save to take half damage the faster you are going the more difficult it is to roll with the hit.
Also if we are talking about spell effects. A telekinesis spell will only move a person 20' a round so unless the target will have several rounds to act before getting to lethal levels. In the case of reverse gravity the victim has at least 2 rounds (one on the way up and one coming down) to save himself or be rescued.
Reverse gravity and they fall up 100' to the cavern ceiling then back down 100' to the ground unless the group happens to be outdoors. But it is called DUNGEONS and Dragons. Hell, with those rules and a 50' + ceiling Reverse gravity is a really uber spell that get better the higher up the ceiling is.
I agree with a damage ramp up for falling but this is way too much. It's too much.
If you fell 100' there would be at least 3 seconds to act. By my rules that means you get a standard action before you hit the ceiling.
If you are getting 7th level spells cast on you I will go with the assumption that you have significant magic at you disposal and at least one ally that can fly or cast a spell that will aid you.
That situation would make the spell very powerful but the situation can be defused in many different ways. The easiest being a level 1 spell that a wizard or sorcerer can cast as an immediate action.
Situations like this present a dangerous problem for the players to solve or exploit. It makes for good storytelling.
Incidentally, I came up with a chart similar to the OP's (though I didn't use any differenctial calculus or Einstein's theories to arrive at a "true" number <winks>).
I hear what James Jacobs is saying, and it's a valid point. Anytime you make a change in the system, there's a ripple effect. Sometimes the ripple is relatively minor, and sometimes it's a huge ker-plunk that sends waves cascading upon the shore miles away.
For all the reasons stated, I've absolutely hated the fact that a mid-level character could belly-flop off the Empire State Building and then jump to his feet, saying, "And now, for my next trick..." I mean, King Kong didn't survive that fall; why should Conan?
And yet, if a 300-ft fall now deals a million points of damage, then that DOES change the feel of the game. A little cliffhanger is suddenly very perilous.
But then...why shouldn't it be?
Incidentally, I came up with a chart similar to the OP's (though I didn't use any differenctial calculus or Einstein's theories to arrive at a "true" number <winks>).
Hey it was Newton! Einstein's equations are over kill for velocities less than 1% of the speed of light. ^_^
I'm trying to beef up my geek point tally.
Seriously the current falling rules feel more like a cartoon than epic fantasy.
|
|
The more I think about it the more I understand, if not sympathize with this issue...I have thrown many players off cliffs and many of my players have thrown my NPCs off cliffs to little overall effect.
My issue is more with things that would capitalize on this issue. There isn't a wizard in the world who wouldn't use a spell to just toss people in the air. And that can be countered by magic but it seems silly to me that everyone would be hording "anti-falling" magic tokens...but that is a "flavor" issue.
And then there is a scale issue. A red dragon at its eldest age does 20d10 of damage. An ability that MELTS STONE and yet our guys and girls stand there and take it naked if they want...admittedly not very long but a high level fighter could live through 100+ points...the same as a fall from 130' feet?
I agree with the heart of the argument: Damage scales weirdly. But I think that what James was really trying to indicate wasn't specifically that suddenly falling is more powerful (although it is) but then everything else gets thrown out of whack in comparison.
I think that damage as a whole would need to be re-vamped to contextually fit the setting. At the point that a guy isn't melted like stone when hot stone melting fire is thrown at him, he can fall 300 feet and live I would think.
Edit: Maybe just remove the 20d6 cap? Then the Empire State building would be a 125d6 fall. That seems more legitimate for heroic scale but still something to fear. And then compared to dragon breath everything retains scariness?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For all the reasons stated, I've absolutely hated the fact that a mid-level character could belly-flop off the Empire State Building and then jump to his feet, saying, "And now, for my next trick..." I mean, King Kong didn't survive that fall; why should Conan?
Don't larger creatures suffer more significant damage from falls due to their greater mass (and thus energy) upon impact?
To be fully accurate, it seems like falling damage would need to take into account the size of the creature too. I suppose the easiest way to do that would be to shift the die size up and down (so, a large creature takes d8s, a small creature takes d4s).
|
|
For all the reasons stated, I've absolutely hated the fact that a mid-level character could belly-flop off the Empire State Building and then jump to his feet, saying, "And now, for my next trick..." I mean, King Kong didn't survive that fall; why should Conan?
Don't larger creatures suffer more significant damage from falls due to their greater mass (and thus energy) upon impact?
To be fully accurate, it seems like falling damage would need to take into account the size of the creature too. I suppose the easiest way to do that would be to shift the die size up and down (so, a large creature takes d8s, a small creature takes d4s).
Yeah but they also have more hit point the bigger they are right? So for the most part that is a wash isn't it?
