What would be the game balance implications for using the Gygax method for applying falling damage?What are the implications of using AC rolls for defense?How would using Thunderwave to stop falling damage work?What would be the balance implications for switching 5E ranger spellcasting and Ranger's CompanionWhat is falling damage into water?Does the rule on falling damage (1d6 damage for every 10 feet fallen) only apply to Small and larger creatures?Is damage taken when falling off a mount?Can an artificer stay invisible when using Alchemical Fire/Acid?Do bullywugs take 1d6 damage and fall prone every time they high jump?What are the balance implications of using passive Arcana to identify spells for counterspell?Do you take falling damage if falling from 20 feet or less while grappled by someone affected by the Cat's Grace option of the Enhance Ability spell?

Could IPv6 make NAT / port numbers redundant?

What is the intuition behind uniform continuity?

Is there a rule that prohibits us from using 2 possessives in a row?

Smart people send dumb people to a new planet on a space craft that crashes into a body of water

Why do Russians call their women expensive ("дорогая")?

Differences between “pas vrai ?”, “c’est ça ?”, “hein ?”, and “n’est-ce pas ?”

Difference between antennas for wifi vs ham repeaters

Is floating in space similar to falling under gravity?

What was this black-and-white film set in the Arctic or Antarctic where the monster/alien gets fried in the end?

If a massive object like Jupiter flew past the Earth how close would it need to come to pull people off of the surface?

Can non-English-speaking characters use wordplay specific to English?

Why would Lupin kill Pettigrew?

Why is there a need to modify system call tables in linux?

What does it mean when you think without speaking?

Did airlines fly their aircraft slower in response to oil prices in the 1970s?

Possible nonclassical ion from a bicyclic system

Is this light switch installation safe and legal?

Select row of data if next row contains zero

Thousands and thousands of words

My player wants to cast multiple charges of magic missile from a wand

What is the difference between nullifying your vote and not going to vote at all?

What does "Marchentalender" on the front of a postcard mean?

Is there an evolutionary advantage to having two heads?

Why the lack of hesitance to wear pads on the sabbath?



What would be the game balance implications for using the Gygax method for applying falling damage?


What are the implications of using AC rolls for defense?How would using Thunderwave to stop falling damage work?What would be the balance implications for switching 5E ranger spellcasting and Ranger's CompanionWhat is falling damage into water?Does the rule on falling damage (1d6 damage for every 10 feet fallen) only apply to Small and larger creatures?Is damage taken when falling off a mount?Can an artificer stay invisible when using Alchemical Fire/Acid?Do bullywugs take 1d6 damage and fall prone every time they high jump?What are the balance implications of using passive Arcana to identify spells for counterspell?Do you take falling damage if falling from 20 feet or less while grappled by someone affected by the Cat's Grace option of the Enhance Ability spell?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








28












$begingroup$


According to the rules, at the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6.



However, way back in Dragon Magazine #69, D&D co-creator Gary Gygax explained that the original intention was to apply 1d6 damage per ten feet fallen, cumulative. So, a creature would take the following damage according to the distance fallen:



  • 10 ft: 1d6

  • 20 ft: 3d6

  • 30 ft: 6d6

  • 40 ft: 10d6

  • 50 ft: 15d6

  • 60 ft+: 20d6 (max)

If this method of applying falling damage were used in 5e, what (if any) would be the game balance implications? Would it make certain low-level spells overly powerful, for instance?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$


















    28












    $begingroup$


    According to the rules, at the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6.



    However, way back in Dragon Magazine #69, D&D co-creator Gary Gygax explained that the original intention was to apply 1d6 damage per ten feet fallen, cumulative. So, a creature would take the following damage according to the distance fallen:



    • 10 ft: 1d6

    • 20 ft: 3d6

    • 30 ft: 6d6

    • 40 ft: 10d6

    • 50 ft: 15d6

    • 60 ft+: 20d6 (max)

    If this method of applying falling damage were used in 5e, what (if any) would be the game balance implications? Would it make certain low-level spells overly powerful, for instance?










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      28












      28








      28


      1



      $begingroup$


      According to the rules, at the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6.



