Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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.
I agree completely.
I can't count the number of movies that have characters drop from "impossible to live" heights and remain unharmed.
The way to model this is to consider a character of a certain level will almost always survive a max falling damage fall.
|
|
-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.
One thing I'd like to add in response to this, is that you seem to be working under the assumption that the average citizen of Golarion can take damage like a PC would. By 5th level, the PCs have seen a heck of a lot of action, magic, danger, et cetera. They are much more thick-skinned and resilient than the average person.
A druids lightning bolt might not stop a PC in its tracks, but it sure as heck shouldn't. If you're going for realism, you've got to realize that most people in the real world survive this. Four out of five, in fact.
As to the original post, I'd be much more in favor of raising the 20 die cap some and introducing some sort of system that lets it be fatal more often, but not automatically so. I agree that falls should be more feared but they shouldn't be one of the most powerful ways to bring about harm in a world filled with demons, dragons, and the like.
V = a*t
D = 1/2*a*t^2
V = (2*d/a)^.5
I approve of this evil, and so would all my rpg friends. We prefer Lovecraft (Cthulhu for few who doesn't know) and Howard (Conan...like duh) type of stories. Their characters feel more realistic, at least to me.
I would want to understand more of this equation, but it was more than 8 years since I had physics. Could you clarify what are this shortcuts for, and how you did the numbers?
Right now I'm thinking
a= acceleration?
t= time?
d= distance, or damage?
v= velocity?
* = multiply?
^2= ???
|
|
I approve of this evil, and so would all my rpg friends. We prefer Lovecraft (Cthulhu for few who doesn't know) and Howard (Conan...like duh) type of stories. Their characters feel more realistic, at least to me.
I would want to understand more of this equation, but it was more than 8 years since I had physics. Could you clarify what are this shortcuts for, and how you did the numbers?
Right now I'm thinking
a= acceleration?
t= time?
d= distance, or damage?
v= velocity?
* = multiply?
^2= ???
d = distance
^2 means "raise to the second power"
^3 would mean cubed, ^x means raised to the x power.
acceleration should be 9.8 meters per second, or approximately 32 feet per second.
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.I agree completely.
I can't count the number of movies that have characters drop from "impossible to live" heights and remain unharmed.
The way to model this is to consider a character of a certain level will almost always survive a max falling damage fall.
But then there are those pesky other, more believable movies where the same sorts of characters scream and thump. Or at least have a frickin limp.
Personally, I like a formula that does Con damage based on distance fallen, with a Ref save for half (DC based on distance fallen). I haven't worked out the numbers satisfactorily yet, but the effect is great. I used it in a couple games, ad hoc, and it worked well. A bad guy was forced off a window ledge, fell two stories, failed his save, and took Con damage...with the reduction in hit points from the Con modeling his reduced capacity to dodge etc.
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?
Well, because you can use the "combat is abstract, and hit points represent your ability to turn a lethal hit into a glancing blow" logic. Whereas, you can't turn (much) of a fall from a 200 foot cliff into a glancing blow. Same with the others, with exception of falling into lava, which should end with...you are dead. And, btw, suffocation and drowning are "so deadly". In fact they are the most lethal things in the game.
The drowning rules are very deadly in Pathfinder. Someone grappled by a sea creature could be dead in 5 rounds without ever taking a point of damage.
I think I'm gonna use # of feet fallen = # of points of damage. No damage for falls of 5 feet or less. Acrobatics check for half damage.
As for lava, I think I'll put the d12 to use. 2d12 per splash, 40d12 for immersion.
That will be a x3 damage over the current rules and will be much more hardcore than my rule till you are over 100' falling distance.
100' 26d6 averages to 91 points
So be it, I just hate how variable the fall damage is. I had a 1st level monk fall down the 60' shaft in the Whispering Cairn. I rolled poorly and he only took 16 points of damage, which only brought him to zero (this was in the beta and he had 6 xtra points for being a human).
Ask. Your. Players.
Seriously.
I've had enough character deaths to fill a book and I'll tell you without question, the ones that come from a single bad die-roll or even two consecutive bad rolls SUCK. They're not memorable in a good way. Ooops, someone dispelled my fly spell and I fell and died? No. Not fun. Not cool. The dragon picked up the paladin and dropped him on top of the tavern from 100ft up, so he died? No. Not fun. Not cool.
