Falling/Dropping Damage: What do you do about it?

[Mr. Zolrane]

Just wondering: falling/dropped object damage caps out at 20d6. You an drop from orbit, or have something drop on you from orbit, and by RAW, take 120 damage at the absolute most. While that kind of damage is almost never trivial, it's far from catastrophic for a barbarian or something of mid-high level with decent health rolls.

That seems... wrong.

I'm brainstorming ideas on how to houserule it, and I'm wondering what you guys think?

Ideas so far:

Have each increment maximize a dice. i.e. dropping from 22 increments would do 12+18d6 damage or something like that. That, however, still leaves the max damage at 120, which is really low for falls of a certain height.

Have there be a certain "terminal height" if you will, i.e. if you fall X number of increments, you die. I can see this being abused, however: a caster grabs hold of someone who can't fly, flies them up hella high, and just drops them, knowing they'll die, but it's an idea all the same.

Any other suggestions?

[ffone]

Apply the massive damage rules if you must - they begin at 50 HP and 20d6 averages 70. Ta-da. The SRD on massive damage says 'attack', so it may not apply to falling by RAW - but it's a simple, already-provided-for-you mechanic that's easy to apply by houserule.

The issue isn't falling damage, it's having high HP.

Most chars with Str 10 will do 1d4 with a dagger (no sneak attack or power attack or whatever). If you have 120 HP it is impossible for them to kill you without a bunch of hits, even if you are unconscious (and they don't invoke coup de grace). Obviously, these hits can and should be roleplayed as grazes rather than eyesocket plunges, but the point is there is *zero* chance they can down in you, say, 10 hits. (And even a coup de grace may have a 1/20 success prob.)

The internet has a thousand long threads debating the realism of these things and what HP really mean, etc. - I don't mean to get into that - just to say that I don't see why falling damage should be singled out.

[Sir Homeslice]

Do what 4e does.

NO FALLING DAMAGE CAP FOR YOU.

NONE AT ALL.

ENJOY YOUR DROP.

Note: As your "death by increments" idea, this will invariably benefit casters as they have ways to drop people from staggeringly high heights and then giggle as the dropped person explodes in gore.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Apply the massive damage rules if you must - they begin at 50 HP and 20d6 averages 70. Ta-da.

The issue isn't falling damage, it's having high HP.

Most chars with Str 10 will do 1d4 with a dagger (no sneak attack or power attack or whatever). If you have 120 HP it is impossible for them to kill you without a bunch of hits, even if you are unconscious (and they don't invoke coup de grace). Obviously, these hits can and should be roleplayed as grazes rather than eyesocket plunges, but the point is there is *zero* chance they can down in you, say, 10 hits. (And even a coup de grace may have a 1/20 success prob.)

I thought the massive damage rules applied to half your total HP, rather than a specific number. I may also be completely wrong. If I am wrong, then that works handily, though I'm pretty sure 60 is the average damage there, not 70. In either case it works.

EDIT: We were both kinda right. In 3.5 you are correct, in PF, I am (mostly) correct. I'm mostly going to be switching over to PF; guess I should have specified. By those rules, it's half your HP, minimum 50 damage, i.e. it doesn't apply to anyone with a max HP below 100. And those people are going to have Fort saves good enough to not die anyway, so it's almost a moot point...


Do what 4e does.

NO FALLING DAMAGE CAP FOR YOU.

NONE AT ALL.

ENJOY YOUR DROP.

Note: As your "death by increments" idea, this will invariably benefit casters as they have ways to drop people from staggeringly high heights and then giggle as the dropped person explodes in gore.

That is... also an option. I kinda like that, actually. And yeah, you're right about the caster thing; I thought of that.

[ffone]

Do what 4e does.

NO FALLING DAMAGE CAP FOR YOU.

NONE AT ALL.

ENJOY YOUR DROP.

Note: As your "death by increments" idea, this will invariably benefit casters as they have ways to drop people from staggeringly high heights and then giggle as the dropped person explodes in gore.

I do like having a damage cap, because of terminal velocity (granted, this depends on the local atmosphere and gravity, and with no atmosphere there is none).

I would think damage would be a function of impact velocity (but note I'm not saying it ought to be *linear* in velocity or distance or anything - it's currently the latter up to a cap), and IIRC the 20d6 cap occurs much sooner than a typical human would reach terminal velocity - but IMO the damage should cap at whatever distance we typically reach it, rather than not at all.

[Talakeal]

No its 70, however you will get 60 if you round down as the ELH suggests you should for some bizarre reason.

[ffone]

I thought the massive damage rules applied to half your total HP, rather than a specific number. I may also be completely wrong. If I am wrong, then that works handily, though I'm pretty sure 60 is the average damage there, not 70. In either case it works.