      However, way back in Dragon Magazine #69, D&D co-creator Gary Gygax explained that the original intention was to apply 1d6 damage per ten feet fallen, cumulative. So, a creature would take the following damage according to the distance fallen:



      • 10 ft: 1d6

      • 20 ft: 3d6

      • 30 ft: 6d6

      • 40 ft: 10d6

      • 50 ft: 15d6

      • 60 ft+: 20d6 (max)

      If this method of applying falling damage were used in 5e, what (if any) would be the game balance implications? Would it make certain low-level spells overly powerful, for instance?










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      According to the rules, at the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6.



      However, way back in Dragon Magazine #69, D&D co-creator Gary Gygax explained that the original intention was to apply 1d6 damage per ten feet fallen, cumulative. So, a creature would take the following damage according to the distance fallen:



      • 10 ft: 1d6

      • 20 ft: 3d6

      • 30 ft: 6d6

      • 40 ft: 10d6

      • 50 ft: 15d6

      • 60 ft+: 20d6 (max)

      If this method of applying falling damage were used in 5e, what (if any) would be the game balance implications? Would it make certain low-level spells overly powerful, for instance?







      dnd-5e damage house-rules falling






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited May 16 at 11:11









      Akixkisu

      2,765639




      2,765639










      asked May 16 at 4:46









      WarFlailWarFlail

      409210




      409210




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          33












          $begingroup$

          There are a few implications but most of them are just aggravating already existing factors.



          1. Positioning will become even more relevant.



          Positioning is already relevant but when a fall causes even more damage some risky places become deadly places. The fall from the top of a 40ft. rampart that caused 4d6 now causes 10d6 damage, what could hurt your character after a shove now can kill him. Every edge from a high place becomes even more important to not get close to it or more rewarding to use offensively.



          2. Feather Fall just became more necessary.



          Feather Fall already is one of those spells that you always want to have because you never know. A 6th level wizard that was just worried to be throw down 60ft after flying now should be terrified of the idea; he might survive 6d6 but hardly would upon receiving 20d6 damage.



          3. People that can avoid falling damage got comparatively more mobility.



          You're chasing a 4th level bard and he jumps of a 50ft building, cast Feather Fall and safely reaches the ground. A Fighter or Barbarian might be able shrug 5d6 and keep the chase but even a monk with Slow Fall would think twice in jumping down when the damage is 15d6, ignoring 20 damage, the average of 15d6 still would result in 32,5 damage. The same monk could jump into an existing ledge 10ft under and then to the ground and probably get off with 15 damage, but his companions can't easily follow unless they slowly climb down or have the similar resources.



          4. Athletics and Acrobatics became even better skills.



          They still aren't Perception, but one of them reduce falling damage and the other helps you to climb up or down and not fall. When falling damage just got lethal, not receiving it becomes more important them before, raising the value of those skills.



          5. Spells that can throw you instead of direct damage got a lot more lethal.



          Telekinesis, Reverse Gravity and Bigby's Hand can kill a lot more effectively to the point of being almost broken since they can continuously cause 20d6 with a single spell. Beware of those.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I'd also add the increased strength of any ability that knocks someone prone since non hovering flyers will fall as a result
            $endgroup$
            – OganM
            May 16 at 22:35


















          9












          $begingroup$

          The only spells that would have a bad interaction with this are spells that forcibly move an unwilling target and are not restricted to toward/away from the caster, and thus can move targets upwards.



          The only spells that come to mind here are Bigby's Hand and Telekinesis.



          Bigby's Hand could drop a grappled target from 60ft up, then move down and re-grapple to cause 20d6 (70) damage every other round. Consider that its normal expected damage is 18 per round, and this tactic would approximately double its effectiveness.



          Telekinesis has a similar issue, moving a targeted creature 30ft upwards each round and dropping them every second round for a similar 20d6 per two rounds.



          The biggest issue here is really that both of those spells are very reliable, as they target Athletics/Acrobatics and Strength instead of AC or Saving throws.



