My gaming group had a disagreement on falling, and I can see where they've got a point. If a character is falling from a decent height, how fast do they fall?
The rules are very specific about the damage from a fall, but are apparently silent on how far a body travels in a round. More specifically, what about falling speed within that round? Say a guy falls 200' and a nearby ally whose next in initiative wants to catch him. Can he even try to do so?
How do you all handle this?
|
It's ~550 feet the first round, 1100 each round thereafter. *
At least, if you use real life terminal velocity stuff.
*Based on a hastily done google search.
EDIT: I'd probably allow an attempt to catch them and "break" their fall (split the damage between them) with a DC10 dex check if they are adjacent to the location of the landing.
|
I've always used 60ft a round, 10ft per second. I'll have to see if I can find anything in writing that I got it from.This is the speed of a fall when under the effects of feather fall.
That explains where I got it! Good to know it hasn't really made any sense all this time. And thanks for giving the actual speeds.
|
|
I think I'll go with something less, as it gives less opportunities for cool character stunts. In an epic game I played in, another character was knocked from a cliff the party was battling on. On my turn, my monk used her climb speed to scramble down the side and leap straight out, catching the falling PC and snatching ahold of the far side of the chasm. Pure awesome.
550', or 564' more specifically is how many ft traveled after 6 seconds, an entire round. Here are the figures within that round:
1 second: 15 ft
2 seconds: 63 ft
3 seconds: 141 ft
4 seconds: 250 ft
5 seconds: 392 ftIf they are falling for even 3 seconds I would rule that someone could try and catch them, or use a spell to soften their fall
As far as using a spell, isn't that something you'd have to prepare ahead of time, like a Quickened Feather Fall?
Thanks for posting such precise figures!! You know, I think it's likely, if you want to get real granular about this, to take your initiative sequence for a combat and determine where your combat participants fall in these 6 seconds.
Say for example, Marley the Mage is falling from a height of 550' and the villain who threw him off a ledge did so on Initiative Sequence 10. Francis the Fighter consumed a Potion of Fly a couple rounds ago and wants to try to catch Marley. But, Francis doesn't act until Init Sequence 3.
How many seconds have elapsed between IS 10 and IS 3, and would Francis be able to reach Marley's new location at IS 3? You'd have to prorate the seconds in your round and then look at Marley's distance & angle of ascent/descent ... ugh ... I dunno.
Maybe it's easier just to call for a couple of skill checks .. .a movement check (Fly, DEX, Ride,etc), then perhaps an Acrobatics and STR check to catch the person falling. But, only if they can reach some point under the person falling.
Sure do wish that my players hadn't tried to catch the guy. I wanted to see at least one PC take a fall !!!
My gaming group had a disagreement on falling, and I can see where they've got a point. If a character is falling from a decent height, how fast do they fall?
The rules are very specific about the damage from a fall, but are apparently silent on how far a body travels in a round. More specifically, what about falling speed within that round? Say a guy falls 200' and a nearby ally whose next in initiative wants to catch him. Can he even try to do so?
How do you all handle this?
I've used the numbers from the 3.5 FAQ. 500 feet first round 1200 feet every additional round. (This is close to the numbers being tossed around here but more players might use these numbers).
Consult the rules under climb they may help:
Catch a Falling Character While Climbing: If someone climbing above you or adjacent to you falls, you can attempt to catch the falling character if he or she is within your reach. Doing so requires a successful melee touch attack against the falling character (though he or she can voluntarily forego any Dexterity bonus to AC if desired). If you hit, you must immediately attempt a Climb check (DC = wall’s DC + 10). Success indicates that you catch the falling character, but his total weight, including
equipment, cannot exceed your heavy load limit or you automatically fall. If you fail your Climb check by 4 or less, you fail to stop the character’s fall but don’t lose your grip on the wall. If you fail by 5 or more, you fail to stop the character’s fall and begin falling as well.
Also note that "Catching yourself or another falling character doesn’t take an action." So, it doesn't really matter whose inititive count is next either.
As a DM philosophy question, I always try to allow players to save their comrades in such situations. All action in the round is more or less occuring simultaneously, so it does seem rather harsh to allow a PC to plummet 500 feet over six seconds without anyone being able to react just because the combat system abstraction causes all the action to happen on that one character's turn.
Consult the rules under climb they may help:
Yes, somewhat, and a big 'Thank You' for pointing them out to me!!! I don't recall seeing these before. But these rules are only if you're either adjacent to a falling character OR are already underneath a falling character. And, it looks like this is for catching someone 'while climbing'.
All action in the round is more or less occuring simultaneously ...
