PDA

View Full Version : Slow Fall + Flight = Death from Above?



magic9mushroom
2009-02-19, 10:59 AM
Ok, here's the idea.

Be some class that gets access to flight, like Warlock.

Take the Abyssal Heritor feat Vestigial Wings, which gives you a Jump bonus, but more importantly, the ability to slow fall any distance provided you're able to take move actions.

Fly 150 feet above your intended victim.

Dismiss Fell Flight.

Fall 150 feet at the end of the round, crushing them. You take no damage because you have Slow Fall. They take falling object damage, which of course can be made unreasonably large with the right effects.

By analogy with the Dragon Crush attack, it should allow a Reflex save, and pin on a failed save.

1) Have I gotten anything wrong here?

2) What DC would the Reflex save against this Batman-style attack have?

BRC
2009-02-19, 11:02 AM
It would work, except that no DM in anywhere near their right mind would allow it. It's completly counterlogical, the wings don't Shield you from the damage of falling, like some kind of DR that only applies to falling damage, they make you not take falling damage by Slowing your Fall to the point where you don't recieve damage, and therefore arn't dealing damage when you land on somebody.

magic9mushroom
2009-02-19, 11:35 AM
It would work, except that no DM in anywhere near their right mind would allow it. It's completly counterlogical, the wings don't Shield you from the damage of falling, like some kind of DR that only applies to falling damage, they make you not take falling damage by Slowing your Fall to the point where you don't recieve damage, and therefore arn't dealing damage when you land on somebody.

Objection!

The wings stop falling damage by controlling your fall and orienting you properly, not by appreciably slowing you. Otherwise it would say that you fall slower, like in the Feather Fall description.

The case could certainly be made, seeing as you also can't bank your fall with the wings.

Also, was I right in assuming that 150 feet is the maximum you can fall in a round?

BRC
2009-02-19, 11:44 AM
If the ability is called "Slow Fall", I would assume it's primary function is to Slow your Fall.

bosssmiley
2009-02-19, 11:45 AM
My DM head says no. If you're slowing your fall sufficiently to avoid taking falling damage, then you aren't falling fast enough to inflict falling damage.

Moriato
2009-02-19, 11:50 AM
Objection!

The wings stop falling damage by controlling your fall and orienting you properly, not by appreciably slowing you.


Slow fall. Slow.

Regardless, slow fall works by reducing the effective distance of the fall. If you reduce the effective distance of the fall to 10 feet or less (Which is what's happeneing, if you're taking no damage from the fall) then you'd deal damage as a falling object of your weight falling from a distance of... less than 10 feet, which is nothing.

Telonius
2009-02-19, 11:54 AM
For each 200 pounds of an object’s weight, the object deals 1d6 points of damage, provided it falls at least 10 feet. Distance also comes into play, adding an additional 1d6 points of damage for every 10-foot increment it falls beyond the first (to a maximum of 20d6 points of damage).


At 4th level or higher, a monk within arm’s reach of a wall can use it to slow her descent. When first using this ability, she takes damage as if the fall were 20 feet shorter than it actually is. The monk’s ability to slow her fall (that is, to reduce the effective distance of the fall when next to a wall) improves with her monk level until at 20th level she can use a nearby wall to slow her descent and fall any distance without harm.

Key phrase highlighted. I don't know what the specific text of the Abyssal feat is, but it seems to me that the text of the Monk ability clearly states that the slow fall ability changes the effective distance of the fall. Slow fall (any distance) would mean that the monk's effective falling distance is zero. Since the falling damage table requires a fall of at least 10 feet, the Monk won't cause falling damage if next to a wall.

Personally I'd allow the Monk to voluntarily suppress this ability; but then the Monk would have to take the falling damage as normal.

magic9mushroom
2009-02-19, 12:11 PM
Key phrase highlighted. I don't know what the specific text of the Abyssal feat is, but it seems to me that the text of the Monk ability clearly states that the slow fall ability changes the effective distance of the fall. Slow fall (any distance) would mean that the monk's effective falling distance is zero. Since the falling damage table requires a fall of at least 10 feet, the Monk won't cause falling damage if next to a wall.

Personally I'd allow the Monk to voluntarily suppress this ability; but then the Monk would have to take the falling damage as normal.

Agreed. But here's the text of the feat.

"Your wings aren't formed enough to allow true flight, but they do enhance your ability to jump. You gain a bonus on Jump checks equal to +3 per Abyssal heritor feat you possess. Your wings can also slow your fall. As long as you can take move actions, you can control a fall so that you land without taking damage. You cannot, however, alter the direction you fall."

