Argument over Falling Object Damage and PCs [Archive] - Wizards Community

Argument over Falling Object Damage and PCs [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Sinfire Titan
04-09-08, 01:10 PM Here is the idea. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1014017)

So the problem is that another poster is saying that PCs aren't technically objects, and thus not subject to the falling object rules. Rather, they just take the fall like normal, even if they hit something on the way down.

Logically, this isn't accurate. If a person falls on you, you feel it too.

So the debate at hand is if the Falling Object rules apply to a player character.

By RAW, anything could be considered a falling object, if it fulfills the weight and distance requirements it will do damage to something beneath it. By logic, a person or creature is indeed an object that can fulfill those requirements, as it is tangible, has weight, and can fall quickly.
LSMFT
04-09-08, 02:18 PM RAW, you are not an object. The rules for falling objects are not automatically applied.

But there is a gap in the rules as none are really in place for the damage you take when something not defined as an object lands on you. (I would think some damage would be appropriate.) Using the most reasonable available rules, it seems reasonable to apply them.

Although, I don't know that the creature hit should take more damage than the hitting creature. I would have to compare the two and make a judgment call.
Sinfire Titan
04-09-08, 02:30 PM RAW, you are not an object. The rules for falling objects are not automatically applied.

But there is a gap in the rules as none are really in place for the damage you take when something not defined as an object lands on you. (I would think some damage would be appropriate.) Using the most reasonable available rules, it seems reasonable to apply them.

Although, I don't know that the creature hit should take more damage than the hitting creature. I would have to compare the two and make a judgment call.

But the rules for falling damage and falling objects are different, separate rules. You use the ones that would apply at the time, at least that is how the theory goes, right?
LSMFT
04-09-08, 02:54 PM Yes, they are different.

But, the rule for getting hit with a falling object is limited to "objects."

It seems, at first glance, very reasonable to use the "falling object" rules here, as there are no separate rules for getting hit with a falling creature. You have to fall back on what seems most appropriate.

I introduced the caveat I did because it strikes me that the force with which the falling object hits its target (if it hits, is this just a fall or a targeted attack? I suppose I could open your link.) would be the same on what is hitting and what is getting hit. I’m no physicist though. But hey, I'm trying to make rules for one situation fit for another. You can only do your best.

Edit: Yeah, I just read your 4500 lbs. idea.
This is really exactly why I was concerned. See, the rules for falling people who hit the ground are fixed, 1d6/10 ft no matter if you are an adamantine warforged or a tiny feather golem*. Though force, and presumably damage, should vary by weight, these ones don't. Simplicity seems to be a reasonable guess as to why, but who's to know for sure.

But, the rules for damage taken when hit do factor in weight. You're trying to take advantage of the gap.

If a player proposed this, I would probably be too busy looking for my hammer gun to respond right away.
If he still wanted to do it after the shot to the face, and the second, and the third, I might shoot myself with the hammer gun.

*Note to self: create stats for feather golem. Send v. PCs soon.
Clem-Da-Squig
04-09-08, 03:02 PM Here is the idea. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1014017)

So the problem is that another poster is saying that PCs aren't technically objects, and thus not subject to the falling object rules. Rather, they just take the fall like normal, even if they hit something on the way down.

Logically, this isn't accurate. If a person falls on you, you feel it too.

So the debate at hand is if the Falling Object rules apply to a player character.

By RAW, anything could be considered a falling object, if it fulfills the weight and distance requirements it will do damage to something beneath it. By logic, a person or creature is indeed an object that can fulfill those requirements, as it is tangible, has weight, and can fall quickly.

If some thing rocks face like this, **** the rules.
Sinfire Titan
04-09-08, 03:15 PM If some thing rocks face like this, **** the rules.

It is great, isn't it? I have this curse where one in every 50 of my jokes are worth a damn. The rest blow chunks.

Yes, they are different.

But, the rule for getting hit with a falling object is limited to "objects."

