|In a matter of hours D&D Wiki be down for an extended period of time to perform necessary hardware upgrades.|
These hardware upgrades should address user's concerns including Talk:Main Page#Web Page Not Found Error and the database access times when saving, moving, and deleting pages. Please stand by.
From D&D Wiki
Under falling objects, the description says that a 200lb object must fall 10 feet to deal 1d6, but the chart says 20. --Tug 23:34, 13 August 2008 (MDT)
- I think that the table is actually "beginning height of object." The object then must fall ten feet before hitting a medium sized creature. This may be erratad somewhere. I'll poke around and see if there are any corrections. --Dmilewski 06:48, 14 August 2008 (MDT)
- They are 10 feet increments. But an object has to fall at least 10 feet to start to matter. The DMG has a nice example printed along with this that states: A magic flying ship tilts to one side and drops a 400 pound stone statue (a petrified comrade) overboard. The status deals 2d6 points of damage to anything it strikes by virtue of it's weight alone. If the ship were 100 feet in the air at the time, the falling statue would deal an additional 9d6 points of damage, for a total of 11d6.
- Note where it says if it falls 100 feet it would do 9d6 instead of 10d6, the first 10 feet don't count. --Beldex 19:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Fall Damage via Objects
Does anyone else have a problem with the fact a 200lbs stone could fall 40' and only cause 4 damage?
If, for some reason, a 200lbs stone fell 40', that would be 4d6. That means it can cause anywhere from 4 - 16 damage. Considering we are talking about 200lbs falling from 40', shouldn't that be far more lethal? And by "far more lethal" I do not mean increasing it to 1d8 per 10'. I mean something more like:
3d6 + Distance (Where 1' = +1 damage, so 40' is +40 damage, or 35' is +35 damage)
This means the minimum damage is 3 + 40, or 43 damage, while the maximum is 18 + 40, or 58 damage.
This seems to me to be a far more crippling system.
Likewise, should size modifiers be explored too?
A creature of Medium size, such as a Human, will be at far more risk of having a 200lbs crush them than, say, a brown bear. Larger size means thicker bones, larger muscles, possibly massive layers of fur or fat, so more protection.
If we calculate starting from Large, with Large having a Modifier of +0 with increments of, say, 10, we find that someone of a Medium size (Basically all players) are more prone to damage than something of Large size. This also means that huge creatures such as Dragons would barely even feel it, while smaller creatures would essentially be crushed to death.
Think throwing a brick at a mouse versus throwing a brick at a dog. It will injure the dog, sure. But it's killing the mouse.
Different sizes mean different tolerances, meaning different damage.
I feel the system should be entirely re-evaluated, but that's just a personal opinion. I'll do so for my campaigns so we and keep information I work with off the main page, but perhaps it can be phased in as an alternative to the current, instead of just up-and-changing the Wiki altogether.
- A 200' object falling 40' and causing 4-24 damage (not 4-16) is more than enough to kill or severely hurt a normal person (a 1 HD non-elite humanoid of average constitution has 4 hit points).
- Of course, heroes have more hit points. But hit points represent more than just absorbing physical damage. Marasmusine (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2013 (MDT)