I have to disagree with you here. Yes, a round is a short timespan, but the action is clearly sequential. When you go absolutely matters.
I'm thinking a series of linked skill checks for moving underneath and catching a character may do the trick in the future.
1) some kind of movement check (Fly, Ride, etc)
2) a Grapple maneuver to establish a hold of the falling PC
3) a STR check to catch and keep the person from falling
I have to disagree with you here. Yes, a round is a short timespan, but the action is clearly sequential. When you go absolutely matters.
Maybe, we will just have to agree to disagree but you shouldn't let the mechanics drive the game. We adjudicate everyting in a clearly defined order of initiative for simplicity but the combat it represents is essentially simultaneous and continuous.
In a combat round as run:
1) Ally with high initiative attacks enemy.
2) Victim falls 500' (over six seconds) and goes splat.
3) Another ally watches this because he so slow he can't act until after the splat.
This makes no sense when run sequentially. Why can't ally with quick reactions (high initiative) stop attacking to go help his falling buddy. Why does the other ally do nothing for six seconds as the victim goes splat. You're letting the mechanics of the game force the action. The mechanics are just a framework on which you should build the action.
If it was a real-time situation. Both allies would begin to see him fall and move to help. The first wouldn't say "I'm gonna continue to swing at my enemy for the next few seconds" and the second wouldn't wait until after the splat to react.
There was a wonderful little section in the DMG on simultaneous activity that I think every GM should read.
[steps off soapbox]
I'm thinking a series of linked skill checks for moving underneath and catching a character may do the trick in the future.
1) some kind of movement check (Fly, Ride, etc)
2) a Grapple maneuver to establish a hold of the falling PC
3) a STR check to catch and keep the person from falling
I like this. Anytime I find there isn't a rule for such a thing, I never say you can't because the rules don't allow it. Rather if the rules don't specifically say you can't then its GM's call and players love to roll dice.
I would say count the falling as a full round action if its 500+ feet. That gives anyone in that round a chance to catch or cast a spell to save their comrade. Since technically everything in the round is happening at the same time.
This makes no sense when run sequentially. Why can't ally with quick reactions (high initiative) stop attacking to go help his falling buddy. Why does the other ally do nothing for six seconds as the victim goes splat. You're letting the mechanics of the game force the action. The mechanics are just a framework on which you should build the action.
If it was a real-time situation. Both allies would begin to see him fall and move to help. The first wouldn't say "I'm gonna continue to swing at my enemy for the next few seconds" and the second wouldn't wait until after the splat to react.
No, I'm not letting the mechanics force the action. I'm saying that the mechanics are a framework that delineates what's possible and what's not. The players drive the action, but they don't get to do things willy-nilly. The mechanics are there to set limits on what's achievable.
Sure, the fella with the High Initiative can try to help his falling comrade. Did he Delay his action? Are the two of them relatively close in Initiative Sequence? Is the guy with High Init strong enough to catch the falling dude? Just because you've got high Init doesn't mean you should be able to act whenever you'd like.
Simply put, Initiative matters ... a lot. And, if someone's fallen after you've already acted or if that someone is simply too far away, then the mechanics should set clear limits on what's possible and what isn't. Otherwise, why play a game at all? Why not just tell a story?
This is getting a little off-track from the original question about catching a falling character, but it gets into an interesting gray area about game mechanics and game play in general.
As far as the series of linked skill checks ... to me this works best if it's not straight pass/fail. If the catching character fails the first movement check, he can still try to catch the falling character, but maybe he's now got a -2 penalty per each 5 the check failed the DC, since he's not positioned real well.
Since technically everything in the round is happening at the same time.
What ?!? NOOOO ... it isn't. Unless I'm missing something from the Core Rulebook, this notion of simultaneous action is in conflict with the Pathfinder game. Nothing happens at the same time in a round of combat, not even if there's a tie. Please correct me if the Core book says otherwise.
Again, I'm getting off track from my original question. But, no, I just can't wrap my head around this idea that the combat is really simultaneous. The differences in absolute time between combatants is incredibly small to be sure, but the difference is real, all the same, and in game terms, they make all the difference!
|
|
What ?!? NOOOO ... it isn't. Unless I'm missing something from the Core Rulebook, this notion of simultaneous action is in conflict with the Pathfinder game. Nothing in a round happens at the same time in a round of combat, not even if there's a tie.
Again, I'm getting off track from my original question. But, no, I just can't wrap my head around this idea that the combat is really simultaneous. The differences in absolute time between combatants is incredibly small to be sure, but the difference is real, all the same, and in game terms, they make all the difference!