          Otherwise, you'll also have to be wary of some grappling character builds - dragging a creature up the side of a building could easily become more damaging than simple attacks at a relatively low level.



          For example a level 3 Thief Rogue could attack someone for ~14.5 each round with Sneak Attack.

          Or they could grapple and drag them 30ft per round up a building/cliff/etc, dealing approximately 20d6 damage every third round (plus another attack in the middle round), again nearly doubling the expected damage output.




          All in all, the two spells mentioned are the most problematic parts as they can be tacked on to many spellcasters, and don't require an unorthodox character build that specifically takes advantage of this houserule.



          But consider also that in a world where a 60ft fall is lethal to most spellcasters under level 12, every spellcaster capable of knowing Feather Fall will know Feather Fall, and mitigate the increased danger that way.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            You might mention that 60 ft fall (around 18 metres) is not terribly fun in real life, either, so similar levels of precautions might be expected. The spellcasters who have a reason to fear heights would presumably be more prepared than those who do not encounter such risks in most of their life.
            $endgroup$
            – Thanuir
            May 16 at 5:58






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            I'd say Reverse Gravity might be affected by this as well.
            $endgroup$
            – linksassin
            May 16 at 6:09






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            Any spell that can bring down a flying creature is affected too. For that matter, any method of forced movement is at least slightly affected.
            $endgroup$
            – Miniman
            May 16 at 6:15






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            The fact your rogue can carry another (struggling) person 30 feet up a wall in 6 s sounds like the movement and/or grappling rules are broken, not the falling damage rules. At the very least, climbing that fast should require having both hands free. Are they allowed to make that climb while wielding a 2-handed weapon? Or while encumbered with gear equal to their own weight?
            $endgroup$
            – The Photon
            May 16 at 16:09



















          4












          $begingroup$

          The increased danger of falling will have worldbuilding implications. Formerly mundane heights become deadly encounters.



          Instant Death (PHB 197):




          Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0
          hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining
          damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.




          When falling from 40 ft even at full hit points, most low-level characters (pc, from my experience, and npc; DMG 274 for avg hit points for CR X monsters) will outright die. The damage from iconic spells such as fireball pales in comparison to the danger of heights.



          Climbing on a tree in the forest may become a deadly encounter. As a DM you will have to be knowledgeable about how tall houses, walls, structures and how high the cliffs of the famous narrow streets between ambush-cliffs are, the mundane life now presents deadly encounters everywhere. Pit traps (DMG 122-123) become deadly. Falling already is a common hazard (PHB 183), any terrain with heights will be more dangerous and treacherous, the odds of someone walking through weather that obscures vision when there is the danger of falls drastically diminishes. A bridge crossing a river at 40 ft is now treated like a bridge that would cross a canyon at 100 ft.



          4 hit points Commoners (MM 345) who fall from 20 ft (roughly the roof of a two floor building) and take 3d6 have a 98.5% chance to drop to 0 hit points, if you decide to follow the basic rules recommendations (BR 76) and don't make a death saving throw for most monsters and NPCs this would mean death.



          While heights always pose a risk, the cumulative damage now amplifies common dangers to potentially deadly encounters that could easily lead to instant death for low-level characters. You would have to adjust your world-building. The implications are broad, terrains like hills, cliffs, ridges, mountains and tall structures will be more dangerous by default.



          Creatures will adjust to a world in which 20 ft falls mean almost certain death for the majority of humans. Expect strategies, ambushes and security measures around heights to be commonplace.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            You could double the hit points of Commoners to feel more realistic.
            $endgroup$
            – Cœur
            May 17 at 14:35










          • $begingroup$
            @Cœur or you could refrain from house rules intended for Dungeons and Dragons Advanced from January 1983.
            $endgroup$
            – Akixkisu
            May 17 at 15:27











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "122"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f148129%2fwhat-would-be-the-game-balance-implications-for-using-the-gygax-method-for-apply%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes








          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          33












          $begingroup$

          There are a few implications but most of them are just aggravating already existing factors.