For all the reasons stated, I've absolutely hated the fact that a mid-level character could belly-flop off the Empire State Building and then jump to his feet, saying, "And now, for my next trick..." I mean, King Kong didn't survive that fall; why should Conan?
And how do the people (average, every day people - likely NPC classes) that fall tens of thousands of feet and survive calculate in?
Such as "The longest survivable fall, 26 January 1972, was Vesna Vulovic a stewardess in a DC-9 which blew up at 33,330 feet. She was in the tail section of the aircraft and though injured survived the fall."
|
Creative Director
|
I admit it... I don't understand the need or desire to make falling damage worse. It seems to be a weird fixation on one narrow element of game play to make that element outlandishly dangerous. If you make falling damage so deadly, why not make critical hits more deadly? What about cave ins? Being hit by lightning? Falling into lava? Suffocating or drowning? Catching on fire?
If I wanted to do a game that had scary lethal environmental stuff, my solution wouldn't be to arbitrarily inflate damage from random parts of the environment but instead to just use the slow advancement rate for XP and cap the campaign at 5th or 6th level or thereabouts. Because what's the point of playing to 15th or 20th level at all anyway if you don't feel like a legendary hero? Falling down stairs or into a pit is hardly the way a 20th level character should go. That's not epic fantasy at all... Epic fantasy IS falling for 200 feet and getting up to finish the fight.
Anyway... if your players are cool with these rules, that's fine. Just don't spring it on them without warning them, and listen very carefully if they complain. An overdose of house rules like these is a good way to drive off your players, in my experience.
-critical hits more deadly?
I tried it but found that the randomness of deaths to much for my game but I am trying the Crit Hits Fumble deck from Paizo. So I guess I am using a Paizo approved optional rule on those.
-What about cave ins?
Generally Cave ins only occur as a thematic element and tend to be a story device so damage is going to be whatever it needs to be for the story.
-Being hit by lightning?
I think Natural lightning should be nasty. If I was going to throw out natural lightning I would put it at the 15-20 dice range. Not the carpet burns that druids pull out. Again that would be mostly a story device since it is HIGHLY unlikely to get hit by lightning unless you are in metal armor standing on a hill.
-Falling into lava?
Yes, Falling into lava is going to be nasty. The current rules are ok for total immersion at 20d6 but I think 2d6 a bit light but that should be a question of how much exposure.
-Suffocating or drowning?
I like the current drowning rules. After your con in rounds you are pretty much SOL.
-Catching on fire?
Fire? eh unless you have an accelerant on you the current damage is ok.
In a world where anyone with a 5,000gp diamond doesn't need to stay dead I feel the game needs something to make it more gritty.
-Being hit by lightning?I think Natural lightning should be nasty. If I was going to throw out natural lightning I would put it at the 15-20 dice range. Not the carpet burns that druids pull out. Again that would be mostly a story device since it is HIGHLY unlikely to get hit by lightning unless you are in metal armor standing on a hill.
Yet there are people in recorded history that have been struck by lightning several times, like Roy Sullivan. Unless real life rangers gain the improved evasion feat, that one doesn't jibe real well with such a large amount of damage dealt.
You should always respect and fear the power of nature and gods.
It is possible to survive a lightning strike. That said I will not be golfing during a lightning storm at the top of a cliff along the crater of a volcano.
Yet there are people in recorded history that have been struck by lightning several times, like Roy Sullivan. Unless real life rangers gain the improved evasion feat, that one doesn't jibe real well with such a large amount of damage dealt.
-Being hit by lightning?I think Natural lightning should be nasty. If I was going to throw out natural lightning I would put it at the 15-20 dice range. Not the carpet burns that druids pull out. Again that would be mostly a story device since it is HIGHLY unlikely to get hit by lightning unless you are in metal armor standing on a hill.
Mother nature rolled mostly 1's and 2's and Mr. Sullivan must be about an 8th level (Park)Ranger. Obviously he is very lucky too!
Thanx!
Hawk
I use use the following:
10 Feet: 1d6
20 Feet: 3d6
30 Feet: 6D6
40 Feet: 10d6
50 Feet: 15d6
60+ Feet: 21d6
Any 6's that are rolled cause a bludgeoining critical injury
(I have my own home brewed charts).
This makes falling dangerous but survivable.
It makes a player think twice before leaping of tall structures.
Hasn't made my players any less heroic or made them any more inclined to make people fall to their deaths.
Thanx!
Hawk
I think a decision has to be made where to add realism versus relying on a basic mechanic rule as specified in the game. Some game masters prefer more realistic falling damage, some prefer a better system for damage resistance in combat, or some want a more realistic modifiers added or subtracted from movement when it comes to ranged combat.