It seems, at first glance, very reasonable to use the "falling object" rules here, as there are no separate rules for getting hit with a falling creature. You have to fall back on what seems most appropriate.

I introduced the caveat I did because it strikes me that the force with which the falling object hits its target (if it hits, is this just a fall or a targeted attack? I suppose I could open your link.) would be the same on what is hitting and what is getting hit. I’m no physicist though. But hey, I'm trying to make rules for one situation fit for another. You can only do your best.

Edit: Yeah, I just read your 4500 lbs. idea.
This is really exactly why I was concerned. See, the rules for falling people who hit the ground are fixed, 1d6/10 ft no matter if you are an adamantine warforged or a tiny feather golem*. Though force, and presumably damage, should vary by weight, these ones don't. Simplicity seems to be a reasonable guess as to why, but who's to know for sure.

Yeah. It is wonky. I never mean to try it out (may have it as a joke, as I've used the Locate City Bomb as a plot-device).

But, the rules for damage taken when hit do factor in weight. You're trying to take advantage of the gap.

Yes. I will not deny this.

If a player proposed this, I would probably be too busy looking for my hammer gun to respond right away.
If he still wanted to do it after the shot to the face, and the second, and the third, I might shoot myself with the hammer gun.

*Note to self: create stats for feather golem. Send v. PCs soon.

Railguns work nicely to avoid needing that second shot...
LSMFT
04-09-08, 04:15 PM Yes. I will not deny this.

If I were a generous DM inclined to work with players on even the wackiest crap, I would try to stay as close to the RAW as possible. Common sense be damned.

The closest thing I could use would be the falling object rules. I would base the damage off of that. The faller would take normal falling damage. (Enjoy your gap.)

But, this is not, as you suggested in the other thread, an automatic hit. It is an attack. I looked at traps that use falling objects, and there is precedent. I would probably, since you are moving, fast, and attacking in the same round, use the rules for charging, with the to-hit to land on the opponent counting as your attack from the charge.

You, of course, take falling damage hit or miss, and would be prone at the end of the attack, in the same square as the target, either way it goes.
Justisaur
04-09-08, 07:32 PM Don't forget the AoO for entering another's square :)

One could also count it as an overrun. The victim can decide to let the faller by, in which case he just takes damage from hitting the ground, and the victim takes nothing.
Sinfire Titan
04-10-08, 09:50 AM If I were a generous DM inclined to work with players on even the wackiest crap, I would try to stay as close to the RAW as possible. Common sense be damned.

The closest thing I could use would be the falling object rules. I would base the damage off of that. The faller would take normal falling damage. (Enjoy your gap.)

But, this is not, as you suggested in the other thread, an automatic hit. It is an attack. I looked at traps that use falling objects, and there is precedent. I would probably, since you are moving, fast, and attacking in the same round, use the rules for charging, with the to-hit to land on the opponent counting as your attack from the charge.

You, of course, take falling damage hit or miss, and would be prone at the end of the attack, in the same square as the target, either way it goes.

That was my logic on this entire ordeal. I think the other guy gave up when the rest of CO bit him.
Merestil Haye
04-10-08, 12:19 PM I wouldn't allow it for these reasons.

1. Weight. Warforged are not 100% metal; they are wood and bone and flesh internally. Thus the weight is nowhere near 4,500lb.

2. There is already precedent for a creature making a "falling attack." Any such ability should be patterned on the Dragon's Crush (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm) ability. The Crush attack allows the victims a Reflex save to negate the damage. That seems a fair way to deal with the attack routine.

The DC would be 10 + ½ racial HD + creature's Con modifier. (The dragon's crush attack DC is calculated using that formula).

Damage for the dragon's attack is based on size; I extrapolate a Medium creature's damage to be 1d6 (plus 1½ times Str mod if the DM is feeling generous).

