You have buildings over 200 feet tall in your game? Or are you defining 'not wanting to die from a fall' as a type of 'trying to prevent damage to oneself'?
Some, yes. As you mentioned previously, castles in the sky and such. But yes, if you fall a long distance, HP can't save you in my mind (because as I said, HP represents a character actively trying to avoid damage - when you're in a free fall there's not much you can actively do to prevent the damage.)
And I'm pretty lenient about this - if there's any kind of explanation that a player has that could make some sense as to why their character wouldn't instantly die (grabbing on to nearby things to slow their fall, using some item or something to reduce falling speed, etc.) then I'm willing to take that into consideration.
You have buildings over 200 feet tall in your game? Or are you defining 'not wanting to die from a fall' as a type of 'trying to prevent damage to oneself'?Some, yes. As you mentioned previously, castles in the sky and such. But yes, if you fall a long distance, HP can't save you in my mind (because as I said, HP represents a character actively trying to avoid damage - when you're in a free fall there's not much you can actively do to prevent the damage.)
And I'm pretty lenient about this - if there's any kind of explanation that a player has that could make some sense as to why their character wouldn't instantly die (grabbing on to nearby things to slow their fall, using some item or something to reduce falling speed, etc.) then I'm willing to take that into consideration.
I like how terraria does it. Forgiving for jumps, but once you start falling serious distance the damage rapidly goes up into the insane levels. So falling from a sky fort is a sure way to die (without wings, jetpacks or the like).
They even have an achievement if you take massive damage that is just shy of killing you.
Fair enough. So long as it's upfront from the beginning like this it's cool.
I myself prefer a game where HP is simply one's ability to endure damage [though I have no problem with somebody Suiciding, one can always choose to fail a Saving Throw and Coup-De-Grace is a thing.] and falling off a rope-bridge a mile up or off an Air-born Mount is basically rolling the dice to see whether or not it deals enough damage to knock you out or kill you.
I see hp as in between both of your positions, grit and toughness to keep going through serious hits, but also deflect and make it into a glance especially if it is a low damage hit that only just got you. Take a crit, if you survive it, you didn't make it into a glance, you endured it but it didn't quite mortally wound you (in fencing, I've seen people get stabbed and at the last minute pull away minimising the contact and penetration, so it is a real thing to be hit fast but not hurt). However for a minor bit of damage, that isn't going to kill you, your character is either too good at taking a damage, or they are super tough, or both. Warband (which I frequently praise) and War of the Roses also had a similar situation where your skill meant you learnt how to take hits and not die so easily. These games factored in speed, hit location (head is bonus damage), penetration (getting a weapon deep inside someone does massive damage) and a skilled player can seem like they have a massive pool of hp because they turn almost every hit that actually gets through into a glance (in ideal circumstances, hence why it is best to snipe, ambush or gank them).
Some people hate hp, but I embrace it.
On the subject of falling damage ideas, I kind of like 1 damage per meter [max of 100 damage], reflex save for half. [With a special clause that Evasion cuts the half in half (to 1/4 damage) rather than the usual zero damage]
Haven't implemented it in game and probably won't.
Definitely makes a lot of sense, so slow fall would prevent it kicking in until you passed the slow fall distance?
I recommend you try it in your games. See how it goes.
Thanks to a very helpful fellow dm, here are his rules on falling damage. I liked them, they worked and falling became quite serious (and I was playing a monk!):
Alternative fall damage system
Damage from falling will be determined by a d20 roll, with the following modifiers:
+2 if total acrobatics modifier is between +2 and +7 (+4 if 8-15, +6 if 16 or above)
+2 if fall is expected or planned
+2 if full round is taken preparing for the fall
+2 if pass voluntary reflex save of 10 + any damage received
-2 if fall occurs as result of being attacked
-2 if fall is onto surface with hardness 8 (stone) or higher
-2 if fail voluntary Reflex save of 10 + any damage received
-2 if fall occurs in upside down, tumbling, or other awkward orientation
(usually if attack received is forceful enough to cause such an effect,
or other situation-specific effects)
Total outcome for damage per 10 feet fallen:
Below -5 – fall damage is d20+5 per 10 ft
-5 to 0 – fall damage is in d20
1-4 – fall damage is in d12
5-8 – fall damage is in d10
9-12 – fall damage is in d8
13-16 – fall damage is in d6
17-20 – fall damage is in d4
21 or above- fall damage is in d2
Note that in the fall damage system, a natural 1 just counts as a 1, not -10.
There would be no reason for them to set maximum fall damage to 20d6 unless they wanted high-level characters to be able to survive falling from any height, as lucky people occasionally do in real life without any fantasy-world benefits.