It's from

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/injuryandDeath.htm

Granted, the DC 15 Fort save will be a 19/20 affair for many high level chars.

There may be a 'proportionate damage' variant on the UA part of the SRD.

20d6 averages 20*3.5=70.

On a silly site note, the Final Fantasy series has a tradition of 'gravity' spells which do damage proportionate to your HP, which the 'proportionate-to-HP-falling damage' common houserule suggestion (I've seen 3-4 GitP threads just like this one) always reminds me of (dunno what 'gravity damage' would be, crushing or falling I guess).

EDIT: oops, that link was from variant rules.

[Dumbledore lives]

The thing is that high level characters in 3.5 are nowhere near human levels, they're demigods when compared to pretty much any other system. So maybe a high level barbarian can drop out of orbit, is it really any more ridiculous than stopping time or teleporting? I know, magic, but at a certain point the amount of damage a barbarian can take becomes magic, so within the system the cap is fine.

[Mr. Zolrane]

No its 70, however you will get 60 if you round down as the ELH suggests you should for some bizarre reason.

Mind explaining that math to me? Journalism major here, I got my D- in Math 115 and figured I'd never need to bother with it again. Then I started playing DnD, lol.

[ffone]

Mind explaining that math to me? Journalism major here, I got my D- in Math 115 and figured I'd never need to bother with it again. Then I started playing DnD, lol.

A d6 can be 1-6, the middle of that range is 3.5. Or do (1+2+..6)/6.

Maybe you thought a d6 was 0-6?

Personally I wish they were; it'd make computing average HP for NPCs easier when I DM :) but with physical dice, not using a computer roller, odd-sided dice would've worked as well...

[Mr. Zolrane]

A d6 can be 1-6, the middle of that range is 3.5. Or do (1+2+..6)/6.

Maybe you thought a d6 was 0-6?

Personally I wish they were; it'd make computing average HP for NPCs easier when I DM :) but with physical dice, not using a computer roller, odd-sided dice would've worked as well...

Right, thanks. Forgot about how the fact that the minimum damage is 1, not 0 affects the average. Still, I'm pretty sure that you're supposed round down basically all the time. Monster average HP is given as half of max, so that seems to be what they go with at any rate.

[Funkyodor]

Our house rule for falling damage was more lethal. We wanted to depict how a 10-20 foot fall could be fatal for almost anyone, regardless of level. Have falling do Con damage, but being hit by a falling object do regular damage. The falling damage scales 1D6/3D6/6D6/10D6/15D6/20D6, plus a Fort save with a DC equal to the damage taken to not have broken limbs.

[Talakeal]

Right, thanks. Forgot about how the fact that the minimum damage is 1, not 0 affects the average. Still, I'm pretty sure that you're supposed round down basically all the time. Monster average HP is given as half of max, so that seems to be what they go with at any rate.

Yeah, except when you do that you are lowering your damage output by quite a bit. Basically, the rules say "you can take the average, but only if you round down, which lowers your damage output, so don't take the average and roll the dice".
Basically the rule is pointless, you are given the option to trade effectiveness for conveniance, something few players would ever willingly do, nor should the game ask it of them.

[ffone]

Right, thanks. Forgot about how the fact that the minimum damage is 1, not 0 affects the average. Still, I'm pretty sure that you're supposed round down basically all the time. Monster average HP is given as half of max, so that seems to be what they go with at any rate.

When you have to round, yeah in DnD it's usually down. But for HD it alternates - down, up, down, up,.... in other words you add and then round, rather than round then add, which as the above poster said is good - otherwise it makes a linearly increasing difference. If you look at monster stat blocks in the SRD and compute the listed 'average' HD you'll fnd it almost always that from the down/up/down/up rounding (and any differences are probably typos).

And in this case it wasn't DnD rounding I was using, but the actual statistical mean. The '70' average has no direct game implication (I don't know of any mechanic or ability to take 'average damage', although it'd be a decent houserule for reducing rolling in a high level campaign), it's just a way to illustrate that the 20d6 is usually above 50 (symmetric so mean = median here). Someone could even plot the histogram if so inclined and tell us the standard deviation, probability of being 50+, etc.

I'd actually like to see a 4d6-drop-1 histogram (a google image search might obtain one) so I can get a sense of just how full of **** most players are when "rolling" stats. (When DMing I always use deterministic methods, i.e. point buy.)

[Talakeal]

And in this case it wasn't DnD rounding I was using, but the actual statistical mean. The '70' average has no direct game implication (I don't know of any mechanic or ability to take 'average damage', although it'd be a decent houserule for reducing rolling in a high level campaign),

Its in the Epic Level Handbook, and it says to always round down for some stupid reason, probably because they assume that the math behind alternating is over their player's heads.