3. Creatures are not objects. (They have Wisdom and Charisma scores; objects do not.) Creatures will tend to try and lessen the impact, sheerly out of self-preservation. Object's don't try to roll with the blows. This is why I never permit a creature to use the "falling object" rules.
LSMFT
04-10-08, 12:30 PM I wouldn't allow it for these reasons.

3. Creatures are not objects. (They have Wisdom and Charisma scores; objects do not.) Creatures will tend to try and lessen the impact, sheerly out of self-preservation. Object's don't try to roll with the blows. This is why I never permit a creature to use the "falling object" rules.Like I said: hammer gun first.

But, OP said this was basically cheese. Hypothetically, if I were to consider cheese, that's what I'd do.

2. There is already precedent for a creature making a "falling attack." Any such ability should be patterned on the Dragon's Crush (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm) ability. The Crush attack allows the victims a Reflex save to negate the damage. That seems a fair way to deal with the attack routine.

The DC would be 10 + ½ racial HD + creature's Con modifier. (The dragon's crush attack DC is calculated using that formula).

Damage for the dragon's attack is based on size; I extrapolate a Medium creature's damage to be 1d6 (plus 1½ times Str mod if the DM is feeling generous).The reason I didn't like those rules was

Crush is an extrodinary ability. It would take at least a feat or something to gain that. Plus, it would give the option of allowing a de facto grapple afterwards, and this is cheesy enough already.

Whether it was a reflex save or a to-hit, either way, you can't let it be automatically full damage. I thought to-hit seemed closer to what was really happening.

Plus, I liked the image of his big ass construct missing and crashing into the ground next to his adversary to be pummeled repeatedly at +4 to hit while prone and then on the AoO while standing.
mvincent
04-10-08, 12:48 PM RAW, you are not an object.Correct, in regard to spell targeting and such.

The rules for falling objects are not automatically applied. While I understand your logic based strictly on terminology, that does not appear to be what the writer's intended (i.e. they were instead using the standard definition of "object" here). A large corpse landing on someone will not do significantly more damage than the same creature were it alive. Also, the RotG has an example of the falling object rules being used for a live creature.

Mind you, the falling object rules do not scale well (whether applied to creatures or inanimate objects), so I wouldn't allow a player to abuse this imbalance to begin with (simply by telling them not to), and in return, I won't abuse the glitch either.
Merestil Haye
04-10-08, 12:48 PM The reason I didn't like those rules was

Crush is an extrodinary ability. It would take at least a feat or something to gain that. Plus, it would give the option of allowing a de facto grapple afterwards, and this is cheesy enough already.

Whether it was a reflex save or a to-hit, either way, you can't let it be automatically full damage. I thought to-hit seemed closer to what was really happening.

Plus, I liked the image of his big ass construct missing and crashing into the ground next to his adversary to be pummeled repeatedly at +4 to hit while prone and then on the AoO while standing.The Crush rules just serve as a useful template, since they already do something akin to what the character is trying to do. They're not perfect, but they serve as a starting point.

You make good points about the bashing, but really a specific space on the ground has an AC so low the character probably won't miss.
mvincent
04-10-08, 01:59 PM Creatures will tend to try and lessen the impactNot neccessarily to those they land on, and not if they are paralyzed, unconscious or otherwise helpless (which often describes a falling creature).

This is why I never permit a creature to use the "falling object" rules.I think just the fact that the falling object rules don't scale well (i.e. are unbalanced) is reason enough (and may sound more reasonable to some players).
LSMFT
04-10-08, 02:29 PM While I understand your logic based strictly on terminology, that does not appear to be what the writer's intended (i.e. they were instead using the standard definition of "object" here). A large corpse landing on someone will not do significantly more damage than the same creature were it alive. Also, the RotG has an example of the falling object rules being used for a live creature.I don’t think the writer’s indented anything in regards to this. I think they didn’t consider it.

Like I said before, I'm no physicist, but, it sure seems that if Entity A falls and collides with Entity B, both entities would be subject to the same forces.

In D&D, those forces should, I guess, be expressed in terms of damage, the number of d6’s.