This could be because the game world has lower gravity (which would explain a lot of the big flying monsters) or higher air resistance, or it could be due to divine favor, or it could be because of innate heroic invincible body, or heroic luck /skill causing you to land somewhere soft, or whatever.
If you don't find any of those options plausible, go ahead and house rule it. But if you want to actually be realistic, remember that falling damage varies wildly according to the mass of the falling being. A mouse will be largely unharmed by falling out of an airplane. A cat will probably break a couple of legs. A Large creature will splatter violently and would never survive a forty foot drop.
Whats the difference between 'common sense' and 'makes sense'?
I actually have a good rules argument that came up where this applies. I don't know if your familiar with the Kirthfinder house rules document, but in it having exotic proficiency in a tower shield grants you Evasion and if using it in a full defense grants you Improved Evasion.
Evasion in this system only works on reflex saves in light armor or armor with a check penalty of zero. The fighter was arguing that it didn't apply to him that way because common sense would dictate that a class ability should work if its freely given to you. I was pointing out that it worked but it still checked his armor class. We went on about its wording until i pointed out that Improved evasion doesn't have an armor clause. That's when it made sense to him because when using it simply as a defensive tool and moving around you have to be quick enough to bring it to bear, but when you were basically hiding behind the shield it didn't matter how fast you are.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And for the record, I never said "this is the correct way to interpret the published rules."
I personally don't believe they're intended to be taken as literally as many other players do.
My assumption would be that if you asked all of the heavy hitters that created PFRPG if a character can fall 5000 feet and only take 20d6 damage, they would give you some answer other than "Of course, that's what the book says isn't it?"
In other words, while you may think that reading the plain text is the best way to go as it relies on the author having selected the correct language (and who better to do so, they created it,) I would argue that the author is assuming you're applying common sense.
However, anyone who suggests that common sense supports falling 5000 feet and surviving to me is being disingenuous.
If we read the rules in plain text without any extrapolation, we're left with a world where people can fall 5000 feet and land alive and "completely fine", swim around in lava, and potentially move around even though they're dead.
I would argue that these are examples of stretching the mechanics of the game beyond what they were intended to handle
This is again another case of reading words too literally.
...
I believe that the mechanics are in place to support a certain type of game. I believe the mechanics should be read with that expectation.
I'm really having trouble figuring out how the recurring themes in your posts about the "intended" interpretation of the rules (and describing other interpretations has having crossed reasonable boundaries, i.e. "stretching", "too literal") is materially different from claiming that yours is the "correct" interpretation of the rules.
When pressed, you'll explicitly acknowledge your preferences/common sense as being houserules. But at all other times you talk about them as though it's how "any normal person" would interpret them and that other interpretations are doing something wrong.
I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that your self-image, your idea of what your beliefs are, don't match reality. Your behavior when you're not looking at yourself paints a remarkably consistent picture of one set of beliefs, but then when you're actually looking at yourself (such as when replying to me asking you about those beliefs) you present a completely different image.
I'm sorry, but after pages of dialogue the evidence I'm seeing points me to the conclusion that you're just not very in touch with your own beliefs on this topic. I think that's why we keep going round and round like we do: your discussion of a topic indicates a given belief, I respond to that belief, you deny that belief, I accept your denial and we return to the topic, and then you start demonstrating that belief again. Rinse and repeat.
But! I won't end on that low note: I see in a later post that you mentioned to someone else that if someone took an action based on expectations that were different from yours, you'll backtrack to make it right. This is a GOLDEN skill for any GM, it's sadly far too rare, and frankly it will get you past most issues at the table. That alone is enough to put someone into the ranks of "good GMs" in my mind, and any additional qualities are gravy. :)
I'm really having trouble figuring out how the recurring themes in your posts about the "intended" interpretation of the rules (and describing other interpretations has having crossed reasonable boundaries, i.e. "stretching", "too literal") is materially different from claiming that yours is the "correct" interpretation of the rules.
Well, there are the rules as written, that's what you should generally follow. There are certain situations or circumstances where the RAW sort of falls apart because they are not designed with specific situations in mind.
Based on that, my assumption is that the designers of the rules expect you to apply common sense.
What I believe is common sense and works for me when I GM, works for me. I'm not declaring that my interpretation is the correct one, or that it should be followed by all individuals playing the game.
If someone else reads the rules and thinks that no alterations need to be applied, regardless of the specific situations, that that's what works for them. I'm not going to hammer against them telling them that they're doing it wrong.