If a character has to die, it should either be a cinematic struggle that the player has an opportunity to participate in, or it should be entirely the consequence of their own actions. Precipitate a cave-in by casting earthquake while in an unstable abandoned mine? Okay, well, yeah, that's fair to get killed for. An alligator drags the barbarian underwater and starts eating him, so he's got to fight while holding his breath, only it won't let go, so he stabs at it again and again and again, it's bleeding profusely and the water seems red both from its blood and his suffocation and he's just... not... quite... strong... eno
Yeah. That's cool. I mean, if you have to die. But some jackass who made a 30ft pit trap? No thanks.
So seriously, ask your players if they want this kind of a rule. Maybe yours do. Maybe yours are simulationists to this extent. Me, I'm strongly simulationist but I want to have fun so I'd like to strongly say no to 125d6 katanas. Sorry, I mean falling damage.
My players are quite happy with this optional rule. It is a nerfing of the falling damage rule I had before.
As to the death from a 30' trap it is the same as the falling damage of a 50' pit in the normal setting. You are in charge of what is in your dungeons. If you don't want deadly traps in your dungeon don't put them in.
My players are quite happy with this optional rule. It is a nerfing of the falling damage rule I had before.
As to the death from a 30' trap it is the same as the falling damage of a 50' pit in the normal setting. You are in charge of what is in your dungeons. If you don't want deadly traps in your dungeon don't put them in.
Not to be a knob but... your players are happier with your new house rule that is less severe than your old house rule. I'm absolutely reading into this things that aren't written, but you know that suggests a trend wherein they prefer less punitive rules? When I suggested you poll your players, I apologize for not being specific, but I really meant for you to ask their opinion relative to the core rules.
Secondly, you're picking at the specific example, not the spirit I was very clearly conveying. You've nearly doubled the danger presented at a mere 30ft. Okay, yes, as a DM you've got the power to replace the 30ft pit that's a level-appropriate challenge with a 15ft pit or whatever your tables say gives you 3d6 of damage. Great. Work for no meaningful benefit. And when you can't downgrade the danger as a character manages to fall off the roof of a 30ft building, you've still penalized the players.
As James points out, the quest for realism isn't always supported ideally by the game. To me, niggling over falling damage details in a game where PCs regularly get "hit" by greataxes is just... missing the forest for all the trees. A mid-level character can bloody catch on fire and ignore it for quite some time. Getting grappled by a bear, PCs can and do regularly survive. Swallow whole... not generally fatal. There's plenty of realism issues in the game, but it's fun.
I haven't settled on a system for falling damage, but I know my players see the current system as a joke - "Okay, I'll jump off this 200' cliff and attack the bad guy at the bottom".
They know there's really no consequence to crazy amounts of falling damage. It just makes their eyes roll. Sure its dangerous at early levels but it doesn't take long before falling damage doesn't really worry them at all.
I'm considering one Con damage per 10' (Fort save for half, DC 10 + 1/10') and the d6/10' but haven't actually tried it yet.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Rather than revise the damage itself, have you considered revising the rules for Death from Massive Damage?
I've implemented a Constitution+2-per-HD threshold, sliding-scale DC Massive Damage system, with a "dying at -1d10" mechanic, and it does an outstanding job of simulating what I want.
A 50' drop might still only do 5d6 damage, but it has a chance to knock even a powerful character unconscious.
For what it's worth.
|
|
Rather than revise the damage itself, have you considered revising the rules for Death from Massive Damage?
I've implemented a Constitution+2-per-HD threshold, sliding-scale DC Massive Damage system, with a "dying at -1d10" mechanic, and it does an outstanding job of simulating what I want.
A 50' drop might still only do 5d6 damage, but it has a chance to knock even a powerful character unconscious.
For what it's worth.
I always liked that rule...and had forgotten about it. Thanks for reminding me! The modifications seem interesting too...
Why the d10 and not -con?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Why the d10 and not -con?
No, no, I'm sorry. I wasn't being clear.
The result of failing the Massive Damage roll is to be unconscious and dying, at anywhere from -1 to -10 hit points. (In that order, so barbarians first fall unconscious and drop out of rage, and then end up at -1 to -10 hit points, so they're tuckered out as well.)