          1. Positioning will become even more relevant.



          Positioning is already relevant but when a fall causes even more damage some risky places become deadly places. The fall from the top of a 40ft. rampart that caused 4d6 now causes 10d6 damage, what could hurt your character after a shove now can kill him. Every edge from a high place becomes even more important to not get close to it or more rewarding to use offensively.



          2. Feather Fall just became more necessary.



          Feather Fall already is one of those spells that you always want to have because you never know. A 6th level wizard that was just worried to be throw down 60ft after flying now should be terrified of the idea; he might survive 6d6 but hardly would upon receiving 20d6 damage.



          3. People that can avoid falling damage got comparatively more mobility.



          You're chasing a 4th level bard and he jumps of a 50ft building, cast Feather Fall and safely reaches the ground. A Fighter or Barbarian might be able shrug 5d6 and keep the chase but even a monk with Slow Fall would think twice in jumping down when the damage is 15d6, ignoring 20 damage, the average of 15d6 still would result in 32,5 damage. The same monk could jump into an existing ledge 10ft under and then to the ground and probably get off with 15 damage, but his companions can't easily follow unless they slowly climb down or have the similar resources.



          4. Athletics and Acrobatics became even better skills.



          They still aren't Perception, but one of them reduce falling damage and the other helps you to climb up or down and not fall. When falling damage just got lethal, not receiving it becomes more important them before, raising the value of those skills.



          5. Spells that can throw you instead of direct damage got a lot more lethal.



          Telekinesis, Reverse Gravity and Bigby's Hand can kill a lot more effectively to the point of being almost broken since they can continuously cause 20d6 with a single spell. Beware of those.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I'd also add the increased strength of any ability that knocks someone prone since non hovering flyers will fall as a result
            $endgroup$
            – OganM
            May 16 at 22:35















          33












          $begingroup$

          There are a few implications but most of them are just aggravating already existing factors.



          1. Positioning will become even more relevant.



          Positioning is already relevant but when a fall causes even more damage some risky places become deadly places. The fall from the top of a 40ft. rampart that caused 4d6 now causes 10d6 damage, what could hurt your character after a shove now can kill him. Every edge from a high place becomes even more important to not get close to it or more rewarding to use offensively.



          2. Feather Fall just became more necessary.



          Feather Fall already is one of those spells that you always want to have because you never know. A 6th level wizard that was just worried to be throw down 60ft after flying now should be terrified of the idea; he might survive 6d6 but hardly would upon receiving 20d6 damage.



          3. People that can avoid falling damage got comparatively more mobility.



          You're chasing a 4th level bard and he jumps of a 50ft building, cast Feather Fall and safely reaches the ground. A Fighter or Barbarian might be able shrug 5d6 and keep the chase but even a monk with Slow Fall would think twice in jumping down when the damage is 15d6, ignoring 20 damage, the average of 15d6 still would result in 32,5 damage. The same monk could jump into an existing ledge 10ft under and then to the ground and probably get off with 15 damage, but his companions can't easily follow unless they slowly climb down or have the similar resources.



          4. Athletics and Acrobatics became even better skills.



          They still aren't Perception, but one of them reduce falling damage and the other helps you to climb up or down and not fall. When falling damage just got lethal, not receiving it becomes more important them before, raising the value of those skills.



          5. Spells that can throw you instead of direct damage got a lot more lethal.



          Telekinesis, Reverse Gravity and Bigby's Hand can kill a lot more effectively to the point of being almost broken since they can continuously cause 20d6 with a single spell. Beware of those.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I'd also add the increased strength of any ability that knocks someone prone since non hovering flyers will fall as a result
            $endgroup$
            – OganM
            May 16 at 22:35













          33












          33








          33





          $begingroup$

          There are a few implications but most of them are just aggravating already existing factors.



          1. Positioning will become even more relevant.



          Positioning is already relevant but when a fall causes even more damage some risky places become deadly places. The fall from the top of a 40ft. rampart that caused 4d6 now causes 10d6 damage, what could hurt your character after a shove now can kill him. Every edge from a high place becomes even more important to not get close to it or more rewarding to use offensively.