But, the formulas they use are different. The damage/forces to which Entity A (the falling) is subject to does not include weight; just “velocity.” (Not really, they use distance, but as long as I am pretending to know the physics the average eighth-grader knows.)

But the forces/damage to which Entity B (the falling) is subject to do include weight.

The result is the falling warforged and a disparity of 18d6 between the faller and the landed-upon. The rules fail. (IMHO)

The reason why they fail is because of the terminology around “object” and the failure to suppose that one could be hit by a very heavy falling, but still living thing. (That they failed to consider it is a hunch. But the alternative is that they thought it was ok.)

You make good points about the bashing, but really a specific space on the ground has an AC so low the character probably won't miss.No, I didn't mean you had to hit a specific space on the ground, but hit the specific creature you wished to damage.

It is almost analogous to a boulder I threw. Big heavy thing, flies through the air, hits something. To do that, you need to roll to-hit against the target's AC. Same thing here. (The way I see it.)
mvincent
04-10-08, 02:44 PM I don’t think the writer’s indented anything in regards to this. I think they didn’t consider it.That's kinda what I said: the writer's did not intentionally use (nor consider) the D&D definition of "object", meaning they used the conventional definition.

Similarly, every use of the word "object" in the rules may not necessarily be referring to D&D's mechanical definition. Example: the feather fall spell says:
"Feather fall works only upon free-falling objects. It does not affect a sword blow or a charging or flying creature."
... this does not mean that feather fall doesn't work on free-falling creatures.
LSMFT
04-10-08, 04:43 PM You totally got me there. All it takes is one irrefutable place where object still has to mean creature for the win.

(Hey, we all still agree that we'd never actually use these rules to let a character do this, right?)
Sinfire Titan
04-11-08, 03:43 AM You totally got me there. All it takes is one irrefutable place where object still has to mean creature for the win.

(Hey, we all still agree that we'd never actually use these rules to let a character do this, right?)

Way ahead of you there pal. I'm never going to use this for anything but giggles.
heffroncm
04-11-08, 06:14 PM ... Maybe I'm evil, but I've already statted up the World's Fattest Ninja-Ball to throw at my players Monday. I've been following both threads, Sinfire Titan, and thing it is an absolutely brilliant idea. And I'm going to do it, because I can.
mvincent
04-11-08, 06:27 PM I've already statted up the World's Fattest Ninja-Ball to throw at my players"You're the big fat ninja everyone's talking about, aren't you?"
"Great White Ninja." - Beverly Hills Ninja
Tedronai
04-12-08, 03:01 AM ... Maybe I'm evil, but I've already statted up the World's Fattest Ninja-Ball to throw at my players Monday. I've been following both threads, Sinfire Titan, and thing it is an absolutely brilliant idea. And I'm going to do it, because I can.

So long as you sit back and politely accept the situation when your players then use this against YOUR encounters at each and every opportunity, that's perfectly fine.
Are you prepared for that?
Sinfire Titan
04-12-08, 08:21 AM ... Maybe I'm evil, but I've already statted up the World's Fattest Ninja-Ball to throw at my players Monday. I've been following both threads, Sinfire Titan, and thing it is an absolutely brilliant idea. And I'm going to do it, because I can.

http://a.deviantart.com/avatars/o/h/oh*****plz.gif
heffroncm
04-12-08, 03:44 PM "file not found"
Sinfire Titan
04-12-08, 04:08 PM "file not found"

Oh that is right, the filter catches it even when it is part of a hyperlink.
Senevri
04-12-08, 04:29 PM *shrug*
Falling creatures take damage as per rules (max of 20d6 for terminal velocity.)
The things stuck under them also take damage as per rules: for a minimum distance of 10ft, they take 1d6 per 200 pounds.
So, a fat guy jumping on top of someone takes, usually, 1d6 damage. The one they fall on, takes... 4500lbs? 22d6.

That being said, I wouldn't allow the fallguy(heh) to use tumble or whatnot to negate the damage, if they're purposefully slamming the other guy...

