Charging in to a wall oops! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Charging in to a wall oops! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Iver Gearsham
06-08-05, 07:33 PM So when a knight go's full tilt at you and there is a Wall of Force between you and how much damage should she take when she hits?
Assume she didn't spot it and could not be warned.

I think 1d6 per 10 ft. traveled to the wall what do you think?
BladeDrinker
06-08-05, 07:48 PM So when a knight go's full tilt at you and there is a Wall of Force between you and how much damage should she take when she hits?
Assume she didn't spot it and could not be warned.

I think 1d6 per 10 ft. traveled to the wall what do you think?

Technically you cannot do that by the RAW. If you don't have clear movement to the location you are charging to, you cannot execute the charge. You can't even charge over difficult terrain.

I would say 1d6+1 non-lethal damage regardless of how far you travel. Your speed after charging twenty feet in full plate shouldn't be much less than a hundred feet. It should be non-lethal damage because it is rather hard to kill yourself by running into a wall. I have hit a metal pole at full speed on rollerblades, and while it really hurt it certainly didn't threaten my life.
Dungeon Master
06-08-05, 07:51 PM My advice is always favor common sense over rules. Common sense dictates that it is perfectly reasonable that a knight could charge into a wall of force.

Also, what's the difference between charging into a wall of force at 30 mph and falling onto a cement floor at 30 mph?
Ogre4Hire
06-08-05, 08:42 PM Well, assuming a human could hit a wall at 30 mph (which is actually about 3 times the speed most people can run), he's a lot more likely to bounce off and land in a most ungraceful manner. A human who falls thirty feet onto a hard surface is going to collapse, break bones, and not do any bouncing. There's a much more damage done in the fall, because all of his momentum is absorbed by the ground. Hit the wall, and while it does hurt, some of the force is deflected away.
StormKnight
06-08-05, 08:47 PM I'm with Ogre4Hire. This is going to be highly embarrassing and perhaps a little painful, but not deadly. Maybe D3 damage or so and fairly high reflex save not to be knocked over.
anarco_rata
06-08-05, 10:46 PM .

I think 1d6 per 10 ft. traveled to the wall what do you think?
Unless the PC has some kind of rocket boots, that's not logical. No mater how long you run, you're not going to run faster than a certain speed. You should run slower after some time thanks to fatigue. Also, lethal damage is no good either, unless th Pc is charging with his head, wich is plain stupid!

Well, assuming a human could hit a wall at 30 mph (which is actually about 3 times the speed most people can run), he's a lot more likely to bounce off and land in a most ungraceful manner. A human who falls thirty feet onto a hard surface is going to collapse, break bones, and not do any bouncing. There's a much more damage done in the fall, because all of his momentum is absorbed by the ground. Hit the wall, and while it does hurt, some of the force is deflected away.
That's it :D if you wanna have fun, find a crash test dummie and try both situations...or use your little brother ^^
Archangel_James
06-08-05, 10:55 PM Distance traveled shouldn't have as much baring as the speed hit. I would say it's 1d4 per 10 feet of basic speed, subduel of course. It shouldn't really be that much damage. I mean sure, it would hurt, but not nearly as much as getting beat with a club or something.
was_fired
06-08-05, 10:58 PM 1d2 non-lethal per 60ft of speed sounds about right to me. So walking into a wall (30ft) does nothing, but charging into it (60ft) does 1d2, and running into it (120ft) 2d2.
Iver Gearsham
06-09-05, 12:18 AM Just got back I made an omission the Knight is on horse sorry!
anarco_rata
06-09-05, 12:55 AM The poor horse would probably break a leg or even die, the knight would either:
a) fly and hit the wall, in wich case it would probably be a damage similar to a fall or
b) stay in the horse, and face the fall.
Dungeon Master
06-09-05, 12:57 AM I used 30 mph because I figured that's about the speed of a really fast horse, and I imagined that the knight in question would be on horseback.

I'm not a physics professor so feel free to correct me, but I was under the impression that hitting a hard surface at a certain speed has the same effect whether your fall onto it or run into it. Also, the harder the surface the more it hurts, and I'd say that there's nothing harder than a wall of force.

Therefore, I'd rule the damage as follows:

under 10 mph: no damage
10-20 mph: 1d6 subdual
20-30 mph: 1d6 damage

+1d6 for every 10 mph
Iver Gearsham
06-09-05, 02:40 AM Excelent ideas good suporting material any other thoughts?
StormKnight
06-09-05, 05:08 PM but I was under the impression that hitting a hard surface at a certain speed has the same effect whether your fall onto it or run into it.

