Falling off a cliff
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:07 pm
DISCLAIMER: This is a spin off of something I found interesting in a thread that got locked before I ever posted. What it is not is an attempt to revive that thread or the axes ground within it.
Okay so let's say a 10th level fighter with 47 falls off a cliff alongside his loyal level 2 henchman with 12 hp. Both take 10D6 damage and roll 40 and 32 respectively. The henchman is dead while the fighter is not.
The usual way to describe this is the guy bouncing off the the rocks, dusting himself down and getting back to business. But what if you simply followed the combat logic: a high level character taking hp damage might be dodging, parrying, getting tired, using up a bit of luck etc...
So would it be fair to say the fighter doesn't hit the bottom? But manages to grab onto a cliffside shrub and is now hanging off the cliff, or maybe simply lost his footing in the fight and is now teetering dangerously off the edge BUT HAS NOT ACTUALLY FALLEN AT ALL. Both these explanations seem less jarring to suspension of disbelief than the first and haven't actually change the rules (being pushed off a cliff for 10D6 damage still does 10D6 damage).
Since there is actually a change to the gameplay (where the fighter ends up after taking the falling damage) I might want to roll for an explanation. Say 1D4 (for no particular reason)
1 - the fighter lost his footing and is teetering on the edge
2 - the fighter fell off the cliff and grabbed a scrub: alive but he'll have to find a way up and might even fall again.
3 - the fighter landed on his henchman who broke his fall
4 - the fighter tumbled partway down the cliff onto an outlying ledge where he is now stranded (as per 2)
Does that seem like a fair way of handling it in the spirit of the original rules?
Okay so let's say a 10th level fighter with 47 falls off a cliff alongside his loyal level 2 henchman with 12 hp. Both take 10D6 damage and roll 40 and 32 respectively. The henchman is dead while the fighter is not.
The usual way to describe this is the guy bouncing off the the rocks, dusting himself down and getting back to business. But what if you simply followed the combat logic: a high level character taking hp damage might be dodging, parrying, getting tired, using up a bit of luck etc...
So would it be fair to say the fighter doesn't hit the bottom? But manages to grab onto a cliffside shrub and is now hanging off the cliff, or maybe simply lost his footing in the fight and is now teetering dangerously off the edge BUT HAS NOT ACTUALLY FALLEN AT ALL. Both these explanations seem less jarring to suspension of disbelief than the first and haven't actually change the rules (being pushed off a cliff for 10D6 damage still does 10D6 damage).
Since there is actually a change to the gameplay (where the fighter ends up after taking the falling damage) I might want to roll for an explanation. Say 1D4 (for no particular reason)
1 - the fighter lost his footing and is teetering on the edge
2 - the fighter fell off the cliff and grabbed a scrub: alive but he'll have to find a way up and might even fall again.
3 - the fighter landed on his henchman who broke his fall
4 - the fighter tumbled partway down the cliff onto an outlying ledge where he is now stranded (as per 2)
Does that seem like a fair way of handling it in the spirit of the original rules?