They're not memorable in a good way. Ooops, someone dispelled my fly spell and I fell and died? No. Not fun.
We are quite the opposite. You can be very descriptive with what "being hit" means. But falling 100 feet is falling 100 feet.
I'm fine with super heroic mid to high level D&D characters surviving, but they should really want to avoid it. My CON damage on a 1 rule achieves that.But "Not fun" is when heroism is undermined by hand waving away something that SHOULD have caused death.
|
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
While the sentiment of your equations is nice, where is the air resistance? In real situations a person falling would ramp up to a terminal velocity at a much less extreme rate (as the drag is proportional to the square of the current velocity), and the equations you have do not account for this at all. Also, a person who spreads themselves out properly, or has a simple drag-creation device (such as a parachute) can easily slow their rate of fall.
I'm not saying that the fall wouldn't hurt, it's just that there's a limit.A good example of this mattering is cats. If you research cats falling from various heights, they take an amount of damage proportional to the height the fall until the fall breaks about 70 feet. After this point they've had time to spread themselves out, lower their terminal velocity, and take less damage than at about 60ft.
Now, a standard humanoid may not have the righting reflex down as well as a cat does, but after a couple hundred feet they would certainly accomplish something. This is indicated pretty well with the normal "1d6 per 10 ft, up to 20d6" rule that is usually utilized. Getting any more complicated than that is just unnecessary (at least, IMO it is).
I will say that if I ever had someone fall in a vacuum for some reason the chart you built would be perfectly valid, and would even keep going to higher damage levels.
I have always used a geometric damage chart for falling but I have been thinking that it ramped up a little to fast.
The math and physics geek in me loves the use of acceleration equations. Now, combine that with physics equations for elastic (and inelastic, ouch!) collisions, and you'll get some really interesting results.
The 1E/2E gamer in me loves the chart. So many beautiful charts were lost in the 3.x edition wars. Actually, come to think of it, I'm glad most of those charts were sent to their doom. But I digress...
dulsin, I have to take your side on the damage thing. While I understand James' aversion to high falling damage (the game is supposed to help us tell an epic story where tough heroes do heroic stuff, right?), it has *always* bugged me (since 1st edition) that the heroes could happily jump down from the top of a 50' tower and laugh off the 5d6 damage.
So, I use the following alternate rules in my game:
1. Acrobatics will let you subtract 10' from a fall on a successful check. DC = 10 + (fall distance/5)
2. Every 10' requires a character to roll 1/2 their hit dice in damage.
3. The first 10' of falling is always non-lethal damage.
They have some advantages:
1. The rules are easy to remember and play. Every player is familiar with his/her character's hit dice, and given the falling distance, knows immediately how much to roll.
2. The rules scale perfectly with PCs, NPCs, and monsters. Falling does simple equivalent (but not equal) damage to PCs of all levels, huge dragons, small pixies, and everything else.
3. Small falls do hurt, but are survivable. Characters can still jump out of 2nd story windows in pursuit of bad guys. Characters with high acrobatics can still jump out of 3rd story windows in pursuit of bad guys. -- Heroism is saved!
4. Large falls are lethal. If you fall 100', you are likely going to wind up as a splat. You wouldn't go underwater without magic to breathe underwater. Likewise, you shouldn't fall from high places unless you bring magic to fall safely. -- Environmental hazards are still hazardous!
5. Damage can be easily tweaked according to taste. Too lethal? Make it 1/4 x HD per 10'. Too survivable? Make it a full set of HD per 10'.
Examples:
Fighter 6 jumps down from 50' tower, and makes a successful DC 20 acrobatics check.
50'-10' = 40' of damaging fall
40' = 30' of lethal fall, 10' of non-lethal fall
10' = 1/2 of Fighter 6 HD: 3d10
Fighter 6 must roll 9d10 lethal, then 3d10 non-lethal damage.
Wizard 20 also jumps off the 50' tower, failing his acrobatics check.
50' = 50' of damaging fall
50' = 40' of lethal fall, 10' of non-lethal fall
10' = 1/2 of Wizard 20 HD: 10d6
Wizard 20 must roll 40d6 lethal, then 10d6 non-lethal damage.
