PDA

View Full Version : Falling Objects



SithLackey
2007-07-07, 10:15 PM
Take a look at this if you have a second, and post comments if you like. I'm not really asking a question, and as such am not seeking a definitive conclusion, but I found this to be (at 11:30) quite interesting.


For each 200 pounds of an object's weight, the object deals 1d6 points, provided it falls from 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.

Based on these rules, a 200 pound object falling from 20 feet up would do 2d6 damage, and a 400 pound object falling from 20 feet up deals 3d6 points of damage.

Therefore, two 200 pound rocks of equal size and shape falling from 20 feet up onto, say, a hill giant, would do a total of 4d6 points of damage. At the same time, a rock of exactly twice the volume and weight (400 pounds) falls, from the same height, onto the giant's identical twin, who only takes 3d6 points of damage, right?

The actual situation which sparked this thought was one in which a Formian Myrmarch had a 2800 pound rock dropped on it from 40 feet up for (14+3=17d6) damage. If there had been 14 200 pound rocks instead, it would have taken (4x14=56d6) damage instead. That's a 39d6 difference!

DaMullet
2007-07-07, 10:41 PM
Yep. That's why it's better to think quantity, not quality.

Kyace
2007-07-07, 10:50 PM
If you want to really blow your mind, take lets say both of your hill giants have 100 lbs of stuff (bringing their total weigh including their stuff to 1,200 lbs). Kill one of them, knock the other out cold. Drop both the living and the dead giant from 20 feet. The living giant takes 2d6 damage from the fall (and likely deals the same damage to whatever it lands on but not sure). The dead giant deals 6d6+1d6 damage to whatever it lands on (and likely take the same damage but not sure). It would appear that merely being alive makes falling a softer landing.

Aximili
2007-07-07, 11:02 PM
Yep. That's why it's better to think quantity, not quality.

Actually, that's why it's better to not use the rules for falling objects.

nooblade
2007-07-07, 11:11 PM
If you want to really blow your mind, take lets say both of your hill giants have 100 lbs of stuff (bringing their total weigh including their stuff to 1,200 lbs). Kill one of them, knock the other out cold. Drop both the living and the dead giant from 20 feet. The living giant takes 2d6 damage from the fall (and likely deals the same damage to whatever it lands on but not sure). The dead giant deals 6d6+1d6 damage to whatever it lands on (and likely take the same damage but not sure). It would appear that merely being alive makes falling a softer landing.

The living giant would still count as a falling object I think. But the first situation still sounds ridiculous. Perhaps the cross-sectional area of the large object falling caused much more drag on it than the numerous small objects?

SithLackey
2007-07-08, 12:32 AM
Perhaps the cross-sectional area of the large object falling caused much more drag on it than the numerous small objects?

But that's the thing, the damage would increase enen if all of the rocks were perfectly regular and square in shape, and were simply very close to each other. Theoretically, you could increase damage by 39d6 simply by adding enough cracks to an existing object (say, with stone shape) for it to become 14 smaller objects, without really changing its spatial properties.

Yechezkiel
2007-07-08, 12:41 AM
A.C.M.E., four letters. WotC, four letters... same laws of physics.

Curmudgeon
2007-07-09, 01:13 PM
The rules specify the damage from falling objects, but are silent on hitting with falling objects. I'd never let a player hit anyone below without rolling to hit, and applying nonproficiency and range penalties for improvised weapons.

Inyssius Tor
2007-07-09, 01:25 PM
Ah, now here's the thing: hit points do not represent actual injuries. Generally speaking (yes, there are exceptions, mostly because the designers can never remember this), hit points represent your ability to keep fighting. Only your very last few HP represent your actual meat.
Two rocks take more effort to avoid than one rock does.

SithLackey
2007-07-09, 01:44 PM
That kind of thing is why I like th Unearthed arcana "Vitality Point" variant.

But on the actual falling rock issue, I'm talking about how if one square 2800 pound rock were shaped into 14 pieces in midair, it does 39d6 more damage without really changing the total mass, trajectory, or shape of the falling object(s). A mm worth of space can have massive effects on the damage dealt.

Dervag
2007-07-09, 01:56 PM
If you want to really blow your mind, take lets say both of your hill giants have 100 lbs of stuff (bringing their total weigh including their stuff to 1,200 lbs). Kill one of them, knock the other out cold. Drop both the living and the dead giant from 20 feet. The living giant takes 2d6 damage from the fall (and likely deals the same damage to whatever it lands on but not sure). The dead giant deals 6d6+1d6 damage to whatever it lands on (and likely take the same damage but not sure). It would appear that merely being alive makes falling a softer landing.This whole falling person issue brings new meaning to the expression "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you."