I'm making a monk who wields an over-sized bastard sword (1st lvl cleric, rest monk, get Crusader's Flurry, all good). Let's say, at level 5 or higher, when I get High Jump, I have a maxed out Acrobatics check, bonuses due to faster speed, and decide to give +20 with a ki point. I then decide I want to jump directly above an enemy, and not land on him, but to attack him when I fall within his range(akin to Braver from FF7). Few questions.
1) Would I get a bonus to the attack due to higher ground if I make the attack?
2) Would I take falling damage?
3) The biggest question. I'm falling from 10 feet or higher up. Would the guy take additional "falling damage" from my huge sword crushing him along with the attack, and if so, what damage would it do, AND would you think the weapon would still take damage? (keep in mind it is a over sized bastard sword).
4) BONUS ROUND. From a DM's POV, would you Rule 0 this to make it acceptable and for fun? (Because I would lol)
I believe there's a damage track for various sizes of objects falling on someone, I'd just add that.
1) no bonus to attack, just damage though they may end up flat footed at GMs discretion.
2) you would take damage per norm, you can;t stop fall damage from jumping off a roof by murdering someone at the end of it.
3)as mentioned the size of the item determines bonus damage. (to me, there aren't actually any rules on this)
4)I would, but horrible stuff would happen if you failed am acrobatic roll or fumbled. also spamming it would probably be a no no for me.
a large object would do 4d6 damage.
"In addition, if an object falls less than 30 feet, it deals half the listed damage. If an object falls more than 150 feet, it deals double the listed damage. Note that a falling object takes the same amount of damage as it deals." so you'd either have to jump over 30 ft or do half damage.
1) no bonus to attack, just damage though they may end up flat footed at GMs discretion.
Wouldn't I get +1 higher ground bonus to attack if I made the attack in the space above him or at least from above?
2) you would take damage per norm, you can;t stop fall damage from jumping off a roof by murdering someone at the end of it.
But I'm not jumping off a roof, I'm jumping with my own ability in a controlled jump, and with a Ki bonus, on the same ground my opponent is on. Would that mean that if a 20th lvl monk, jumped straight up just to do it, he would take fall damage if he landed on the ground again?
A large object would do 4d6 damage.
Would it be a large object? It's an oversized sword, true, but would that still make it large? The sword would probably be as big as a human, which would be medium. wouldn't? (I know I'm nuking my own better damage, but still lol)
Note that a falling object takes the same amount of damage as it deals."
I know the RAW states that, but I just find it weird that a guy slashing from a fall would cause the weapon to take damage. Ah well, I bet I can do some convincing for some Rule 0 right there lol
1) no bonus to attack, just damage though they may end up flat footed at GMs discretion.Wouldn't I get +1 higher ground bonus to attack if I made the attack in the space above him or at least from above?
2) you would take damage per norm, you can;t stop fall damage from jumping off a roof by murdering someone at the end of it.But I'm not jumping off a roof, I'm jumping with my own ability in a controlled jump, and with a Ki bonus, on the same ground my opponent is on. Would that mean that if a 20th lvl monk, jumped straight up just to do it, he would take fall damage if he landed on the ground again?
A large object would do 4d6 damage.Would it be a large object? It's an oversized sword, true, but would that still make it large? The sword would probably be as big as a human, which would be medium. wouldn't? (I know I'm nuking my own better damage, but still lol)
Note that a falling object takes the same amount of damage as it deals."I know the RAW states that, but I just find it weird that a guy slashing from a fall would cause the weapon to take damage. Ah well, I bet I can do some convincing for some Rule 0 right there lol
1)only if you attacked normally from higher ground yes.
2) when i said normally, i meant normally, if you wouldn't normally take damage, you wouldn't.
3)I assumed by oversized sword, you literally meant in game mechanics a sword meant for a larger humanoid. the object would also have your own mass applied to the effect.
4) I'd assume a acrobatics check would prevent this as per normal.