[Seharvepernfan]

First thing, after a certain height, you stop gaining speed when you fall. So, a fall from 1,000 feet in real life is no more dangerous than one from 10,000, at least as far as the drop itself is concerned.

The thing is, 20d6 doesnt represent a fall from orbit. You go high enough and things like oxygen deprivation and cold damage start to apply. I'm willing to bet jet stream wind does damage too.

Also, you're probably imagining something falling to earth from space and the ensuing burn up it does on entry. Thats because whatever it was picked up a ton of speed in space that it couldnt have gained in an atmosphere, and its going so fast that the friction from the air is causing it to burn. Thats dozens of die of damage, not 20d6.

Second, a critical hit from a shotgun doesnt come anywhere close to 20d6, so take that into account. Your 120+ hp characters are just really, really freaking tough.

Personally, I think massive damage isn't done right. For instance, a coup de grace represents being hit in your most vulnerable areas while not being able to defend yourself (like a dagger in your eye hilt deep, or a gun in your mouth). Its an auto critical hit, plus any precision damage (like sneak attack), and the fort save vs. death is 10 + damage. Fatal.

I houserule massive damage to be DC 15 +1 per 4 points over 50, and I scale it for size (40 for small, 60 for large, etc.). You could do something like that

OR

you could make falling damage from any height higher than 20d6 a coup de grace.

I do want to add that normal people sometimes do survive falls from airplanes from several thousands of feet, though its from landing on or in something softer than cold hard dirt.

Also, you could add damage for a harder or more jagged surface.

As for damage from something that falls on YOU, I say just keep adding damage for weight and never let it cap. Thats what I do.

[EternalMelon]

Is this still called killing catgirls, even if they always land on their feet?

[TroubleBrewing]

Is this still called killing catgirls, even if they always land on their feet?

Sure. They land on their feet and then promptly explode from having taken (assuming falling damage is uncapped) about a bajillion d6 damage from falling from orbit.

Oh, the catgirls. Think of the catgirls.

[CTrees]

See, I'm fine with high level characters surviving a fall from several hundred feet. They're high level characters. Being able to laugh off a dozen arrows to the chest, or to be eaten by a dragon and cut your way out from the inside isn't something a person could actually do, and, going by the "best in the real world at whatever" being around a level five character, well, a level five couldn't, either, but a level twenty? Before breakfast, same with falling.

For reference, there was a story awhile back about a kid at an international gymnastics competition. He was on the balcony of something like a sixth story hotel room, leaning on the railing, when the railing snapped and he fell to the ground. Years of acrobatics training kicked in and he rolled just right so that he landed with like a broken leg (I believe; it's been awhile) but no serious injuries, and was just fine. Kinda see it the same way with D&D falling damage - a level one character, falling from a very high point, is going to die, no question. A high level one will have a high reflex save (which doesn't factor in mechanically, but which *does* point to their improved reflexes, training, etc.), and may be able to walk away, as it proportionately doesn't do that much damage to their HP.

Now, damage from dropped objects? Let it be uncapped (I drop a colossal adamantine golem on your head, it's going to smart), but I don't agree at all with it being a simple DC15 save in all circumstances. Volley of arrows? A 2' diameter rock? Sure. A triple masted ship? No, I don't buy that. That should be harder to dodge than a copper piece. Also, a rock dropped from ten feet over your head should be harder to dodge than one dropped from two hundred (less time to react), and the save to dodge an invisible, silenced object should be a lot harder than to dodge one that's illusioned to be covered in strobing, neon lights and wailing at you. Unfortunately, again, I don't have a better answer than "have the DM eyeball it."

[Re'ozul]

I generally go with free-fall and terminal velocity.

10' means an impact speed of about 7.5m/s. So you could say for kinetic energy that the square is a number of about 50.

Since the functions are built that way this has a linear increase (v² that is, not v. And also only if you disregard that terminal velocity is an asymptotical limit).

Terminal velocity for a skydiver in free-fall position (according to wikipedia) is 55m/s. This would translate to a square of 3025 and therefore to a sixtyfold of the 10' drop.

So I use a maximum of 60d6.

However small creatures (due to the way terminal velocity is calculated) have a lower terminal velocity and larger creatures have a higher one.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Our house rule for falling damage was more lethal. We wanted to depict how a 10-20 foot fall could be fatal for almost anyone, regardless of level. Have falling do Con damage, but being hit by a falling object do regular damage. The falling damage scales 1D6/3D6/6D6/10D6/15D6/20D6, plus a Fort save with a DC equal to the damage taken to not have broken limbs.

The only problem with the injury idea, is you have to ask yourself why they guy who fell down a hole gets injured, but the guy who got hit with a warhammer with a head the size of a watermelon just lost HP.


First thing, after a certain height, you stop gaining speed when you fall. So, a fall from 1,000 feet in real life is no more dangerous than one from 10,000, at least as far as the drop itself is concerned.