As such, I object to you declaring that I'm saying there is a correct way to interpret the rules. This would be akin to me saying "Everyone who does not apply (my version of) common sense is doing it wrong." That's not something you'll ever see me say.
But! I won't end on that low note: I see in a later post that you mentioned to someone else that if someone took an action based on expectations that were different from yours, you'll backtrack to make it right. This is a GOLDEN skill for any GM, it's sadly far too rare, and frankly it will get you past most issues at the table. That alone is enough to put someone into the ranks of "good GMs" in my mind, and any additional qualities are gravy. :)
I agree - as a game largely played in our heads, punishing a player for having a different thought/image in mind than the GM did is overly punitive and sets a bad precedent.
I am still of the opinion that were we sitting down at a coffee shop discussing these issues, we would have come to a resolution on this subject (and past subjects) within minutes rather than arguing over days/weeks via this medium.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What I believe is common sense and works for me when I GM, works for me. I'm not declaring that my interpretation is the correct one, or that it should be followed by all individuals playing the game.
If someone else reads the rules and thinks that no alterations need to be applied, regardless of the specific situations, that that's what works for them. I'm not going to hammer against them telling them that they're doing it wrong.
I'm failing to see the material difference between "doing it wrong" and "being disingenuous". Because earlier you flat-out stated that "anyone who suggests that common sense supports falling 5000 feet and surviving to me is being disingenuous", but now you're saying that if someone feels no need to alter the falling rules then you're NOT going to say they're doing it wrong.
So either you think there's a meaningful difference between "you're being disingenuous" and "you're doing it wrong", or you're contradicting yourself.
And although that particular line is the most glaring contradiction of what you're saying now, the message is consistent throughout your posts: the behavior that you're now saying you would never call "wrong" has already prompted language like "stretching", "too literal", going against the "intent", and that "any normal person" would see it your way.
I suppose you're correct that you never technically used the word "wrong". Is there something special about that word? Is "you're wrong" harsher than "you're stretching it beyond what was intended"? Is "you're wrong" on a different tier from "no normal person would come to that conclusion"? Is there seriously a real difference between "you're wrong" and "you're being disingenuous"?
If that's what you want to claim, then fine, I'll concede that you never specifically said "wrong". In that case, consider my objections to be against the idea that people who disagree with you are disingenuously stetching the mechanics beyond what any normal person would agree was intended, instead of being against you saying they were "wrong".
That just seems to me like a silly distinction to have to make.
Because earlier you flat-out stated that "anyone who suggests that common sense supports falling 5000 feet and surviving to me is being disingenuous", but now you're saying that if someone feels no need to alter the falling rules then you're NOT going to say they're doing it wrong.
Yes, and I stand by that. If you make the statement "Common sense supports someone falling 5,000 feet and surviving" you're being disingenuous.
If you ask the average person on the street, how likely is it that someone that falls 5,000 feet will survive, a vast majority of people would tell you that it is incredibly unlikely.
If you're from somewhere in the world where people routinely survive 5,000 foot falls and make that statement, then I will be the first to admit I am categorically wrong.
If you choose to follow the rule as written, it doesn't make you wrong. And you could choose to follow the RAW for many good reasons (heroes are heroes, weird things can happen, etc.)
It's just the claiming that common sense supports such a rule that I would take exception with.
So either you think there's a meaningful difference between "you're being disingenuous" and "you're doing it wrong", or you're contradicting yourself.
The "you're being disingenuous" line referred specifically to someone suggesting that common sense supports surviving a 5,000 foot fall.
The "I'm not going to tell them they're doing it wrong" line applied to people choosing to follow the RAW.
As an aside, "You're doing it wrong" equates to "you're playing the game wrong." It implies a One True Way mentality. I don't believe there is one correct way to play the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Because earlier you flat-out stated that "anyone who suggests that common sense supports falling 5000 feet and surviving to me is being disingenuous", but now you're saying that if someone feels no need to alter the falling rules then you're NOT going to say they're doing it wrong.Yes, and I stand by that. If you make the statement "Common sense supports someone falling 5,000 feet and surviving" you're being disingenuous.
If you ask the average person on the street, how likely is it that someone that falls 5,000 feet will survive, a vast majority of people would tell you that it is incredibly unlikely.
If you're from somewhere in the world where people routinely survive 5,000 foot falls and make that statement, then I will be the first to admit I am categorically wrong.
Oh, now you're saying that the "disingenuous" remark was if someone said common sense supported someone surviving a 5000ft fall in real life? In the post where you made the statement, it was very clear that you were talking about if someone said common sense supported surviving a 5000ft fall in a game that says falling damage caps at 20d6.
So no, your above justification is not valid. You are changing your story here.