How much the two objects give from each other will also matter. Running into something will probably be less painful than falling on it because some of the energy imparted to you will be reduced by being knocked backward.

Being on a horse definetly would increase the speed and damage though!

Let's see, going by straight physics, comparing to falling...
30 mph is about 150000 feet per hour = around 42 feet per second.
Acceleration due to gravity is approximately 10 m per second, or around 30' per second.
So if you fall for one second, you've gone about 15 feet.
In one and a half seconds, you are going at roughtly 45 feet per second and have now fallen a distance of something like 37 feet. So, hitting something while moving at 30 mph is roughly like falling 37 feet - so 3d6 or 4d6 damage by that logic. (My physics and math may be ENTIRELY wrong, but there you go)

Probably less since its a different type of collision. The horse might also take more damage than the rider.

Finally, unconnected to damage, any chance that the horse might notice the wall of force even if the rider didn't it? Animals sometimes have sense for things that humans miss!
was_fired
06-10-05, 05:42 AM If you want to base it off of fall damage (which is a good idea btw) you find the damage using the following formula:

Distance in Feet Equals = (speed / 6)^2 / 64. The first d6 is nonlethal. A horse moving at 50ft inflicts the same damage as a 1ft fall (the acceleration of gravity is 32ft/s/s meaning you reach the speed of 8.3ft per second in under .26 seconds). If the horse was running at 250ft then you would take the same damage as a 27ft fall. Remember terminal velocity is reached at 200ft in D&D which means that 20d6 damage will only show up once your at a 680ft speed. The damage incements end up looking as follows (number is the number of d6):

1: 150ft, 17mph
2: 215ft, 24mph
3: 260ft, 30mph
4: 300ft, 34mph
5: 340ft, 38mph
6: 370ft, 42mph
8: 400ft, 49mph
9: 430ft, 52mph
10: 480ft, 55mph

While this system scales nicely I do believe that it starts out too low, but I suppose this is really just a problem of the falling damage mechanics in D&D.