The thing is, 20d6 doesnt represent a fall from orbit. You go high enough and things like oxygen deprivation and cold damage start to apply. I'm willing to bet jet stream wind does damage too.

Also, you're probably imagining something falling to earth from space and the ensuing burn up it does on entry. Thats because whatever it was picked up a ton of speed in space that it couldnt have gained in an atmosphere, and its going so fast that the friction from the air is causing it to burn. Thats dozens of die of damage, not 20d6.

Second, a critical hit from a shotgun doesnt come anywhere close to 20d6, so take that into account. Your 120+ hp characters are just really, really freaking tough.

Personally, I think massive damage isn't done right. For instance, a coup de grace represents being hit in your most vulnerable areas while not being able to defend yourself (like a dagger in your eye hilt deep, or a gun in your mouth). Its an auto critical hit, plus any precision damage (like sneak attack), and the fort save vs. death is 10 + damage. Fatal.

I houserule massive damage to be DC 15 +1 per 4 points over 50, and I scale it for size (40 for small, 60 for large, etc.). You could do something like that

OR

you could make falling damage from any height higher than 20d6 a coup de grace.

I do want to add that normal people sometimes do survive falls from airplanes from several thousands of feet, though its from landing on or in something softer than cold hard dirt.

Also, you could add damage for a harder or more jagged surface.

As for damage from something that falls on YOU, I say just keep adding damage for weight and never let it cap. Thats what I do.

Interesting. I may implement some of that.

[PirateLizard]

if you plan on making any jump that should say, require a bungie cord or parachute in my game and think you're not going to be dead because of what the srd says, I hope you enjoy the afterlife. I'll probably send you to hell for just for being an idiot.

[Gice]

When you have to round, yeah in DnD it's usually down. But for HD it alternates - down, up, down, up,.... in other words you add and then round, rather than round then add, which as the above poster said is good - otherwise it makes a linearly increasing difference. If you look at monster stat blocks in the SRD and compute the listed 'average' HD you'll fnd it almost always that from the down/up/down/up rounding (and any differences are probably typos).

And in this case it wasn't DnD rounding I was using, but the actual statistical mean. The '70' average has no direct game implication (I don't know of any mechanic or ability to take 'average damage', although it'd be a decent houserule for reducing rolling in a high level campaign), it's just a way to illustrate that the 20d6 is usually above 50 (symmetric so mean = median here). Someone could even plot the histogram if so inclined and tell us the standard deviation, probability of being 50+, etc.

I'd actually like to see a 4d6-drop-1 histogram (a google image search might obtain one) so I can get a sense of just how full of **** most players are when "rolling" stats. (When DMing I always use deterministic methods, i.e. point buy.)

With some help (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=20d6) of Wolfram Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com), simple histograms and expected values can be calculated, it doesn't work for more complicated things (yet), though.
http://gijs.gromba.nl/upload/20d6.gif

Edit: if you click "more statistics" it will tell that the standard deviation is 7.638.

And here is the 4d6b3 histogram, note that I coded it quickly so I might made a mistake somewhere. Also note that I did NOT account for things like rerolls if lowest score < X or if total modifier < Y. So the odds actually increase for the players.
http://gijs.gromba.nl/upload/4d6b3.png

[FMArthur]

I think the falling damage rules are not reflective of reality and are not aiming to be so. It's aiming to replicate the extremely common 'survive a fall that should have killed you' trope of heroic fantasy. If anything it's more rare that a fantasy hero actually dies from falling from an extreme height than surviving it.

I say keep it as-is or you won't be able to replicate this feat of heroic toughness when you need it.

[Curmudgeon]

As a house rule I cap the falling damage at 50d6 instead of the usual 20d6. That represents reaching terminal velocity, after dropping 500+ feet, reasonably closely. (Winged creatures have a lower maximum speed, so the regular 20d6 limit still applies to them.) As for massive damage, that's a significant annoyance in high-level games. My house rule there is that you only roll for massive damage if the total is 50+ hit points and that also removes half or more of your current HP.

[Ernir]

I don't do anything about falling damage. What kind of an epic hero can't survive a single re-entry?

[ffone]

Its in the Epic Level Handbook, and it says to always round down for some stupid reason, probably because they assume that the math behind alternating is over their player's heads.

Huh, interesting.

IIRC the ELH is 3.0 so rounding rules from the PHB/DMG would take precedent. And in the Epic monster stat blocks online at the SRD, I believe they do the alternating thing, same as nonepic monsters. For example the leShay (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/leshay.htm) has 825 = 50*(3.5+13) HP.

[mootoall]

To resolve the (silly) rule of a flat DC 15 reflex save to avoid all bombardment damage, I have it scale by size category. DC 5 per size category (starting from Fine).