Even if we put aside the "disingenuous" thing, you've still declared that any normal person would agree with your version, and disagreeing with you is against the intent, stretching the mechanics too far, and being too literal. There's an awful lot of "too" in your language; you've very clearly labeled certain opinions as being out of bounds, as being beyond what's okay. How can you say someone's idea is too X and too Y and not what normal people would think, but then say you're not calling it "wrong"? What's the difference?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because earlier you flat-out stated that "anyone who suggests that common sense supports falling 5000 feet and surviving to me is being disingenuous", but now you're saying that if someone feels no need to alter the falling rules then you're NOT going to say they're doing it wrong.Yes, and I stand by that. If you make the statement "Common sense supports someone falling 5,000 feet and surviving" you're being disingenuous.
If you ask the average person on the street, how likely is it that someone that falls 5,000 feet will survive, a vast majority of people would tell you that it is incredibly unlikely.
If you're from somewhere in the world where people routinely survive 5,000 foot falls and make that statement, then I will be the first to admit I am categorically wrong.
If you choose to follow the rule as written, it doesn't make you wrong. And you could choose to follow the RAW for many good reasons (heroes are heroes, weird things can happen, etc.)
It's just the claiming that common sense supports such a rule that I would take exception with.
So either you think there's a meaningful difference between "you're being disingenuous" and "you're doing it wrong", or you're contradicting yourself.The "you're being disingenuous" line referred specifically to someone suggesting that common sense supports surviving a 5,000 foot fall.
The "I'm not going to tell them they're doing it wrong" line applied to people choosing to follow the RAW.
As an aside, "You're doing it wrong" equates to "you're playing the game wrong." It implies a One True Way mentality. I don't believe there is one correct way to play the game.
Ask the Average person on the Street how likely it is that guy can get his throat slit and live without intervention, the vast majority will think it unlikely. Do we also now change the Coup de Grace rules?
Ask the average person on the street if they think trained archers miss 5% of their shots at a target 10ft away, most will think thats unlikely. So do we now change misses on a natural 1?
Ask the average person on the street if they think a man can be in an empty room with an explosion going off and suffer no damage to him or anything he wearing most will think it's unlikely. Do we rewrite evasion?
I assume you realize it but I was applying the logic used to determine common sense of falling damage to other situations.
In the post where you made the statement, it was very clear that you were talking about if someone said common sense supported surviving a 5000ft fall in a game that says falling damage caps at 20d6
Here is the paragraph where I mentioned falling from the post you linked:
I specifically contrasted common sense with mechanics.
Even if we put aside the "disingenuous" thing, you've still declared that any normal person would agree with your version, and disagreeing with you is against the intent, stretching the mechanics too far, and being too literal.
No, I didn't. I never suggested that anyone that would disagree with me wasn't normal. I specifically pointed out on more than one occasion that my statements were my opinion, how I play the game, and if other people play it differently, that's just fine by me. Examples include:
While I respect that these are the rules as written, my interpretation is that the rules are written that way with certain expectations. I personally don't believe they're intended to be taken as literally as many other players do.
I mean, if in one of your campaigns, a person is on the block, and an executioner is swinging to take their head off, do you have them roll a CdG? And if the person actually survives the strike, do you rule that then as a miss? Only partially cutting through the person's head?
If after two or three swings, the person is still alive, what does that mean? If you apply the "any HP between 1 and max means you're completely fine" thought, then the guy to be executed is no worse for the wear.
To each their own.
I'm not sure how this is still not clear. At this point, I think I'm going to take my own advice, which I should have done a while ago:
I'm sure you will want the last word in this exchange, and I'm happy to let you have it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I specifically pointed out on more than one occasion that my statements were my opinion, how I play the game, and if other people play it differently, that's just fine by me.
Yes, I know. If you think I wasn't aware of that, you haven't read my posts. Which I guess means there's nothing I can add at this point, unless you go back and re-read. If you do, let me know and I'd be happy to have a real conversation with you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As had been said already, the 20d6 cap has been in place for several editions of D&D, and in 2nd edition AD&D (which also had the 20d6 cap), the developers went into some detail about falling damage.
While the conversation IS about falling damage in Pathfinder, I think looking back at past editions might shed some light on perhaps why the developers of 3rd edition retained the rule, and why the developers of PF decided to retain the rule as well.
Here is what the developers of 2nd edition had to say:
Player characters have a marvelous (and, to the DM, vastly amusing) tendency to fall off things, generally from great heights and almost always onto hard surfaces. While the falling is harmless, the abrupt stop at the end tends to cause damage.