I think most my questions are cleared now, I am excited to do some FF7 style killing movies lol. I don't wanna spam this attack thing, but it'll be a neat little bonus in damage once in a while if we really need it, even if it is halved lol
If your opponent is aware of you you are going to trigger an AOO even if landing on an adiacent space since your opponent threatens the diagonal space above your landing zone. Take vital strike for addad omph.
If you are into FF7 ulty, look for dimentional dervish. It's basically the omnislash (you can qualify with abundant step. Use retraining rules to access it quicker)
I'm making a monk who wields an over-sized bastard sword (1st lvl cleric, rest monk, get Crusader's Flurry, all good). Let's say, at level 5 or higher, when I get High Jump, I have a maxed out Acrobatics check, bonuses due to faster speed, and decide to give +20 with a ki point. I then decide I want to jump directly above an enemy, and not land on him, but to attack him when I fall within his range(akin to Braver from FF7). Few questions.
1) Would I get a bonus to the attack due to higher ground if I make the attack?
2) Would I take falling damage?
3) The biggest question. I'm falling from 10 feet or higher up. Would the guy take additional "falling damage" from my huge sword crushing him along with the attack, and if so, what damage would it do, AND would you think the weapon would still take damage? (keep in mind it is a over sized bastard sword).
4) BONUS ROUND. From a DM's POV, would you Rule 0 this to make it acceptable and for fun? (Because I would lol)
1) Yes, a +1 for higher ground. But you take an AoO as you fall in front of them as they threaten those square and you're moving through them.
2) Maybe. I might let is slide as a GM, but I think RAW you fall more than 10 ft you're taking falling damage.3) No, he doesn't take any additional damage. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. At lenient GM might giving you falling object damage. Your sword would count as a small object. Assuming you fall less than 30ft (DC 120 Acrobatics) it could at most give you 1d6. I might let you have that actually, only because you're giving up a full attack to do such things.
4) No, because while an idea might be cool and interesting, doesn't merit that you should receive a mechanical benefit.
I'm making a monk who wields an over-sized bastard sword (1st lvl cleric, rest monk, get Crusader's Flurry, all good). Let's say, at level 5 or higher, when I get High Jump, I have a maxed out Acrobatics check, bonuses due to faster speed, and decide to give +20 with a ki point. I then decide I want to jump directly above an enemy, and not land on him, but to attack him when I fall within his range(akin to Braver from FF7). Few questions.
1) Would I get a bonus to the attack due to higher ground if I make the attack?
2) Would I take falling damage?
3) The biggest question. I'm falling from 10 feet or higher up. Would the guy take additional "falling damage" from my huge sword crushing him along with the attack, and if so, what damage would it do, AND would you think the weapon would still take damage? (keep in mind it is a over sized bastard sword).
4) BONUS ROUND. From a DM's POV, would you Rule 0 this to make it acceptable and for fun? (Because I would lol)
1) Yes, a +1 for higher ground. But you take an AoO as you fall in front of them as they threaten those square and you're moving through them.
2) Maybe. I might let is slide as a GM, but I think RAW you fall more than 10 ft you're taking falling damage.
3) No, he doesn't take any additional damage. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. At lenient GM might giving you falling object damage. Your sword would count as a small object. Assuming you fall less than 30ft (DC 120 Acrobatics) it could at most give you 1d6. I might let you have that actually, only because you're giving up a full attack to do such things.
4) No, because while an idea might be cool and interesting, doesn't merit that you should receive a mechanical benefit.
this
You shouldn't worry about your weapon taking fall damage, as it has quite a bit of Hardness to begin with, and only gets better over time with more enchants and special materials.
Taking falling damage yourself from your own jump sounds really silly (as you had to kick away with at least as much force as the impact will be, assuming even ground).
Considering the resources you need for this (both in build, actions taken, Ki point spent, etc.), I feel like giving the falling object damage bonus (calculated from your size) is fine, as well as the +1 for the higher ground. You should probably still take an AoO though, but considering you are a monk, you culd circumvent that using stunning fist through a conductive weapon.
the aoo happens before the stunning fist
1) Yes, a +1 for higher ground. But you take an AoO as you fall in front of them as they threaten those square and you're moving through them.