Mm. On second thought, I'd probably just use "Crush" rules for dragons, if someone made a character based on this. T_T

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sinfire Titan 04-09-08, 01:10 PM	Here is the idea. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1014017) So the problem is that another poster is saying that PCs aren't technically objects, and thus not subject to the falling object rules. Rather, they just take the fall like normal, even if they hit something on the way down. Logically, this isn't accurate. If a person falls on you, you feel it too. So the debate at hand is if the Falling Object rules apply to a player character. By RAW, anything could be considered a falling object, if it fulfills the weight and distance requirements it will do damage to something beneath it. By logic, a person or creature is indeed an object that can fulfill those requirements, as it is tangible, has weight, and can fall quickly.
LSMFT 04-09-08, 02:18 PM	RAW, you are not an object. The rules for falling objects are not automatically applied. But there is a gap in the rules as none are really in place for the damage you take when something not defined as an object lands on you. (I would think some damage would be appropriate.) Using the most reasonable available rules, it seems reasonable to apply them. Although, I don't know that the creature hit should take more damage than the hitting creature. I would have to compare the two and make a judgment call.
Sinfire Titan 04-09-08, 02:30 PM	RAW, you are not an object. The rules for falling objects are not automatically applied. But there is a gap in the rules as none are really in place for the damage you take when something not defined as an object lands on you. (I would think some damage would be appropriate.) Using the most reasonable available rules, it seems reasonable to apply them. Although, I don't know that the creature hit should take more damage than the hitting creature. I would have to compare the two and make a judgment call. But the rules for falling damage and falling objects are different, separate rules. You use the ones that would apply at the time, at least that is how the theory goes, right?
LSMFT 04-09-08, 02:54 PM	Yes, they are different. But, the rule for getting hit with a falling object is limited to "objects." It seems, at first glance, very reasonable to use the "falling object" rules here, as there are no separate rules for getting hit with a falling creature. You have to fall back on what seems most appropriate. I introduced the caveat I did because it strikes me that the force with which the falling object hits its target (if it hits, is this just a fall or a targeted attack? I suppose I could open your link.) would be the same on what is hitting and what is getting hit. I’m no physicist though. But hey, I'm trying to make rules for one situation fit for another. You can only do your best. Edit: Yeah, I just read your 4500 lbs. idea. This is really exactly why I was concerned. See, the rules for falling people who hit the ground are fixed, 1d6/10 ft no matter if you are an adamantine warforged or a tiny feather golem. Though force, and presumably damage, should vary by weight, these ones don't. Simplicity seems to be a reasonable guess as to why, but who's to know for sure. But, the rules for damage taken when hit do factor in weight. You're trying to take advantage of the gap. If a player proposed this, I would probably be too busy looking for my hammer gun to respond right away. If he still wanted to do it after the shot to the face, and the second, and the third, I might shoot myself with the hammer gun. Note to self: create stats for feather golem. Send v. PCs soon.
Clem-Da-Squig 04-09-08, 03:02 PM	Here is the idea. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1014017) So the problem is that another poster is saying that PCs aren't technically objects, and thus not subject to the falling object rules. Rather, they just take the fall like normal, even if they hit something on the way down. Logically, this isn't accurate. If a person falls on you, you feel it too. So the debate at hand is if the Falling Object rules apply to a player character. By RAW, anything could be considered a falling object, if it fulfills the weight and distance requirements it will do damage to something beneath it. By logic, a person or creature is indeed an object that can fulfill those requirements, as it is tangible, has weight, and can fall quickly. If some thing rocks face like this, **** the rules.