So either the first turn takes 6 seconds, the second turn takes six seconds, and so on, making the round last a number of seconds equal to 6 times the number of participants, (I.E. 30 second round for 5 participants), or each turn takes a fraction of six seconds equal to 6 divided by the number of participants, (I.E. one and one-fifth of a second for a round with 5 participants).
Do you mean that fighters can full-attack in just over a second, and that wizards can run 30ft and cast a spell in that same time?
There was a wonderful little section in the DMG on simultaneous activity that I think every GM should read.
Which edition of the DMG are you referring to? For older editions, that typically used group initiative, the notion of simultaneous action makes more sense.
So either the first turn takes 6 seconds, the second turn takes six seconds, and so on, making the round last a number of seconds equal to 6 times the number of participants, (I.E. 30 second round for 5 participants), or each turn takes a fraction of six seconds equal to 6 divided by the number of participants, (I.E. one and one-fifth of a second for a round with 5 participants).
Do you mean that fighters can full-attack in just over a second, and that wizards can run 30ft and cast a spell in that same time?
Yeah, I see what you're getting at ... and fractionating a 6 second round into proportional pieces by an increasing number of combatants doesn't make any sense. Thus, to some degree (and probably to a large one) the action therein has to be simultaneous.
I should have been much more specific in my earlier posts... while your action(s) takes 6 seconds, and all the actions within a round in real life are happening at once, the resolution of those actions most definitely is not simultaneous. And, that's what the Init. sequence is really describing.
So, to take scmT's question about a guy w/ high Init not being able to try to catch a falling buddy ... for that round, I'm afraid he's already shot his wad, so to speak. While he was attacking an enemy, his buddy was already halfway to the ground. But, maybe if he Delayed ... ? Otherwise, it'll take a split second for him to spin himself around and launch into rescue mode (ie, Round 2).
Which edition of the DMG are you referring to? For older editions, that typically used group initiative, the notion of simultaneous action makes more sense.
There was a wonderful little section in the DMG on simultaneous activity that I think every GM should read.
In DMG 3.5 it is page 24.
So, to take scmT's question about a guy w/ high Init not being able to try to catch a falling buddy ... for that round, I'm afraid he's already shot his wad, so to speak. While he was attacking an enemy, his buddy was already halfway to the ground. But, maybe if he Delayed ... ? Otherwise, it'll take a split second for him to spin himself around and launch into rescue mode (ie, Round 2).
I don't really want to beat a dead horse but I actually played a game that tried to have those with high initatives move last so they aren't penalized for having a high initative. They could see everything that happening this round and react to it (makes sense they have such quick reactions) however mechanically it was a total diaster. Once everyone slower had committed their actions the highest initative got to decide what to do. Which meant often unwinding actions that happened "earlier" in the round because they interrupted slower opponents (or allies).
So, the current system gives some advantage to going first (your attacks land before any retaliation) which works fine the vast majority of the time but you can end up with these situtations where you are penalized by going first because you can't react because well, your reaction time is too quick--a nice little paradox. Generally this only shows itself when you have something that takes a substantial amount of time (such as falling a long distance).
I don't really want to beat a dead horse but I actually played a game that tried to have those with high initatives move last so they aren't penalized for having a high initative. They could see everything that happening this round and react to it (makes sense they have such quick reactions) however mechanically it was a total diaster. Once everyone slower had committed their actions the highest initative got to decide what to do. Which meant often unwinding actions that happened "earlier" in the round because they interrupted slower opponents (or allies).
There are several (a lot of?) other games that work sorta this way, but it works a little differently. Usually, what you do, is everyone declares their actions, in order from lowest initiative to highest, and then once everyone's declared you do the resolution. That way there's no "unwinding" as you say.
The problem is, if you have a lot of different participants, you'd almost have to write down the actions as they're declared lest you forget them, and when you have stuff like AoOs for movements and whatnot there's a lot of "not on your turn actions" going on that make it a lot more difficult to do that way.
I don't really want to beat a dead horse but I actually played a game that tried to have those with high initatives move last so they aren't penalized for having a high initative. They could see everything that happening this round and react to it (makes sense they have such quick reactions) however mechanically it was a total diaster. Once everyone slower had committed their actions the highest initative got to decide what to do. Which meant often unwinding actions that happened "earlier" in the round because they interrupted slower opponents (or allies).There are several (a lot of?) other games that work sorta this way, but it works a little differently. Usually, what you do, is everyone declares their actions, in order from lowest initiative to highest, and then once everyone's declared you do the resolution. That way there's no "unwinding" as you say.
