| Phloid RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32 |
A halfling character falls off a tower and falls 130 feet and lands squarely on top of another human character. How much damage do they each take?
The falling rules say the halfling takes 13d6 damage (1d6 for each 10-feet fallen). If the halfling counts as a Small object in the falling object rules, then the human takes 2d6 damage. is that right?
If the roles are reversed, the Medium sized human takes 13d6 and the halfling takes 3d6. If either falling character lands on solid stone, they take only the 13d6.
I suppose the first 1d6 of the damage could be converted to non-lethal for a "yielding surface." I don't know. It seems like an awfully large gap in damage from the falling character to the one that gets landed on. Wouldn't it make more sense if they shared some part of that falling damage if one character helps to "break the fall" of the gravity stricken character? Do you agree that these are the rules as written and it would have to be a "Rule Zero" ruling to change this in a game?
| DM_Blake |
You seem to have it correct.
Actually, the falling damage thing seems to be fair enough, but the damage from falling objects seems way off. By this standard, I could drop a bowling ball from the upper observation deck of the Empire State Building and hit an ordinary commoner for (estimated) max damage and not kill them. I could drop the engine block from a small car from the same place onto the same ordinary guy with only about a 50/50 chance of killing him.
Ridiculous.
Seems to me that if a man can fall 200 feet and take 20d6 of damage, then if he lands on another man, that guy should ALSO take 20d6 of damage, not 3d6.
"Breaking the fall" to share the damage might be an interesting application, but might not be sound physics.
| blahpers |
RAW, since the halfling isn't an object, the human takes no damage at all. Hooray RPG physics!
Treating the halfing as an object, the human takes probably less than 3d6 damage, as the halfling is not made of dense material such as stone. The human shouldn't take 13d6 damage because most of the force of the halfling's fall goes into the ground, not the human. The human is hit by a small object (the halfling's body); the halfling is hit by a larger-than-colossal object (a planet). Any nonlethal padding is GM discretion, but 1d6 seems appropriate.
| Ignotus Advenium |
...The falling rules say the halfling takes 13d6 damage (1d6 for each 10-feet fallen). If the halfling counts as a Small object in the falling object rules, then the human takes 2d6 damage. is that right?
Here's my 2 cents, after consulting the rules briefly. Keep in mind that I'm a Pathfinder noob:
First, for the falling halfling, I would change the 13d6 to 12d6 + 1d6 non-lethal, since landing on the human could be considered soft ground (see falling).
Second, for the human taking damage from the falling object (a halfling), I would say the halfling does not count as a small object, since object sizes are different than creature sizes. There's a very rough estimate of object sizes under Animated Object, but that's not too helpful here because the options are limited and not-so-clear.
A better example of object vs creature size can be found under weapon size. Though it's still not perfect, it does at least make it clear that object sizes and creature sizes are not the same.
Going by the guidelines for weapons: Given a creature of size X, a light weapon sized for that creature has an object-size of X–2, a one-handed weapon has an object-size of X–1, and a two-handed weapon has an object-size of X.
If you reverse that formula, you might ask, "In the hand of what size creature would a halfling equate to a light weapon (dagger?) or one-handed weapon (club?)."
My own best guess is that a halfling would be equivalent to light weapon in the hand of huge creature. As an object, he would then be huge minus 2 size categories, which is medium. In that case, he should deal 3d6 to the human. By the same estimate, he'd be equivalent to a one-handed weapon in the hand of a large creature or a two-handed weapon in the hands of a medium creature. If you think a halfling's size is closer to a two-handed weapon in the hands of a large creature (instead of medium), then you would bump his object size up one notch to large (4d6), but that's your call.
Third, there is mention in the falling object rules that the chart-listed damage dealt is for dense objects:
Note that this assumes that the object is made of dense, heavy material, such as stone. Objects made of lighter materials might deal as little as half the listed damage, subject to GM discretion.
I happen to think that a body would qualify as dense and heavy material, but that's your call as GM, too.
Finally, there's one more aspect of the falling object rules that says that falling objects take as much damage as they deliver. It is not clear if this means only when they hit a creature, or even if they hit the ground. Would a falling medium-sized-object crate that hit a creature dealing 3d6 damage also take 3d6 if it hit the ground? Or, would it take damage as if it were a falling creature? This is relevant because if it's hitting a creature at the end of a fall that changes the damage from 1d6 per 10 feet to the lesser, chart-listed damage, it could be argued that the falling halfling should be treated like an object and take only as much damage as he dealt to the human instead of his normal falling damage. I know this is a stretch, and I wouldn't go that way myself.