It doesn't say anything about the fall being treated as shorter, and doesn't say anything about you only falling at a certain speed.

Oh, and BTW. The monk ability can be suppressed, the text that you quoted makes it abundantly clear that it's an active action, which a monk can of course not do.

BRC
2009-02-19, 12:17 PM
"Your wings aren't formed enough to allow true flight, but they do enhance your ability to jump. You gain a bonus on Jump checks equal to +3 per Abyssal heritor feat you possess. Your wings can also slow your fall. As long as you can take move actions, you can control a fall so that you land without taking damage. You cannot, however, alter the direction you fall."

Emphasis Mine.
If you are moving fast enough to deal significant damage when you land, you will take damage, true, there are things people do to lessen the impact of a fall on their bodies (Like what parachuters do), but really that's just a little part of it, and that has nothing to do with wings of any sort. I'm trying to think, but besides using the wings to burn momentum with your descent (Like a parachute) and control your speed that way, I can't think of any way one could use wings, vestigal or otherwise, to protect themselves from impact while maintaining their momentum.

Moriato
2009-02-19, 12:20 PM
It doesn't say anything about the fall being treated as shorter, and doesn't say anything about you only falling at a certain speed.

Yes it does:


Your wings can also slow your fall.

They slow your fall, you fall slower. I mean you can try to slip it past your dm if you want to, but you're really, really splitting hairs here, and it just doesn't make sense.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-19, 12:25 PM
Ok, here's the idea.

Be some class that gets access to flight, like Warlock.

Take the Abyssal Heritor feat Vestigial Wings, which gives you a Jump bonus, but more importantly, the ability to slow fall any distance provided you're able to take move actions.

Fly 150 feet above your intended victim.

Dismiss Fell Flight.

Fall 150 feet at the end of the round, crushing them. You take no damage because you have Slow Fall. They take falling object damage, which of course can be made unreasonably large with the right effects.

By analogy with the Dragon Crush attack, it should allow a Reflex save, and pin on a failed save.

1) Have I gotten anything wrong here?

2) What DC would the Reflex save against this Batman-style attack have?

What you need is to be Psionic like a Psion/Psi warrior/Wilder, etc and use Catfall. It reduces the damage you take from falling, but not slowing your fall so you still deal maximum to enemies.

However, you only stop up to 1d6/pp used so you need to be a high level manifester or something.

Person_Man
2009-02-19, 12:45 PM
You are not an object. You are a creature. The two are not the same in D&D. If you wanted to fly up 150 feet and kill yourself, then your corpse would be an object, and would deal damage against the enemy beneath it accordingly.

However, you can pull this off by just Flying above your enemy with a huge boulder with Shrink Item (http://www.lightning.eu.org/dnd/spellsS.html#shrink-item) cast on it, and then drop it on your enemy and dismiss the spell. It's much safer too.

BRC
2009-02-19, 01:15 PM
You are not an object. You are a creature. The two are not the same in D&D. If you wanted to fly up 150 feet and kill yourself, then your corpse would be an object, and would deal damage against the enemy beneath it accordingly.

However, you can pull this off by just Flying above your enemy with a huge boulder with Shrink Item (http://www.lightning.eu.org/dnd/spellsS.html#shrink-item) cast on it, and then drop it on your enemy and dismiss the spell. It's much safer too.
Or just fill a bag of holding full of Quarterstaves (They are free, so you can fill the entire bag full for no cost, and if you have the appropriate craft skill, you can walk into a forest with an axe and a knife, then ten minutes later have turned the entire thing into Quarterstaves)

The Glyphstone
2009-02-19, 01:18 PM
Or just fill a bag of holding full of Quarterstaves (They are free, so you can fill the entire bag full for no cost, and if you have the appropriate craft skill, you can walk into a forest with an axe and a knife, then ten minutes later have turned the entire thing into Quarterstaves)

Why would you need a forest? Quarterstaves are also free to create, and instantaneous, since raw material cost and crafting time are both dependent on item price. Snap your fingers for infinite staves.:smallsmile:

BRC
2009-02-19, 01:30 PM
Why would you need a forest? Quarterstaves are also free to create, and instantaneous, since raw material cost and crafting time are both dependent on item price. Snap your fingers for infinite staves.:smallsmile:
I just had a great idea. A wizard or warlock flies over the battlefield, flies very high above his foes, Makes a quarterstaff(no time), drops it on his foe (Free action), and does so until said foe is dead. because this can be done an infinite number of times per round, it's an autokill.

Then light the staves on fire.

magic9mushroom
2009-02-19, 01:37 PM
Ok, how about my other answer? IE, what would the Reflex DC be, and how far can you fall in a round?