The problem is, if you have a lot of different participants, you'd almost have to write down the actions as they're declared lest you forget them, and when you have stuff like AoOs for movements and whatnot there's a lot of "not on your turn actions" going on that make it a lot more difficult to do that way.
Also with most those systems everyone gets their actions for that round regardless (at least in 2nd edition, and battletech from the last I saw of it) because everyone is acting at the same time, at the end of the round everything has happened you tally up and next round you start with this as your new starting point.
Also with most those systems everyone gets their actions for that round regardless (at least in 2nd edition, and battletech from the last I saw of it) because everyone is acting at the same time, at the end of the round everything has happened you tally up and next round you start with this as your new starting point.
Often, yeah. Also they tend to be more lethal, so you don't have long combats very often.
I don't really want to beat a dead horse
Not at all !! I've really enjoyed this discussion!
So, the current system gives some advantage to going first (your attacks land before any retaliation) which works fine the vast majority of the time but you can end up with these situtations where you are penalized by going first because you can't react because well, your reaction time is too quick--a nice little paradox.
I don't see this as a penalty at all. It's a trade-off. Delay to be later in the round, and give up getting that first attack OR attack first but then you better be able to take what's coming your way later. All good games present participants with a series of decisions, and in my mind, this is an excellent dilemma for every player.
It almost sounds like you're saying that really quick combatants should be able to both go first and react to their opponents, but in an abstracted combat model like 3.5/PF, I think reactions are assumed in things like Reflex saves, DEX bonuses, etc. Now, the old West End Star Wars game had something like what you're describing, where in the course of a round, you could react to an opponent's actions.
Generally this only shows itself when you have something that takes a substantial amount of time (such as falling a long distance).
Well, why would falling entail taking a substantial amount of time? Yes, skydiving takes a few minutes, but falls that happen within the scope of RPGs are what, a couple hundred feet or less, usually? That'll only take a 1 - 2 seconds, won't it?
As gamers, we do think of our combats as happening in slow motion, .. I know I do, simply because it can several minutes to adjudicate a single round of action. I suppose it's no surprise that we'd mentally picture falls as happening pretty slow as well.
Feather Fall
School transmutation; Level bard 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 immediate action
Components V
Its already faster than quickened: Its immediate. It can be cast even on someone else's turn, whenever you want it to activate.
|
i've always done the 500' then 1000' rule.
the real question of when do you start falling comes into play. is it still 500' the first round if you've already taken all your actions? if someone full round attacks, uses a swift action, and then takes a 5' step off a cliff are they "instantly" 500' below? what if he still had a move action left? or the full round? it doesnt seem right that falling 500' can take any amount of a turn it wants
According to the 3e MotP, a falling character falls 150' in the first round and 300' every round after that. I never really read the planar descriptions in the 3.5 DMG (since MotP was better), so I don't know if it changed there. However, the description of planar traits in the GMG uses the same speeds under the description of subjective gravity. I'd assume this is the normal gravitational rate of falling speed anywhere with a normal strength of gravity.
Well, why would falling entail taking a substantial amount of time? Yes, skydiving takes a few minutes, but falls that happen within the scope of RPGs are what, a couple hundred feet or less, usually? That'll only take a 1 - 2 seconds, won't it?
Generally this only shows itself when you have something that takes a substantial amount of time (such as falling a long distance).
I suggest you go jump out a window.
Go on. I'll wait.
Assuming a 16ft height you would have taken 1 second to reach the ground. In two seconds you would fall only 64 feet total. A 100 foot fall would take 2.5 seconds. In three seconds you would fall less than 150 feet (144 feet).
When you are start talking 150 feet you will be falling more than half a round. I would consider that to be a substantial amount of time. Because the current sequential nature of the round doesn't really fit this mold the DM needs to make some changes to accomodate them. Sometimes player actions don't fit the rules perfectly, but this is the advantage of playing with a human judge. They can bend the rules to fit the situation.
So, in the case of a person falling 150 feet maybe you allow everyone a single action to help or maybe something else. In situations like this there probably isn't a one size fits all answer. As Name Violation points out, it could also depend on when they start to fall.
In situations like this there probably isn't a one size fits all answer.
Yeah, I think you're absolutely right about this. Trying to model a realistic sequence of reactions to someone falling, while complying with the rules ... it's all kinda 'square peg in a round hole'.
One interesting thing, though, I saw in the recently released GMG: They've got a section about 'Flying', where they emphasize the great danger that PCs put themselves into by being high in the air while using any kind of Flying magic.
It struck me as an omission that they never considered that others in the party will go to great lengths trying to catch a falling comrade. Was that just an oversight, or are they implying that catching a falling party member is so difficult, it isn't even worth consideration?