          2. Feather Fall just became more necessary.



          Feather Fall already is one of those spells that you always want to have because you never know. A 6th level wizard that was just worried to be throw down 60ft after flying now should be terrified of the idea; he might survive 6d6 but hardly would upon receiving 20d6 damage.



          3. People that can avoid falling damage got comparatively more mobility.



          You're chasing a 4th level bard and he jumps of a 50ft building, cast Feather Fall and safely reaches the ground. A Fighter or Barbarian might be able shrug 5d6 and keep the chase but even a monk with Slow Fall would think twice in jumping down when the damage is 15d6, ignoring 20 damage, the average of 15d6 still would result in 32,5 damage. The same monk could jump into an existing ledge 10ft under and then to the ground and probably get off with 15 damage, but his companions can't easily follow unless they slowly climb down or have the similar resources.



          4. Athletics and Acrobatics became even better skills.



          They still aren't Perception, but one of them reduce falling damage and the other helps you to climb up or down and not fall. When falling damage just got lethal, not receiving it becomes more important them before, raising the value of those skills.



          5. Spells that can throw you instead of direct damage got a lot more lethal.



          Telekinesis, Reverse Gravity and Bigby's Hand can kill a lot more effectively to the point of being almost broken since they can continuously cause 20d6 with a single spell. Beware of those.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          There are a few implications but most of them are just aggravating already existing factors.



          1. Positioning will become even more relevant.



          Positioning is already relevant but when a fall causes even more damage some risky places become deadly places. The fall from the top of a 40ft. rampart that caused 4d6 now causes 10d6 damage, what could hurt your character after a shove now can kill him. Every edge from a high place becomes even more important to not get close to it or more rewarding to use offensively.



          2. Feather Fall just became more necessary.



          Feather Fall already is one of those spells that you always want to have because you never know. A 6th level wizard that was just worried to be throw down 60ft after flying now should be terrified of the idea; he might survive 6d6 but hardly would upon receiving 20d6 damage.



          3. People that can avoid falling damage got comparatively more mobility.



          You're chasing a 4th level bard and he jumps of a 50ft building, cast Feather Fall and safely reaches the ground. A Fighter or Barbarian might be able shrug 5d6 and keep the chase but even a monk with Slow Fall would think twice in jumping down when the damage is 15d6, ignoring 20 damage, the average of 15d6 still would result in 32,5 damage. The same monk could jump into an existing ledge 10ft under and then to the ground and probably get off with 15 damage, but his companions can't easily follow unless they slowly climb down or have the similar resources.



          4. Athletics and Acrobatics became even better skills.



          They still aren't Perception, but one of them reduce falling damage and the other helps you to climb up or down and not fall. When falling damage just got lethal, not receiving it becomes more important them before, raising the value of those skills.



          5. Spells that can throw you instead of direct damage got a lot more lethal.



          Telekinesis, Reverse Gravity and Bigby's Hand can kill a lot more effectively to the point of being almost broken since they can continuously cause 20d6 with a single spell. Beware of those.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited May 16 at 6:35

























          answered May 16 at 6:29









          Aguinaldo SilvestreAguinaldo Silvestre

          6,3621954




          6,3621954







          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I'd also add the increased strength of any ability that knocks someone prone since non hovering flyers will fall as a result
            $endgroup$
            – OganM
            May 16 at 22:35












          • 2




            $begingroup$
            I'd also add the increased strength of any ability that knocks someone prone since non hovering flyers will fall as a result
            $endgroup$
            – OganM
            May 16 at 22:35







          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          I'd also add the increased strength of any ability that knocks someone prone since non hovering flyers will fall as a result
          $endgroup$
          – OganM
          May 16 at 22:35




          $begingroup$
          I'd also add the increased strength of any ability that knocks someone prone since non hovering flyers will fall as a result
          $endgroup$
          – OganM
          May 16 at 22:35













          9












          $begingroup$

          The only spells that would have a bad interaction with this are spells that forcibly move an unwilling target and are not restricted to toward/away from the caster, and thus can move targets upwards.



          The only spells that come to mind here are Bigby's Hand and Telekinesis.