Rogue 3/Barb 2 jumps off the 50' tower, succeeding on the DC 20 acrobatics check.
50'-10' = 40' of damaging fall
40' = 30' of lethal fall, 10' of non-lethal fall
10' = 1/2 of Rogue 3/Barb 2 HD: 1.5d8, 1d12
Rogue 3/Barb 2 must roll 4d8+3d12 lethal, then 1d8+1d12 non-lethal damage.
The rules work for me, and they are used in my games with the approval of my players. In games where the players don't approve (I've had a few, depending on who is involved), I stick to falling damage per the RAW. Not every rule sits well with me as a GM, but any game the players enjoy, is ALWAYS using the right rules.
|
|
After thinking about it for a while, I may have come up with a good model (if you really need to house rule it)
A good model for falling has to take into account a few facts:
1) Every extra 10 ft of fall causes a little less damage than the previous, due to approach of terminal velocity.
2) A fall of more than about 670ft will no longer accrue additional damage, as the terminal velocity has already been reached (using the numbers from page 47 of the DMGII of D&D 3.5; Not the best reference, I know, but it's something).
3) An arbitrary reference point must be met. For this purpose I chose the reference point of 200ft fall = 20d6 damage, which is the point used in the base book for the "maximum" damage.
To this end I came up with the following equation:
Number of d6 damage dice = log(fall height - 5ft) / log(1.3)
The following chart shows some important points:
Fall Height::Damage
10ft::6d6
20ft::10d6
30ft::12d6
50ft::14d6
100ft::17d6
200ft::20d6
300ft::21d6
400ft::22d6
500ft::23d6
670ft::24d6
Acrobatics checks that reduce the effective height would now matter a LOT, and the fall damage of even a short fall matters enough to not blindly jump off cliffs. Although the damage theoretically would go up forever, capping it at the damage from 670ft makes sense due to terminal velocity.
If you want to lower the damage of the early bits, you can increase the -5ft to something higher (but less than 10ft), then just adjust the 1.3 until the 200ft mark comes out at about 20 (or whatever number of d6s you want). To up the overall damage, just adjust the 1.3.
Personally, I think that this is overly complicated for not much result, but that's up to the group that's playing to decide, I suppose.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
After thinking about it for a while, I may have come up with a good model (if you really need to house rule it)
To this end I came up with the following equation:
The following chart shows some important points:
Fall Height::Damage
10ft::6d6
20ft::10d6
...
That seems pretty tough. Even 2nd-level fighters are likely to die from dropping ten feet. Falling off a second-story roof does as much damage as the most powerful fireball.
When this topic was thrashed about during the 1st Edition days of Dragon magazine, there was a nice discussion about whether hit-points of damage equated to momentum, or kinetic energy, or ... and what terminal velocity was, and how far you had to fall to reach it ...
(The impetus to that discussion, by the way, was Gary Gygax's letter saying that he'd intended the falling rules to be 1d6 per 10 feet, per 10 feet. (So 1d6, 3d6, 6d6, 10d6, 15d6, and then reaching terminal velocity at 60 feet with 20d6. Some smart people were quick to point out that falling bodies don't reach terminal velocity after 60 feet.) Gygax went on to blame the editors of the 1st Edition books for the erroneous change.)
For what it's worth, the base damage, with my house rules for the Effects of Massive Damage, do a reasonable simulation of the way I want falling to work. But I do have one recommendation: add 1 to each die for each size category larger than Medium, and subtract 1 from each die for each size category smaller. So a horse takes more damage in a fall than a gnome.
But...what if you dropped 10 katanas from orbit, mass driver style?
I'd rather there still be an Earth around to dominate, wouldn't you?
While the sentiment of your equations is nice, where is the air resistance? In real situations a person falling would ramp up to a terminal velocity at a much less extreme rate (as the drag is proportional to the square of the current velocity), and the equations you have do not account for this at all. Also, a person who spreads themselves out properly, or has a simple drag-creation device (such as a parachute) can easily slow their rate of fall.
I'm not saying that the fall wouldn't hurt, it's just that there's a limit.
The air resistance equation is based on Velocity^2 so the drag term does not become significant compared to gravities acceleration until you reach a very high speed. I ignored that in my first cut of the table because I thought it would take longer to reach terminal velocity.