[edit]
All of this being said if you use this system do not cap damage at 20d6. This exisits in the falling mechanics due to terminal velocity. Achiving a speed higher than 680ft means that you have exceeded terminal velocity and as such should take more damage. So a collision at 1,000ft (114mph) should deal 42d6 lethal damage and 1d6 nonlethal damage.
Fargren
06-10-05, 06:08 PM What about if you start runing while blind and hit a concrete wall?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Iver Gearsham 06-08-05, 07:33 PM	So when a knight go's full tilt at you and there is a Wall of Force between you and how much damage should she take when she hits? Assume she didn't spot it and could not be warned. I think 1d6 per 10 ft. traveled to the wall what do you think?
BladeDrinker 06-08-05, 07:48 PM	So when a knight go's full tilt at you and there is a Wall of Force between you and how much damage should she take when she hits? Assume she didn't spot it and could not be warned. I think 1d6 per 10 ft. traveled to the wall what do you think? Technically you cannot do that by the RAW. If you don't have clear movement to the location you are charging to, you cannot execute the charge. You can't even charge over difficult terrain. I would say 1d6+1 non-lethal damage regardless of how far you travel. Your speed after charging twenty feet in full plate shouldn't be much less than a hundred feet. It should be non-lethal damage because it is rather hard to kill yourself by running into a wall. I have hit a metal pole at full speed on rollerblades, and while it really hurt it certainly didn't threaten my life.
Dungeon Master 06-08-05, 07:51 PM	My advice is always favor common sense over rules. Common sense dictates that it is perfectly reasonable that a knight could charge into a wall of force. Also, what's the difference between charging into a wall of force at 30 mph and falling onto a cement floor at 30 mph?
Ogre4Hire 06-08-05, 08:42 PM	Well, assuming a human could hit a wall at 30 mph (which is actually about 3 times the speed most people can run), he's a lot more likely to bounce off and land in a most ungraceful manner. A human who falls thirty feet onto a hard surface is going to collapse, break bones, and not do any bouncing. There's a much more damage done in the fall, because all of his momentum is absorbed by the ground. Hit the wall, and while it does hurt, some of the force is deflected away.
StormKnight 06-08-05, 08:47 PM	I'm with Ogre4Hire. This is going to be highly embarrassing and perhaps a little painful, but not deadly. Maybe D3 damage or so and fairly high reflex save not to be knocked over.
anarco_rata 06-08-05, 10:46 PM	. I think 1d6 per 10 ft. traveled to the wall what do you think? Unless the PC has some kind of rocket boots, that's not logical. No mater how long you run, you're not going to run faster than a certain speed. You should run slower after some time thanks to fatigue. Also, lethal damage is no good either, unless th Pc is charging with his head, wich is plain stupid! Well, assuming a human could hit a wall at 30 mph (which is actually about 3 times the speed most people can run), he's a lot more likely to bounce off and land in a most ungraceful manner. A human who falls thirty feet onto a hard surface is going to collapse, break bones, and not do any bouncing. There's a much more damage done in the fall, because all of his momentum is absorbed by the ground. Hit the wall, and while it does hurt, some of the force is deflected away. That's it :D if you wanna have fun, find a crash test dummie and try both situations...or use your little brother ^^
Archangel_James 06-08-05, 10:55 PM	Distance traveled shouldn't have as much baring as the speed hit. I would say it's 1d4 per 10 feet of basic speed, subduel of course. It shouldn't really be that much damage. I mean sure, it would hurt, but not nearly as much as getting beat with a club or something.
was_fired 06-08-05, 10:58 PM	1d2 non-lethal per 60ft of speed sounds about right to me. So walking into a wall (30ft) does nothing, but charging into it (60ft) does 1d2, and running into it (120ft) 2d2.
Iver Gearsham 06-09-05, 12:18 AM	Just got back I made an omission the Knight is on horse sorry!
anarco_rata 06-09-05, 12:55 AM	The poor horse would probably break a leg or even die, the knight would either: a) fly and hit the wall, in wich case it would probably be a damage similar to a fall or b) stay in the horse, and face the fall.
Dungeon Master 06-09-05, 12:57 AM	I used 30 mph because I figured that's about the speed of a really fast horse, and I imagined that the knight in question would be on horseback. I'm not a physics professor so feel free to correct me, but I was under the impression that hitting a hard surface at a certain speed has the same effect whether your fall onto it or run into it. Also, the harder the surface the more it hurts, and I'd say that there's nothing harder than a wall of force. Therefore, I'd rule the damage as follows: under 10 mph: no damage 10-20 mph: 1d6 subdual 20-30 mph: 1d6 damage +1d6 for every 10 mph
Iver Gearsham 06-09-05, 02:40 AM	Excelent ideas good suporting material any other thoughts?
StormKnight 06-09-05, 05:08 PM	but I was under the impression that hitting a hard surface at a certain speed has the same effect whether your fall onto it or run into it. How much the two objects give from each other will also matter. Running into something will probably be less painful than falling on it because some of the energy imparted to you will be reduced by being knocked backward. Being on a horse definetly would increase the speed and damage though! Let's see, going by straight physics, comparing to falling... 30 mph is about 150000 feet per hour = around 42 feet per second. Acceleration due to gravity is approximately 10 m per second, or around 30' per second. So if you fall for one second, you've gone about 15 feet. In one and a half seconds, you are going at roughtly 45 feet per second and have now fallen a distance of something like 37 feet. So, hitting something while moving at 30 mph is roughly like falling 37 feet - so 3d6 or 4d6 damage by that logic. (My physics and math may be ENTIRELY wrong, but there you go) Probably less since its a different type of collision. The horse might also take more damage than the rider. Finally, unconnected to damage, any chance that the horse might notice the wall of force even if the rider didn't it? Animals sometimes have sense for things that humans miss!
was_fired 06-10-05, 05:42 AM	If you want to base it off of fall damage (which is a good idea btw) you find the damage using the following formula: Distance in Feet Equals = (speed / 6)^2 / 64. The first d6 is nonlethal. A horse moving at 50ft inflicts the same damage as a 1ft fall (the acceleration of gravity is 32ft/s/s meaning you reach the speed of 8.3ft per second in under .26 seconds). If the horse was running at 250ft then you would take the same damage as a 27ft fall. Remember terminal velocity is reached at 200ft in D&D which means that 20d6 damage will only show up once your at a 680ft speed. The damage incements end up looking as follows (number is the number of d6): 1: 150ft, 17mph 2: 215ft, 24mph 3: 260ft, 30mph 4: 300ft, 34mph 5: 340ft, 38mph 6: 370ft, 42mph 8: 400ft, 49mph 9: 430ft, 52mph 10: 480ft, 55mph While this system scales nicely I do believe that it starts out too low, but I suppose this is really just a problem of the falling damage mechanics in D&D. [edit] All of this being said if you use this system do not cap damage at 20d6. This exisits in the falling mechanics due to terminal velocity. Achiving a speed higher than 680ft means that you have exceeded terminal velocity and as such should take more damage. So a collision at 1,000ft (114mph) should deal 42d6 lethal damage and 1d6 nonlethal damage.
Fargren 06-10-05, 06:08 PM	What about if you start runing while blind and hit a concrete wall?