Therefore, with that in mind, anyone is free to implement more realism, but you will find most the time, the base mechanics are written from a standpoint of simplicity, or easy management.
Because what's the point of playing to 15th or 20th level at all anyway if you don't feel like a legendary hero? Falling down stairs or into a pit is hardly the way a 20th level character should go. That's not epic fantasy at all... Epic fantasy IS falling for 200 feet and getting up to finish the fight.
I could meet you half-way there.
Personally, I'm Ok with the damage as is, but I wish there was potential complications over mere damage. I also understand that D&D and Pathfinder adopts the 'unspecific' damage model, but some relevant effects are already in the game (caltrops come in mind, or the spike stone spell).
I guess that's my main issue with the falling damage rules; you either get on your feet and walk away (or even run away), or you don't get up at all...
|
It is an interesting concept to me, but a little hard to remember (massive chart lookup), and I do not think it is game-balanced very well given the changes in flying encounters.
In addition, such a scientific approach to model impact energy completely ignores other factors such as wind resistance and landing ability of certain types of creatures. Remember, this model would cause a feather to be completely disintegrated as it comes off of a bird flying by at 40' overhead.
The biggest threat to mortality in an heroic fantasy game should be the Dragon, not physics. Surviving major falls is one of the things that makes a Beowulf type epic hero. Such a hero's death should be something epic like the dragon that eventually took him down, not a splat at the end of a fall.
And yet, the Emperor (Darth Sidius) died not of a light saber, a lightning bolt, or even a massive dose of the Force, but from being tossed over the side of a railing into a power core. Sometimes really long falls ARE the way to go.
Counter that with many movie scenes where the hero drops 100 feet or so and just happens to catch himself on a protruding branch or window ledge...by his fingertips. Now, we all know that physics would have his shoulder separated from his body with such finality that he'd still hit the ground (less an arm). I realize that the writers of that plot are "making the hero more heroic" but it breaks my suspension of belief just a bit.
In a world where the fantastic is possible, I don't necessarily want the realistic to be meaningless. Heroes survive ancient red dragon's breath (several times) because they duck, dodge, weave, toss up their shields, employ magical resistance, stop-drop-and-roll, and any manner of ways to avoid the full brunt of the attack. But when it's just you and a 500-foot cliff, you've got about 10 seconds to replay your life, 'cause when you hit the ground, there will be a man-shaped crater at the bottom and they'll have to scrape you off the dirt with a spatula.
BTW, the lava rules bother me in similar ways. Bathing in lava and living to tell the tale? Sorry, that just doesn't work for me.
I think some things--certain things--should bring a healthy amount of fear to ALL creatures.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
WARNING! Falling damage variants are one of my pet peeves, so take the following with a grain of salt! :)
Having played in Jason Nelson's campaign for several years (he uses similar rules to these for falling damage), the higher level the game got the more ridiculous falling damage seemed to become. The problem is that monster hit points and character hit points are more or less set in stone and form a core assumption for the game. All other elements that interact with hit points are built on these assumptions, so that if you have a monster or trap that's say, CR 14 you should know just about how many points of damage that thing should do and still be a reasonable challenge or danger.
While it might be more "realistic" to have such incredibly high damage scaling for falling... it's not very fun in play, in my experience. And in fact, it starts to feel pretty silly, especially at higher levels where falling damage is so far out of sync with EVERY other element in the game that can do damage that it feels silly.
When a fall does four to five times the amount of damage an ancient red dragon can do, the focus of the game's peril has shifted, in my opinion, from a flavor of heroic fantasy to something else.
Jason's game was a LOT of fun, and it's probably the longest I've ever played a single character (this is in fact the PC that I'm putting into our upcoming NPC guide)...
Yay, Shensen!
Many good memories, and leading up to probably the best quote of the campaign: "WHAT a wall! Shensen, your mom's HAWT!" :)
but his rules for falling damage have always stuck in my craw as being over the top.
Now... if everything ELSE in the game was adjusted to scale at the same rate, that might not be a problem. But when being stabbed in the heart with a sword does, say, 2d8+20 points of damage (assuming it's a critical hit from a competent fighter)... the thought that a fall out of a mid-sized tree is going to do 30d6 points of damage feels weird.
I suppose the idea is that so many sources of damage you can dodge or avoid or tough it out or your armor protects you or whatever, but when you're in free fall you're essentially helpless and your body just has to take it when you hit bottom.
Of course, you're right, there's no pressing reason that choosing this one place in the rules to be "realistic" with your damage is any more worthwhile than any other one. It's been kind of a rules quirk of mine since a long time ago Dragon article (or maybe even a letter in "Out on a Limb"), but I wouldn't try to claim it's somehow morally superior to the regular KISS 1d6/10' rule.