Terminal velocity for a human body is approximately 70m/s after a fall of 100m (approximately 300ft) the falling object is only up to about 10m/s. At this time the drag from air is 2% of gravity.
To determine the exact point where you reach terminal velocity is a very difficult equation but until falls over 300' air drag is not a significant factor. This equation is very difficult to derive without differential equations but I came up with a close approximation.
Here is my approximation for the modified falling velocity accounting for air resistance of a human body.
V = (2 * d) / (32 - .0066 * V ^ 2) (in Feet)
V = (2 * d) / (9.8 - .002 * V ^ 2) (in Meters)
Back in the old Dragon magazine there was a comic called Finieous Fingers. I fondly remember the BBEG in that story could only be defeated by a 30lbs rock dropped from a height of 50' onto his head. Fortunately for our heroes a Palantir is exactly 30lbs and all the castles were built with regulation 50' towers.
Since kinetic energy of an object is relative to the mass of the object. Katana is 6 lbs and a warrior ~180lbs the falling damage is 1/30 of a man. So the katana from 300' will be 1d10 + 4d6. So bring on the Katanas! I recommend dropping rocks they are much cheaper.
The math and physics geek in me loves the use of acceleration equations. Now, combine that with physics equations for elastic (and inelastic, ouch!) collisions, and you'll get some really interesting results.
All collisions will be a combination of elastic and inelastic. You only get pure collisions in physics experiments. On the other hand a purely Elastic collision would be the one where all the dice came up 1's. Then the pure Inelastic collision would be all 6's.
If you bounce like a rubber ball you take minimal damage. If there is no bounce all your internal organs turn into a thin paste.
I am providing a reflex save for half damage to roll with the fall. Normally when someone falls I give them a chance to catch the edge and avoid all damage. Rogues have a huge advantage here with trap sense, high reflex saves, and acrobatics.
You posted what happens when the creatures falls. I'm interested in what happens when something falls on you from above. So could you make the same chart with things failing at characters?
In d20 Modern there is a falling objects chart and it goes like this (I think):
Diminutive 1
Tiny 1d3
Small 1d4
Medium 1d6
Large 2d6
Huge 4d6
Gargantuan 8d6
Colossal 10d6
It also states that this is initial damage when the object falls at least 10 feet, and every 10 feet after that it deals 1d6 more (to maximum of 20d6. So could you (when you have free time) make an evil chart of this one?
There is a chart for this in the Pathfinder Rulebook (pg 443). I think it's the same one that appeared in v3.5 DMG and is identical to the one you posted, Andrej.
There is a chart for this in the Pathfinder Rulebook (pg 443). I think it's the same one that appeared in v3.5 DMG and is identical to the one you posted, Andrej.
Really? Thx, but I yet need to buy my Pathfinder book. Although pdf is cheaper, book has a bigger and better feel to it.
I wanted to see Dulsin make a chart for falling objects, because I really liked this falling damage chart and intend to use it in my gaming group. Yes we have a gluttony for punishment :)
I'm digging around for house rules and I found this thread.
Here is my take and a system I found elsewhere.
Falling damage scales up in dice at 30' intervals.
10' - 1d6
20' - 2d6
30' - 3d6
40' - 4d8
50' - 5d8
60' - 6d8
70' - 90' -- d10s
100' - 120' -- d12s
130' - 150' -- 2d8s (example 140' = 28d8)
160' - 180' -- 2d10s
190' - 200' -- 2d12s
Max damage is at 200' which is terminal velocity (40d12). So a fall from 200' and 2 miles is the same damage roll.
An acrobatics check will reduce the fall by 10' which can drop the dice down as well.
I'm using this and the players like it. It is a bit high at the max fall though. I may revise the dice intervals to 40' and so you would get up to 40' - d6s, up to 80' - d8s, up to 120' - d10s, up to 160' - d12s, and finally max at up to 200' with 2d8s.
Arguments for scaling damage are interesting, but the aspect of falling I find is most critical is time: how long (in segments) does it take to fall x number of feet? Several times in our recent game sessions we've had PCs fall from heights of 140 to 220 feet.