Curmudgeon
2009-02-19, 01:59 PM
The "generic" Reflex save DC is always 15; that's the one they recommend for situations not explicitly covered in the rules.

Most DMs I know would also require you to use an attack roll to successfully hit the square in which the target resides. (After all, if you don't hit their square, they have no need to make that Reflex save.) Your body is an improvised weapon (-4 penalty) but the AC of a 5' square is only 5.

Darrin
2009-02-20, 12:23 AM
You are not an object. You are a creature. The two are not the same in D&D. If you wanted to fly up 150 feet and kill yourself, then your corpse would be an object, and would deal damage against the enemy beneath it accordingly.


Actually, I think there are some rules for creatures falling on top of other creatures... but it caps out at 20d6. Sinfire Titan came up with a similar concept, you'll want to take a look at his "4500 lbs of Stupid" thread:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1014017

Warforged with Adamantine Body and Expansion... at ECL 3, he can shadow jump over a target and do 20d6. Around ECL 13, he can do it three times in a round.

Khatoblepas
2009-02-20, 01:14 AM
Actually, I think there are some rules for creatures falling on top of other creatures... but it caps out at 20d6. Sinfire Titan came up with a similar concept, you'll want to take a look at his "4500 lbs of Stupid" thread:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1014017

Warforged with Adamantine Body and Expansion... at ECL 3, he can shadow jump over a target and do 20d6. Around ECL 13, he can do it three times in a round.

Ah, good times. That was a real hoot. There's also a way to use Giant Size and Iron Body to increase his weight exponentially, ending up with a Collossal sized AoE.

Cleric (Earth, Hero), DMM (Persist), and Ruby Knight Vindicator, I believe. Good times. He'd be able to draw fire, too.

Celeres
2009-02-20, 03:37 AM
I just had a great idea. A wizard or warlock flies over the battlefield, flies very high above his foes, Makes a quarterstaff(no time), drops it on his foe (Free action), and does so until said foe is dead. because this can be done an infinite number of times per round, it's an autokill.

Then light the staves on fire.

just to let you know, breaking the rules that much makes you a horrible, horrible person.

Ravens_cry
2009-02-20, 04:11 AM
Yeah, that cheese is rancid.
Shrunk then dismissed rocks, that actually makes sense within the world, not just the rules. The making staves trick isn't even magic, except the flight part, and RAW, if your enemy was in a seriously low valley, and you were on a cliff overlooking said valley, you wouldn't even need that.
Me no likey.

magic9mushroom
2009-02-20, 08:24 AM
The "generic" Reflex save DC is always 15; that's the one they recommend for situations not explicitly covered in the rules.

Most DMs I know would also require you to use an attack roll to successfully hit the square in which the target resides. (After all, if you don't hit their square, they have no need to make that Reflex save.) Your body is an improvised weapon (-4 penalty) but the AC of a 5' square is only 5.

Nothing else requires an attack roll and allows a Reflex save. Why should this?

Zen Monkey
2009-02-20, 08:36 AM
If physics worked this way, then someone parachuting from a plane to the earth should leave a big crater when they land. "They slowed their own fall, but the ground should take the full impact as though they didn't, right?" Since this doesn't happen, we can see that the slowed fall means a lower speed at the point of landing, which means less of an impact (damage).

As for dragons, pinning is probably more about size. If a morbidly obese person falls on you from a height of even a couple of feet above you, you could still get hurt and probably pinned by all of that mass. It wasn't the height that caused you to be trapped under them.

Nohwl
2009-02-20, 08:45 AM
why not just drop things on them after enchanting yourself with flight?

Ravens_cry
2009-02-20, 08:59 AM
Nothing else requires an attack roll and allows a Reflex save. Why should this?
Well you are aiming the rock. So an attack roll makes sense. ANd the reflex save fits thematically the high adventure D&D tries to replicate. You know how in movies when there is a bomb dropping, it makes that whistling sound and people dive for cover? The reflex save simulates that. It would be a Rule Zero, but that's what DM's are for basically, ruling the things the rules don't cover.

longtooth878
2009-02-20, 09:49 AM
I was in a group that the fly spell was not aloud at all. I think that it killed a lot of adventures and story arcs. After thinking about it for awhile they where right at least in that campaign. There was a time that all movement spells where at least 4 levels higher as part of the story line. It was great because we had to figure out other way to get places and solve problems.

magic9mushroom
2009-02-20, 12:39 PM
I was in a group that the fly spell was not aloud at all. I think that it killed a lot of adventures and story arcs. After thinking about it for awhile they where right at least in that campaign. There was a time that all movement spells where at least 4 levels higher as part of the story line. It was great because we had to figure out other way to get places and solve problems.