Sinfire Titan 04-09-08, 03:15 PM	If some thing rocks face like this, **** the rules. It is great, isn't it? I have this curse where one in every 50 of my jokes are worth a damn. The rest blow chunks. Yes, they are different. But, the rule for getting hit with a falling object is limited to "objects." It seems, at first glance, very reasonable to use the "falling object" rules here, as there are no separate rules for getting hit with a falling creature. You have to fall back on what seems most appropriate. I introduced the caveat I did because it strikes me that the force with which the falling object hits its target (if it hits, is this just a fall or a targeted attack? I suppose I could open your link.) would be the same on what is hitting and what is getting hit. I’m no physicist though. But hey, I'm trying to make rules for one situation fit for another. You can only do your best. Edit: Yeah, I just read your 4500 lbs. idea. This is really exactly why I was concerned. See, the rules for falling people who hit the ground are fixed, 1d6/10 ft no matter if you are an adamantine warforged or a tiny feather golem. Though force, and presumably damage, should vary by weight, these ones don't. Simplicity seems to be a reasonable guess as to why, but who's to know for sure. Yeah. It is wonky. I never mean to try it out (may have it as a joke, as I've used the Locate City Bomb as a plot-device). But, the rules for damage taken when hit do factor in weight. You're trying to take advantage of the gap. Yes. I will not deny this. If a player proposed this, I would probably be too busy looking for my hammer gun to respond right away. If he still wanted to do it after the shot to the face, and the second, and the third, I might shoot myself with the hammer gun. Note to self: create stats for feather golem. Send v. PCs soon. Railguns work nicely to avoid needing that second shot...
LSMFT 04-09-08, 04:15 PM	Yes. I will not deny this. If I were a generous DM inclined to work with players on even the wackiest crap, I would try to stay as close to the RAW as possible. Common sense be damned. The closest thing I could use would be the falling object rules. I would base the damage off of that. The faller would take normal falling damage. (Enjoy your gap.) But, this is not, as you suggested in the other thread, an automatic hit. It is an attack. I looked at traps that use falling objects, and there is precedent. I would probably, since you are moving, fast, and attacking in the same round, use the rules for charging, with the to-hit to land on the opponent counting as your attack from the charge. You, of course, take falling damage hit or miss, and would be prone at the end of the attack, in the same square as the target, either way it goes.
Justisaur 04-09-08, 07:32 PM	Don't forget the AoO for entering another's square :) One could also count it as an overrun. The victim can decide to let the faller by, in which case he just takes damage from hitting the ground, and the victim takes nothing.
Sinfire Titan 04-10-08, 09:50 AM	If I were a generous DM inclined to work with players on even the wackiest crap, I would try to stay as close to the RAW as possible. Common sense be damned. The closest thing I could use would be the falling object rules. I would base the damage off of that. The faller would take normal falling damage. (Enjoy your gap.) But, this is not, as you suggested in the other thread, an automatic hit. It is an attack. I looked at traps that use falling objects, and there is precedent. I would probably, since you are moving, fast, and attacking in the same round, use the rules for charging, with the to-hit to land on the opponent counting as your attack from the charge. You, of course, take falling damage hit or miss, and would be prone at the end of the attack, in the same square as the target, either way it goes. That was my logic on this entire ordeal. I think the other guy gave up when the rest of CO bit him.
Merestil Haye 04-10-08, 12:19 PM	I wouldn't allow it for these reasons. 1. Weight. Warforged are not 100% metal; they are wood and bone and flesh internally. Thus the weight is nowhere near 4,500lb. 2. There is already precedent for a creature making a "falling attack." Any such ability should be patterned on the Dragon's Crush (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm) ability. The Crush attack allows the victims a Reflex save to negate the damage. That seems a fair way to deal with the attack routine. The DC would be 10 + ½ racial HD + creature's Con modifier. (The dragon's crush attack DC is calculated using that formula). Damage for the dragon's attack is based on size; I extrapolate a Medium creature's damage to be 1d6 (plus 1½ times Str mod if the DM is feeling generous). 3. Creatures are not objects. (They have Wisdom and Charisma scores; objects do not.) Creatures will tend to try and lessen the impact, sheerly out of self-preservation. Object's don't try to roll with the blows. This is why I never permit a creature to use the "falling object" rules.
