Houserule: fall damage scales with size

[Elves]

Falling damage is d6 per 10 feet for a Medium creature, plus or minus one die size per size category above or below Medium, respectively.


Fine: no fall damage
Diminutive: d2
Tiny: d3
Small: d4
Medium: d6
Large: d8
Huge: d10
Gargantuan: d12
Colossal: d20

Alternative: In 3e you could have it scale per the weapon damage chart, so Huge is 2d6, Gargantuan is 3d6, Colossal is 4d6

[animorte]

Hosting a jack and the beanstalk adventure?

I think this is fine. All the more reason for me to keep playing halflings.

[Metastachydium]

Hm. I was recently made aware (and on this subforum, no less) that the 20d6 damage cap probably refers to the full damage a falling object/creature deals, and not just the extra damage derived from falling distance. So, the question is: how does this change affect this damage dealt to other creatures that happen to be chilling at the wrong spot?

(Also, size is certainly not the only (and probably not even the main) factor in how much damage falling does to a real creature; any intention to include adjustments for the specifics of the falling one's (discernible) anatomy or lack thereof?)

Edit: As for the numbers, I'd go with the weapon damage increases; an ever-increasing floor and ceiling seems to align better with the basic idea than an ever-increasing ceiling alone. (And I personally find using d20s for damage, well, weird. Not d20 HD level weird, mind you, but weird.)

[Elves]

Hm. I was recently made aware (and on this subforum, no less) that the 20d6 damage cap probably refers to the full damage a falling object/creature deals, and not just the extra damage derived from falling distance. So, the question is: how does this change affect this damage dealt to other creatures that happen to be chilling at the wrong spot?

It makes sense that a rhino falling on you deals more damage than if a man does.

[Metastachydium]

Good, good. I likewise prefer to just key it off of weight without a cap.