What about if I took Lunge as a feat?
3) No, he doesn't take any additional damage. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. At lenient GM might giving you falling object damage. Your sword would count as a small object. Assuming you fall less than 30ft (DC 120 Acrobatics) it could at most give you 1d6. I might let you have that actually, only because you're giving up a full attack to do such things.
Why "doesn't it work that way"? Just because of RAW? So if I just drop my sword from 10 or 15 feet up, it would do that damage, but if made a deliberate descent on someone at the same speed snd distance, and made an attack with it, it suddenly wouldn't? Also, why would it be a small weapon? Isn't an oversized bastard sword (fitted for frost giant if we go with the Iconic Barbarian's sword and story) about the size of a medium creature? A standard Bastard sword is 4 feet long. Over sized weapons are doubled, making it 8 feet long, wouldn't it be a medium sized weapon at this point?
i honestly love when my players pull stuff like this
back when we tried 4th edition and realized it is a card game we had a gnoll barbarian quite literally jumping off of like a 300 ft cliff to try and kill an ogre just by falling on it
the funny thing is it actually worked
based on the enlarge spell and his weight(including the bags of rocks he decided to use as "speed enhancing mechanisms")
when i considered it, the weight was so ridiculous that i let him have it
For something like this i might give you increase in str. damage
since your using a bastard swords in two hands you get 1.5 str right?
well since the attack is made as your entire body weight is crashing down on them, i would allow you to use 2X str. AND add 1/2 the falling damage you are going to take as bonus damage
you would end up prone (unless you make the acrobatics check), and so would they( without a reflex or fortitude save)
their save would probably be based on your size and the fall damage YOU took
like dc: 10 + 4 (for medium) + 2 (for 2d6 falling damage)
in the case of my gnoll, the ogre would take like 15d6 ( from the falling gnoll) + the dc for the prone would be (10 + 8 (large) + 30 (30d6 of fall damage the gnoll took))
needless to say the gnoll was LUCKILY alive....enough... to be captured
damn barbarians and their d12 hit-dice
ill get you some day!
EDIT: and you would totes get the +1 from height advantage and i would just assume with this your charging, so the benefits from that
i do believe there is mounted feats somewhere where you can have your mount do a ride by attack OVER an opponent via an acrobatics check
1) Yes, a +1 for higher ground. But you take an AoO as you fall in front of them as they threaten those square and you're moving through them.What about if I took Lunge as a feat?
3) No, he doesn't take any additional damage. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. At lenient GM might giving you falling object damage. Your sword would count as a small object. Assuming you fall less than 30ft (DC 120 Acrobatics) it could at most give you 1d6. I might let you have that actually, only because you're giving up a full attack to do such things.Why "doesn't it work that way"? Just because of RAW? So if I just drop my sword from 10 or 15 feet up, it would do that damage, but if made a deliberate descent on someone at the same speed snd distance, and made an attack with it, it suddenly wouldn't? Also, why would it be a small weapon? Isn't an oversized bastard sword (fitted for frost giant if we go with the Iconic Barbarian's sword and story) about the size of a medium creature? A standard Bastard sword is 4 feet long. Over sized weapons are doubled, making it 8 feet long, wouldn't it be a medium sized weapon at this point?
Lunge or a reach weapon against a creature without reach would work to allow you to avoid an AoO.
The sword is small size category. It is smaller than a medium creature. In general, the falling object damage rules are about weight behind the object. A medium creature weighs between 100 and 300 lbs (very rough etimate). Unless you're wielding a weapon weighing that much, it's not medium.
And no, Amiri's sword is large but it isn't medium sized and it isn't 8ft long. And actually, Amiri's sword is probably not a good argument since it original was drawn and designed to be a large size greatsword...until they realized that by the rules she couldn't wield it. And then they had to change it mechanically.
If you use the mythic rules you can pick up arial assalt it adds falling damage to your attack for every 10 feet you move through the air to your target .
And talk to your dm about the feat "death from above" as it grants a +5 to arial charge
attacks and attacks from higher ground instead of the normal +2.