That's the best I could do help with my rules knowledge and a little reading—hope it helps.
| Phloid RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32 |
Second, for the human taking damage from the falling object (a halfling), I would say the halfling does not count as a small object, since object sizes are different than creature sizes. There's a very rough estimate of object sizes under Animated Object, but that's not too helpful here because the options are limited and not-so-clear.
A better example of object vs creature size can be found under weapon size. Though it's still not perfect, it does at least make it clear that object sizes and creature sizes are not the same.
Thanks for the reply, and you make some good points, but you are wrong about object sizes. I believe that object size categories both in the falling object rules and in the animated object monster rules are intended to be roughly the same as the creature size categories. The exception to this is the weapon rules where their "size" does not refer to the amount of space the object takes up, but the size of the creature it is designed to be used by. Here is the text out of the SRD which you linked to:
Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.
A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.
This may be flawed too, as a human greatsword (Medium size object) might be as tall as a human (Medium size creature), but it is not as heavy nor as wide as a human. I suppose there is a wide line in object size and maybe a little overlap with the neighboring categories, but I'm sure the size categories for objects and for creatures are intended to be roughly the same,
But I agree with Remy Balster. The Falling Object rules are bad.
| Ignotus Advenium |
No argument here. I agree the Falling Objects rules need improvement. And on reviewing the Animated Objects text, I think you're right, too. A few of the entries on that table seem accurate enough, for example a chair probably is about halfling size.
What threw me the most is the statue being listed as large. I always thought of a statue as "life-sized", which would make it the same size as a medium-sized creature. But on second thought, maybe a normal statue is larger-than-life.
| DM_Blake |
What threw me the most is the statue being listed as large. I always thought of a statue as "life-sized", which would make it the same size as a medium-sized creature. But on second thought, maybe a normal statue is larger-than-life.
As an avid museum-goer, I might suggest that even a realistically life-sized statue always has a base. If not, the statue would be very easy to knock over. And since statues of humans tend to be tall and narrow, they're very top-heavy which means they get fairly significant bases to make them bottom heavy.
Medium statue + significant base = large object.
Also, most of the statues I see in museums are often larger than life to begin with, but that's a different issue.
| DM_Blake |
Since we've already worked out the RAW answer, unsatisfying as it is, how about this as a proposed house rule:
For creatures falling on creatures, they both take the falling damage but the falling creature can apply the soft ground rules to make 1d6 into non-lethal damage.
For objects falling onto creatures, use the Improvised Weapon damage and apply those dice for every range increment (falling objects have a range increment of 20 feet).
None of which is RAW.
| Remy Balster |
I'm not discussing rules specifically here, just how rules would interact if realism was a thing you liked;
A medium object that falls for more than a round will kill any medium sized creature it lands on. Full stop.
Now, as for rules and fantasy games stuff? Well...
Falling damage rules are surprisingly accurate. The damage caps at roughly the distance it takes to reach terminal velocity in real life, and the d6s that accrue roughly match the amount of force the impact would have. If, you are only looking at objects that share the same size, at least.
That is where things get trickier.
Heavier object will gain more force over the course of a free fall, and larger volume objects will tend to distribute than force more evenly over the area of impact. Modified by structural integrity of the objects in question. And of course shape as well.
That is an awful lot to expect the game rules to be able to cover, in any realistic sense.
One thing I am certain of, is that any object the same size as the creature being stuck that has reached terminal velocity is simply going to annihilate the creature struck. If they have similar density, they would both suffer the same damage. Since in this game that is represented by 20d6...
If a medium creature hits another medium creature, both should take the full falling damage.
A smaller creature, say, a halfling, however... has much less force at terminal velocity than a human would. Interestingly enough, because of the volume vs area of a halfling, though, their structural integrity would be able to handle this far, far better than a human.
Consider the difference in force of a 150lb human vs a 30 lbs halfling. Going the same speed, the human has 5 times the force as the halfling.
Not only does the human have 5 times the force, but is structurally less equipped to handle the impact, because his volume vs area ratio is considerably different. The halfing should in theory not only hit with less intensity, but handle that intensity better too.
That is the only oversight, really, for falling creature damage. Smaller creatures should take less damage from a fall, and larger creatures should take more.
For succinctness... image a 150 lb guy hops off a 10ft wall in real life. There will be a nice thud, he might feel a little sting in his feet/legs if he doesn't land it right, but he'll be fine. Now picture a 400lb guy doing the same thing. This guy just broke his ankle.