Weight, HP, and sturdiness - a thought experiment.

[Nibbens]

So, here's a hypothetical:

If a PC is dropped from a height of 5 feet to a rope - which he then catches with a successful reflex check - does the rope break?

Presumably no - a fall of 5 feet does not do damage to a PC and therefore none would transfer to the rope.

Let's turn it up a notch. If a PC is dropped from a height of 5 feet then lands on a 10X10 sheet of paper (which has been folded in half and therefore has the same amount of HP as a rope) which has been suspended in the air - does the paper break?

What if that sheet of paper wasn't folded in half?

How much HP damage does a PCs feet do to the ground as they walk on it? How does weight transfer into damage in D&D?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

So, here's a hypothetical:

If a PC is dropped from a height of 5 feet to a rope - which he then catches with a successful reflex check - does the rope break?

Presumably no - a fall of 5 feet does not do damage to a PC and therefore none would transfer to the rope.

Let's turn it up a notch. If a PC is dropped from a height of 5 feet then lands on a 10X10 sheet of paper (which has been folded in half and therefore has the same amount of HP as a rope) which has been suspended in the air - does the paper break?

What if that sheet of paper wasn't folded in half?

How much HP damage does a PCs feet do to the ground as they walk on it? How does weight transfer into damage in D&D?

According to RAW:

1 -- No.

2 -- No. Falling damage doesn't kick in until you fall at least 10 feet, so the paper takes no damage. Doesn't matter if it's folded or not: a pure RAW reading will let you walk on paper, dumb as that is.

3 -- PCs deal 0 damage to the ground as they walk on it. Weight also doesn't transfer to damage in D&D except through falling object rules, which can be found in a few places.

[Extra Anchovies]

A reasonable houserule in this case is that objects take 1d3 damage when something drops on them from 5 feet above. The reasoning for creatures not taking that damage is they go to the effort to land somewhat properly (e.g. on their feet).

[Spore]

I wouldn't start to make a RAW war out of it. If you have a case that's really on the edge, let the DM decide (and later on the physics guy calculate it). Good lord, is RAW interpretation silly sometimes.

[Hrugner]

You aught to be able to use this rule from the damaging objects page (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/damaging-objects)


Ineffective Weapons

Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.

This gives the DM a rule to use, but no real mechanics to help with arbitration. Obviously a falling person is a better weapon for breaking a piece of paper rather than a rope or a mattress, but at some point in the fall the rope should just snap from the force. I've messed around with setting break DCs and giving gravity a strength, but haven't come up with anything efficient enough to use in a game.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I wouldn't start to make a RAW war out of it. If you have a case that's really on the edge, let the DM decide (and later on the physics guy calculate it). Good lord, is RAW interpretation silly sometimes.

Pretty much. This is entirely DM ruling based: I wouldn't suggest for a moment actually USING the RAW answers I gave above--save for the 0 damage to the ground when walking thing.