At 32'/s^2, it seems like the distance fallen should be around 575' at the end of a six second round, or about 140' after the first three seconds, which suggests that any fall of less than 140' gives the character no time to react using a standard or move action.
I believe the main problem with Falling damage is that it inflicts "general" hit point in the first place.
Think about it:
Hit points (in combat) are an abstract construct represent not the ability to take wounds, but rather to dodge them, turn lethal blows into less dangerous ones etc.
Your character isn't really "damaged" until his hit points drop below 0.
(Quote: "A character with at least 1 hit point is fully functional")
A skilled fighter CAN dodge or otherwise lessen an Ancient Red Dragon's Fire-Breath, but he CAN'T dodge a free fall drop from a cliff/tower/whatever.
So falling damage inflicting normal hit point damage just isn't coherent to the basic concept.
Right now, I don't know which way to go instead.
- CON or STR damage?
- Directly dropping the victim into neg HP?
But I think it should simply be one saving throw or Acrobatics skill check depending from the height and the size of the falling.
The result is compared to a table which stats the effects.
(10+ success: nothing happens; normal success: XdY non-lethal damage, maybe staggered for some rounds; normal failure: dropped to 0 hp + non-lethal damage; 10+ failure: dropped to neg hp equal ?)
Something like this.
Unfortunately, the entire argument is based upon a false assumption. In Pathfinder (and most games) damaged is determined not by how fast you are going, but rather by how far you have fallen. In other words the independent variable is distance.
PE = mgh
PE = potential energy (which equals kinetic energy at the end of the fall)
M = mass
G = acceleration due to gravity (on Earth 9.8 m/s/s = 32 ft/s/s = 6 squares/s/s)
H = height
Its pretty straightforward, falling damage should be linear, ie 1d6/10 feet fallen.
However, you *do* want to make falling more dangerous so I recommend this procedure:
1) roll damage and apply to hit points
2) take every die showing a 6 (or higher) and reroll, apply this as Con damage
3) again take every die showing a 6 (or higher) and reroll, apply this as Con drain
4) repeat the Con drain as needed for every 6 (or higher) rolled
Now, as it turns out, the bigger you are, the harder you fall. Also, the smaller you are, the farther you can fall. (At this point I invite everyone to google falling housecats and hi rise buildings – TL;DR
Cats routinely survive falls greater than 18 stories.) This is because of air resistance and the ratio of surface area to mass. Max damage is based on the idea of terminal velocity.*
Size) falling damage per 10’ fallen
Less than tiny) no falling damage
Tiny) 1d3 (max 5)
Small) 1d4 (max 10)
Medium) 1d6 (max 20)
Large ) 1d8 (max 20)
Huge) 2d6 (max 40)
Gargantuan) 3d6 (no max)
Collassal) 4d6 (no max)
For giggles, for every 6 rolled on the die, apply 1 critical hit (blunt) card. This will provide for broken bones and stuff. Just ignore the multipliers. (Or not!)
In all cases, Acrobatics rules apply as normal.
* In the real world, terminal velocity for cats is reached around 18 stories, but any cat without class levels would go squish even from 18d3, so I arbitrarily halved the max damage at each size category.
I like the crit card effect for each 6 rolled...that adds flavor without instant killing the PC...you may not die from a 70' fall but odds are you will crawl or limp away from it
the alexandrian has an article on this. but here is my translation of thier tiers.
levels 1-5 mortal
levels 6-10 low end Marvel/DC SuperHero/SuperVillain, standard Clamp protagonist, Record of Agarest War Playable Character, Any Character from the Avatar animated franchise
levels 11-15, greek heroic demigod, standard shonen protagonist, wuxia hero, high end Marvel/DC Superhero/Supervillain
levels 16-20, super saiyan 7 Gogeta, Overlord Laharl, Madoka Kaname in the last episode of Puella Magi Madoka Magica, any chinese myth pertaining to either the tailed beasts, Son Goku/Son Wukong, the 108 stars of destiny, or the four guardians.
Even when we were playing 2nd edition I was having lunch on the roof of a diner/warehouse we compared how often a certain dwarven fighter could jump off the building and climb back up the stairs to jump down again, he'd be getting in remote risk territory after perhaps 8 times.
"eight !", roared the dwarf, charging off in search of number 9.