LSMFT 04-10-08, 12:30 PM	I wouldn't allow it for these reasons. 3. Creatures are not objects. (They have Wisdom and Charisma scores; objects do not.) Creatures will tend to try and lessen the impact, sheerly out of self-preservation. Object's don't try to roll with the blows. This is why I never permit a creature to use the "falling object" rules.Like I said: hammer gun first. But, OP said this was basically cheese. Hypothetically, if I were to consider cheese, that's what I'd do. 2. There is already precedent for a creature making a "falling attack." Any such ability should be patterned on the Dragon's Crush (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm) ability. The Crush attack allows the victims a Reflex save to negate the damage. That seems a fair way to deal with the attack routine. The DC would be 10 + ½ racial HD + creature's Con modifier. (The dragon's crush attack DC is calculated using that formula). Damage for the dragon's attack is based on size; I extrapolate a Medium creature's damage to be 1d6 (plus 1½ times Str mod if the DM is feeling generous).The reason I didn't like those rules was Crush is an extrodinary ability. It would take at least a feat or something to gain that. Plus, it would give the option of allowing a de facto grapple afterwards, and this is cheesy enough already. Whether it was a reflex save or a to-hit, either way, you can't let it be automatically full damage. I thought to-hit seemed closer to what was really happening. Plus, I liked the image of his big ass construct missing and crashing into the ground next to his adversary to be pummeled repeatedly at +4 to hit while prone and then on the AoO while standing.
mvincent 04-10-08, 12:48 PM	RAW, you are not an object.Correct, in regard to spell targeting and such. The rules for falling objects are not automatically applied. While I understand your logic based strictly on terminology, that does not appear to be what the writer's intended (i.e. they were instead using the standard definition of "object" here). A large corpse landing on someone will not do significantly more damage than the same creature were it alive. Also, the RotG has an example of the falling object rules being used for a live creature. Mind you, the falling object rules do not scale well (whether applied to creatures or inanimate objects), so I wouldn't allow a player to abuse this imbalance to begin with (simply by telling them not to), and in return, I won't abuse the glitch either.
Merestil Haye 04-10-08, 12:48 PM	The reason I didn't like those rules was Crush is an extrodinary ability. It would take at least a feat or something to gain that. Plus, it would give the option of allowing a de facto grapple afterwards, and this is cheesy enough already. Whether it was a reflex save or a to-hit, either way, you can't let it be automatically full damage. I thought to-hit seemed closer to what was really happening. Plus, I liked the image of his big ass construct missing and crashing into the ground next to his adversary to be pummeled repeatedly at +4 to hit while prone and then on the AoO while standing.The Crush rules just serve as a useful template, since they already do something akin to what the character is trying to do. They're not perfect, but they serve as a starting point. You make good points about the bashing, but really a specific space on the ground has an AC so low the character probably won't miss.
mvincent 04-10-08, 01:59 PM	Creatures will tend to try and lessen the impactNot neccessarily to those they land on, and not if they are paralyzed, unconscious or otherwise helpless (which often describes a falling creature). This is why I never permit a creature to use the "falling object" rules.I think just the fact that the falling object rules don't scale well (i.e. are unbalanced) is reason enough (and may sound more reasonable to some players).