That stinks of bad DMing. Just saying "no, you can't do that" to the players when they try to do something like that is railroading of the worst kind, and most obvious kind. It says in the DMG even that you should always try to work around the players' capabilities while still making them useful, rather than just negating them.

AmberVael
2009-02-20, 01:24 PM
That stinks of bad DMing. Just saying "no, you can't do that" to the players when they try to do something like that is railroading of the worst kind, and most obvious kind. It says in the DMG even that you should always try to work around the players' capabilities while still making them useful, rather than just negating them.

I disagree. From the sounds of it, it was an agreement between the DM and players, or at least something that the DM said before the game rather than taking it out halfway through.
What is more, movement spells really can interfere with a lot of interesting stuff, and as the person you're quoting said, they had more fun without them.

It sounds like the DM knew their players and knew quite well what they were doing- that sounds like a good DM, not a bad one.

BRC
2009-02-20, 01:30 PM
That stinks of bad DMing. Just saying "no, you can't do that" to the players when they try to do something like that is railroading of the worst kind, and most obvious kind. It says in the DMG even that you should always try to work around the players' capabilities while still making them useful, rather than just negating them.
To Quote myself, Railroading is not saying "there is a wall there", railroading is saying "There is a wall everywhere BUT there". For example, if there is a chasm with a bridge the DM wants the players to cross, the following would be railroading
Player: That bridge looks like trouble, I'll cast a Fly spell
DM: It dosn't work, the area is warded against fly spells
Player 2:...okay, I'll throw a grappling hook over to the other side
DM: There is nothing for it to latch onto
Player 2: I thought you said there were overgrown ruins on the other side, there should be loads of vines and rocks and stuff to latch onto.
DM: Well there isn't.
Player: Okay, I Dimensional Door to the other side
DM: Dosn't work, area warded
Player: Wow, this ancient ruin seems to be warded against a wide variety of spells.
DM: JUST CROSS THE BRIDGE ALREADY!

The following would not be railroading
Player :That bridge looks like trouble, I'll cast a fly spell
DM: It dosn't work, it looks like the area is warded against those, so are you going to cross the bridge?
Player 2: Nah, I'll throw a rope over the chasm (rolls)
DM: *sighs* Alright, it catches on, you can use the rope to cross the chasm, once you get to the other side.

You see, it may make sense that whoever built the ruins would ward against Fly spells, so that's not quite railroading, but considering how long they have been abandoned, it makes no sense for a rope to not work.

Draz74
2009-02-20, 01:34 PM
My DM head says no. If you're slowing your fall sufficiently to avoid taking falling damage, then you aren't falling fast enough to inflict falling damage.

Catgirl killer ... bringing Newton's 3rd Law into this. Who would do such a thing? :smallwink:

magic9mushroom
2009-02-20, 01:37 PM
Still, I'd think it better if Fly was often the answer rather than either house-nerfed or always blocked. That way it feels less like a DM trying to stop you taking shortcuts and more like natural.

Meh, what would I know.

BRC
2009-02-20, 01:40 PM
Still, I'd think it better if Fly was often the answer rather than either house-nerfed or always blocked. That way it feels less like a DM trying to stop you taking shortcuts and more like natural.

Meh, what would I know.
Well, It would depend, if the DM bans the Fly spell for their campaign, it just means that in that campaign setting, Spellcasters never discovered that you could use magic to fly, or maybe you can't fly with magic in that setting. In which case it's no more unnatural than the Fireball spell.
Now, the area being warded against fly spells is a DM shortcut.

Curmudgeon
2009-02-20, 01:52 PM
Nothing else requires an attack roll and allows a Reflex save. Why should this? OK, you want the strict RAW D&D answer?

You make an attack roll to hit your target's AC. Your body is an improvised weapon (-4 penalty), and all improvised weapons have a 10' range increment. You cannot hit any target more than 5 range increments (50') away with a thrown/hurled/dropped weapon, even if directly below you. That's the RAW.

Better?

Nohwl
2009-02-20, 03:13 PM
OK, you want the strict RAW D&D answer?

You make an attack roll to hit your target's AC. Your body is an improvised weapon (-4 penalty), and all improvised weapons have a 10' range increment. You cannot hit any target more than 5 range increments (50') away with a thrown/hurled/dropped weapon, even if directly below you. That's the RAW.

Better?

so if i cast fly, and then fly 60 feet into the air, and then tried throwing an improvised weapon(myself, another party member) at the ground it would miss. what happens to the improvised weapon?