That said, given how much hit points and monster damage has scaled up since 1st Ed, I think it would be reasonable to likewise boost the damage from falling (as well as fireballs). I mean, in 1st Ed, a huge ancient red dragon or a 20th level fighter with 18 CON would average 88 hit points. At that level, a max-damage fall is very likely to kill them with an average damage roll, doing 80% of his max hp on an average roll.
(BTW, if you fell onto "rubble," you would take double falling damage, for you obscure 1st Ed rule scholars)
An ancient red dragon in PF has 362 hp, whereas a 20th level fighter with, oh let's say a 22 CON, has an average of 230 hp. The max falling damage hasn't gone up any, and an average 70 damage from a max fall is less than 1/5 of the dragon's hp and less than 1/3 of the fighter's.
So... in sum I think it's reasonable to increase falling damage (and, for similar reasons, to think about altering spell damage), but I have learned over many years that it is also completely reasonable to not mess with it and just play it straight, and boo hoo if it's not "realistic."
Would either of you like to test your luck by emulating these events? No? Why not? If it happpened once, it should be possible for you to survive, right?
And that is the part you are failing to understand.
It SHOULD be possible to survive a 1000'+ fall. I'm not talking about likelihood... Just possible.
If people want more falling damage because it is "more realistic," then the same measure has to kept for making it possible to survive the greatest falls.
The chart in the original post doesn't make it possible AT ALL for a flight attendant (unless epic level) to survive a fall from 33,000'+.
And as for me, yes I'd try to emulate that feat. But you have to come along to verify the failure. Or are you not willing to back up your assertions as I am?
It SHOULD be possible to survive a 1000'+ fall. I'm not talking about likelihood... Just possible.
If people want more falling damage because it is "more realistic," then the same measure has to kept for making it possible to survive the greatest falls.
The chart in the original post doesn't make it possible AT ALL for a flight attendant (unless epic level) to survive a fall from 33,000'+.
And as for me, yes I'd try to emulate that feat. But you have to come along to verify the failure. Or are you not willing to back up your assertions as I am?
I would suggest that this particular stewardess didn't survive because there's a 1:1,000,000 chance to do it, but because of direct divine intervention; the kind that actually exists in real life. And the game does mimic that; it's called DM fiat.
|
|
For all the reasons stated, I've absolutely hated the fact that a mid-level character could belly-flop off the Empire State Building and then jump to his feet, saying, "And now, for my next trick..." I mean, King Kong didn't survive that fall; why should Conan?And how do the people (average, every day people - likely NPC classes) that fall tens of thousands of feet and survive calculate in?
Such as "The longest survivable fall, 26 January 1972, was Vesna Vulovic a stewardess in a DC-9 which blew up at 33,330 feet. She was in the tail section of the aircraft and though injured survived the fall."
And she now is a role model to flat-chested women around the world......
My house rule: Falling is exactly as written *except* all 1s are 1 point of CON damage instead of 1 point of HP.
It automatically scales with level and makes even a 10 foot fall something to be a little worried about.
Would either of you like to test your luck by emulating these events? No? Why not? If it happpened once, it should be possible for you to survive, right?And that is the part you are failing to understand.
It SHOULD be possible to survive a 1000'+ fall. I'm not talking about likelihood... Just possible.
If people want more falling damage because it is "more realistic," then the same measure has to kept for making it possible to survive the greatest falls.
The chart in the original post doesn't make it possible AT ALL for a flight attendant (unless epic level) to survive a fall from 33,000'+.
And as for me, yes I'd try to emulate that feat. But you have to come along to verify the failure. Or are you not willing to back up your assertions as I am?
The chart is just the basic rule with no mitigation. Now if some freak occurrence happens it might be possible to survive.
There is a heavy updraft because of weather.
She hits comes down on a steep hillside covered in snow.
Makes her reflex save.
Doesn't freeze to death waiting for rescue.
God likes her.
or
She carried a feather token of feather fall. 50gp
Brought a potion of fly. 750gp
Had a wizard friend with the spell.
The druid takes bird form and saves her.
The cleric casts airwalk.
Then yes it would be possible to survive. Likely? No.
What do you think the chances are of jumping out of an airplane without a para-shoot? I am thinking standing on the hill in the lightning storm sounds safer.
My house rule: Falling is exactly as written *except* all 1s are 1 point of CON damage instead of 1 point of HP.
It automatically scales with level and makes even a 10 foot fall something to be a little worried about.
That is pretty evil! I like it.
A clear exploit by the dragon.
But...what if you dropped 10 katanas from orbit, mass driver style?
Zo
I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop...never mind the katanas.