When a character falls, he suffers 1d6 points of damage for every 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6, which for game purposes can be considered terminal velocity. This method is simple and it provides all the realism necessary in the game. It is not a scientific calculation of the rate of acceleration, exact terminal velocity, mass, impact energy, etc., of the falling body.
The fact of the matter is that physical laws can describe the exact motion of a body as it falls through space, but relatively little is known about the effects of impact. The distance fallen is not the only determining factor in how badly a person is hurt. Other factors might include elasticity of the falling body and the ground, angle of impact, shock waves through the falling body, dumb luck, and more.
People have actually fallen from great heights and survived, albeit very rarely. The current record-holder, Vesna Vulovic, survived a fall from a height of 33,330 feet in 1972, although she was severely injured. Flight-Sergeant Nicholas S. Alkemade actually fell 18,000 feet--almost 3.5 miles--without a parachute and landed uninjured!
The point of all this is roll the dice, as described above, and don't worry too much about science.
It is true that things like HP totals were lower in 2nd edition, but the point I wanted everyone to see by posting this, was that yeah, it's unrealistic to fall 5000 feet and have a good chance at surviving, but the developers knowing that, just said "have fun, and roll the dice anyway"...
Oh, and for the record, regardless of what the rules state; I'm in the "IF your character falls from orbit, your character is just plain dead." camp. So while I can see why the developers (of 2nd edition) rationalized using the rule, I prefer to run a more realistic game. :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and for the record, regardless of what the rules state; I'm in the "IF your character falls from orbit, your character is just plain dead." camp.
I'm in the "As long as I know ahead of time which type of game I'm playing, I'm good" camp. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... What I do know is that these are real people, of no higher than level 2 or 3,...
Err...levels are models, they're not real.
Treating real people as having "levels" is confusing the very primitive and inaccurate model used by level-based RPGs with reality.
They're not any level and they dont have hit points.
"Common sense" is a loaded term and should be avoided at all cost when attempting to discuss actual ideas, whether it deals with games, real life or some third category I can't think of right now.
What you think of as common sense might not be common sense to me. If I apply the term in a way that is not true for you, all it does is drive a wedge further between us in the discussion.
Furthermore, the term relies on assumptions without explaining or referencing what those assumptions are, which can render the usage meaningless. The term is often applied when the speaker/writer assumes that background information which supports their case is broadly known, but if their assumption is wrong, or the listener/reader is just in the minority of people who happen not to know, the point is lost.
Saying something is true because it's "common sense" does not make it true. "Common sense" is not proof of something. The background information that makes something "common sense" is actually the proof that it's a good idea.
Specifically when it comes to games, the primary goal for me is to have fun. I could care less whether something is realistic or not (though realism is sometimes fun), my primary driver is whether something is fun. Therefore, to me "common sense" is to focus on how the game can be made more fun. The process of playing needs to be enjoyable, which typically means that the game flows and both players and GM can maintain a certain level of action and mood. If the game pushes you out of that flow, it's violating my "common sense". Reality be damned.
So when you say "it's common sense, the rule should be this way" most of the examples so far actually make very little sense to me.
Finding people who survived falls long enough to make then noteworthy enough for Wikipedia articles does not help your ludicrous argument that 20d6 is anything remotely realistic.
Yeah, that was my earlier point. How anyone else plays the game is up to them. Personally, I'm not interested in playing in a game world that defies my expectations to that degree.
The other argument I was trying to make was that by viewing these really crazy things that can occur with a literal application of the RAW as being informative to how the game world is supposed to be rather than oddities that arise from the mechanics themselves lead to very strange worlds.
Characters falling from orbit and then standing up and dusting themselves off, characters swimming in lava, characters not having to eat food for months and months, etc.
In all of the game sessions I've ever played, no one has followed strictly to the RAW for these kind of situations. I guess I've just been lucky: the groups I've been in over the years have simply seen eye-to-eye with me on this without it even having to be stated.
I incorrectly assumed that most people did not adhere to the RAW in these kind of specific situations. But, it was a good learning experience regardless.
Why do you have issues environmentally but not when it comes to combat? I pointed out several quick flaws in the system that I'm not sure were ever addressed past CdG and yes Headsmen didn't always get a kill on the first shot. And regardless that's the world your playing in a world where you can get your throat slit roll over and beat the guy senseless and then go back to bed.
Falling from orbit kills you dead?
Wait...
How in heck did you survive MAKING it into orbit?
Well afaik their aren't rules for reentry just rules for the falling damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Common sense is a bad idea when it unbalances the game.
Common sense is a good idea when it introduces new aspects to the game that aren't unbalanced.
So the answer to the question, is neither. And both.