LSMFT 04-10-08, 02:29 PM	While I understand your logic based strictly on terminology, that does not appear to be what the writer's intended (i.e. they were instead using the standard definition of "object" here). A large corpse landing on someone will not do significantly more damage than the same creature were it alive. Also, the RotG has an example of the falling object rules being used for a live creature.I don’t think the writer’s indented anything in regards to this. I think they didn’t consider it. Like I said before, I'm no physicist, but, it sure seems that if Entity A falls and collides with Entity B, both entities would be subject to the same forces. In D&D, those forces should, I guess, be expressed in terms of damage, the number of d6’s. But, the formulas they use are different. The damage/forces to which Entity A (the falling) is subject to does not include weight; just “velocity.” (Not really, they use distance, but as long as I am pretending to know the physics the average eighth-grader knows.) But the forces/damage to which Entity B (the falling) is subject to do include weight. The result is the falling warforged and a disparity of 18d6 between the faller and the landed-upon. The rules fail. (IMHO) The reason why they fail is because of the terminology around “object” and the failure to suppose that one could be hit by a very heavy falling, but still living thing. (That they failed to consider it is a hunch. But the alternative is that they thought it was ok.) You make good points about the bashing, but really a specific space on the ground has an AC so low the character probably won't miss.No, I didn't mean you had to hit a specific space on the ground, but hit the specific creature you wished to damage. It is almost analogous to a boulder I threw. Big heavy thing, flies through the air, hits something. To do that, you need to roll to-hit against the target's AC. Same thing here. (The way I see it.)
mvincent 04-10-08, 02:44 PM	I don’t think the writer’s indented anything in regards to this. I think they didn’t consider it.That's kinda what I said: the writer's did not intentionally use (nor consider) the D&D definition of "object", meaning they used the conventional definition. Similarly, every use of the word "object" in the rules may not necessarily be referring to D&D's mechanical definition. Example: the feather fall spell says: "Feather fall works only upon free-falling objects. It does not affect a sword blow or a charging or flying creature." ... this does not mean that feather fall doesn't work on free-falling creatures.
LSMFT 04-10-08, 04:43 PM	You totally got me there. All it takes is one irrefutable place where object still has to mean creature for the win. (Hey, we all still agree that we'd never actually use these rules to let a character do this, right?)
Sinfire Titan 04-11-08, 03:43 AM	You totally got me there. All it takes is one irrefutable place where object still has to mean creature for the win. (Hey, we all still agree that we'd never actually use these rules to let a character do this, right?) Way ahead of you there pal. I'm never going to use this for anything but giggles.
heffroncm 04-11-08, 06:14 PM	... Maybe I'm evil, but I've already statted up the World's Fattest Ninja-Ball to throw at my players Monday. I've been following both threads, Sinfire Titan, and thing it is an absolutely brilliant idea. And I'm going to do it, because I can.
mvincent 04-11-08, 06:27 PM	I've already statted up the World's Fattest Ninja-Ball to throw at my players"You're the big fat ninja everyone's talking about, aren't you?" "Great White Ninja." - Beverly Hills Ninja
Tedronai 04-12-08, 03:01 AM	... Maybe I'm evil, but I've already statted up the World's Fattest Ninja-Ball to throw at my players Monday. I've been following both threads, Sinfire Titan, and thing it is an absolutely brilliant idea. And I'm going to do it, because I can. So long as you sit back and politely accept the situation when your players then use this against YOUR encounters at each and every opportunity, that's perfectly fine. Are you prepared for that?
Sinfire Titan 04-12-08, 08:21 AM	... Maybe I'm evil, but I've already statted up the World's Fattest Ninja-Ball to throw at my players Monday. I've been following both threads, Sinfire Titan, and thing it is an absolutely brilliant idea. And I'm going to do it, because I can. http://a.deviantart.com/avatars/o/h/oh*****plz.gif
heffroncm 04-12-08, 03:44 PM	"file not found"
Sinfire Titan 04-12-08, 04:08 PM	"file not found" Oh that is right, the filter catches it even when it is part of a hyperlink.
Senevri 04-12-08, 04:29 PM	shrug Falling creatures take damage as per rules (max of 20d6 for terminal velocity.) The things stuck under them also take damage as per rules: for a minimum distance of 10ft, they take 1d6 per 200 pounds. So, a fat guy jumping on top of someone takes, usually, 1d6 damage. The one they fall on, takes... 4500lbs? 22d6. That being said, I wouldn't allow the fallguy(heh) to use tumble or whatnot to negate the damage, if they're purposefully slamming the other guy... Mm. On second thought, I'd probably just use "Crush" rules for dragons, if someone made a character based on this. T_T