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-02-20, 03:22 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Peasant Rail Gun yet...

It is a free action to pass an object to another person. So you have a bunch of peasants in a line a couple of miles long. You start handing out quarterstaves (see above exploit to generate an infinite amount of them) and tell them to pass it down. In one round, the staff goes a couple of miles, breaking the sound barrier...

Starbuck_II
2009-02-20, 04:28 PM
so if i cast fly, and then fly 60 feet into the air, and then tried throwing an improvised weapon(myself, another party member) at the ground it would miss. what happens to the improvised weapon?

It is thrown 50 feet down than hangs there until retrieved.
Or DM realize he uses gravity and it falls the rest of the way.

lsfreak
2009-02-20, 05:51 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Peasant Rail Gun yet...

It is a free action to pass an object to another person. So you have a bunch of peasants in a line a couple of miles long. You start handing out quarterstaves (see above exploit to generate an infinite amount of them) and tell them to pass it down. In one round, the staff goes a couple of miles, breaking the sound barrier...
Assuming I did my math right, a greataxe (I wanted something heavier than a quarterstaff) handed down a line of 20000 villages from a large city would be traveling Mach 15 and hit with the same force as an M1A1 tank (~65 tons) traveling at 115mph. Roughly 70,000,000 joules.


Aghhelpitsrainingdeadcatg*thwump*

Quietus
2009-02-20, 07:04 PM
so if i cast fly, and then fly 60 feet into the air, and then tried throwing an improvised weapon(myself, another party member) at the ground it would miss. what happens to the improvised weapon?

It automatically misses. I roll secretly behind the screen to see whether the ammunition is broken or not. If you and whatever character you're using as ammunition are in agreement to this plan, the ammunition is destroyed. If you did this against said character's will, it survives unharmed.

Ravens_cry
2009-02-20, 07:25 PM
Or you could just throw rocks. The most effective way would be flying around with shrunk- dismissed rocks, but the same rules would apply to boulders pushed off a cliff.

Nohwl
2009-02-20, 09:56 PM
It automatically misses. I roll secretly behind the screen to see whether the ammunition is broken or not. If you and whatever character you're using as ammunition are in agreement to this plan, the ammunition is destroyed. If you did this against said character's will, it survives unharmed.

so if i missed the ground, and it was against the characters will, what happens to the character? where is he? he missed the ground.

Ravens_cry
2009-02-20, 11:09 PM
so if i missed the ground, and it was against the characters will, what happens to the character? where is he? he missed the ground.
He didn't miss the ground, he missed the particular square of ground he was being aimed at. Unless your playing Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:The RPG. I would use the rules for targeting a specific grid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#throwSplashWeapon).

Quietus
2009-02-20, 11:47 PM
so if i missed the ground, and it was against the characters will, what happens to the character? where is he? he missed the ground.

The character is safely on the ground, and I roll as if he were a splash weapon. Because if he HAD been destroyed, it would have been with a splash.

Admiral Squish
2009-02-21, 12:00 AM
Regardless, slow fall works by reducing the effective distance of the fall. If you reduce the effective distance of the fall to 10 feet or less (Which is what's happeneing, if you're taking no damage from the fall) then you'd deal damage as a falling object of your weight falling from a distance of... less than 10 feet, which is nothing.

I'd like to interject, that the rules might say it does no damage, but as a man who's had people fall on him from ten feet up, it is NOT FUN. No damage... HA! Tell that to the cast I had to wear for a month.

Curmudgeon
2009-02-21, 01:27 AM
So you have a bunch of peasants in a line a couple of miles long. You start handing out quarterstaves (see above exploit to generate an infinite amount of them) and tell them to pass it down. In one round, the staff goes a couple of miles, breaking the sound barrier... 1) There is no sound barrier in D&D.

2) Yes, you can pass the quarterstaff along as many times as you like in the round. Regardless, it's still essentially at rest each time it's handed off -- i.e., moving too slowly to do any damage. There is no jerk in D&D.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-02-21, 01:32 AM
Fall 150 feet at the end of the round, crushing them. You take no damage because you have Slow Fall. They take falling object damage, which of course can be made unreasonably large with the right effects.


Newton's third law of motion disagrees with this statement. But then again, if we used real-world physics in D&D, a line of peasants and a pig could destroy the planet.

NEO|Phyte
2009-02-21, 01:49 AM
Newton's third law of motion disagrees with this statement. But then again, if we used real-world physics in D&D, a line of peasants and a pig could destroy the planet.

If you use real-world physics, no they can't, for the same reason you can't in the real world.