          Bigby's Hand could drop a grappled target from 60ft up, then move down and re-grapple to cause 20d6 (70) damage every other round. Consider that its normal expected damage is 18 per round, and this tactic would approximately double its effectiveness.



          Telekinesis has a similar issue, moving a targeted creature 30ft upwards each round and dropping them every second round for a similar 20d6 per two rounds.



          The biggest issue here is really that both of those spells are very reliable, as they target Athletics/Acrobatics and Strength instead of AC or Saving throws.



          Otherwise, you'll also have to be wary of some grappling character builds - dragging a creature up the side of a building could easily become more damaging than simple attacks at a relatively low level.



          For example a level 3 Thief Rogue could attack someone for ~14.5 each round with Sneak Attack.

          Or they could grapple and drag them 30ft per round up a building/cliff/etc, dealing approximately 20d6 damage every third round (plus another attack in the middle round), again nearly doubling the expected damage output.




          All in all, the two spells mentioned are the most problematic parts as they can be tacked on to many spellcasters, and don't require an unorthodox character build that specifically takes advantage of this houserule.



          But consider also that in a world where a 60ft fall is lethal to most spellcasters under level 12, every spellcaster capable of knowing Feather Fall will know Feather Fall, and mitigate the increased danger that way.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            You might mention that 60 ft fall (around 18 metres) is not terribly fun in real life, either, so similar levels of precautions might be expected. The spellcasters who have a reason to fear heights would presumably be more prepared than those who do not encounter such risks in most of their life.
            $endgroup$
            – Thanuir
            May 16 at 5:58






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            I'd say Reverse Gravity might be affected by this as well.
            $endgroup$
            – linksassin
            May 16 at 6:09






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            Any spell that can bring down a flying creature is affected too. For that matter, any method of forced movement is at least slightly affected.
            $endgroup$
            – Miniman
            May 16 at 6:15






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            The fact your rogue can carry another (struggling) person 30 feet up a wall in 6 s sounds like the movement and/or grappling rules are broken, not the falling damage rules. At the very least, climbing that fast should require having both hands free. Are they allowed to make that climb while wielding a 2-handed weapon? Or while encumbered with gear equal to their own weight?
            $endgroup$
            – The Photon
            May 16 at 16:09
















          9












          $begingroup$

          The only spells that would have a bad interaction with this are spells that forcibly move an unwilling target and are not restricted to toward/away from the caster, and thus can move targets upwards.



          The only spells that come to mind here are Bigby's Hand and Telekinesis.



          Bigby's Hand could drop a grappled target from 60ft up, then move down and re-grapple to cause 20d6 (70) damage every other round. Consider that its normal expected damage is 18 per round, and this tactic would approximately double its effectiveness.



          Telekinesis has a similar issue, moving a targeted creature 30ft upwards each round and dropping them every second round for a similar 20d6 per two rounds.



          The biggest issue here is really that both of those spells are very reliable, as they target Athletics/Acrobatics and Strength instead of AC or Saving throws.



          Otherwise, you'll also have to be wary of some grappling character builds - dragging a creature up the side of a building could easily become more damaging than simple attacks at a relatively low level.



          For example a level 3 Thief Rogue could attack someone for ~14.5 each round with Sneak Attack.

          Or they could grapple and drag them 30ft per round up a building/cliff/etc, dealing approximately 20d6 damage every third round (plus another attack in the middle round), again nearly doubling the expected damage output.




          All in all, the two spells mentioned are the most problematic parts as they can be tacked on to many spellcasters, and don't require an unorthodox character build that specifically takes advantage of this houserule.



          But consider also that in a world where a 60ft fall is lethal to most spellcasters under level 12, every spellcaster capable of knowing Feather Fall will know Feather Fall, and mitigate the increased danger that way.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            You might mention that 60 ft fall (around 18 metres) is not terribly fun in real life, either, so similar levels of precautions might be expected. The spellcasters who have a reason to fear heights would presumably be more prepared than those who do not encounter such risks in most of their life.
            $endgroup$
            – Thanuir
            May 16 at 5:58






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            I'd say Reverse Gravity might be affected by this as well.
            $endgroup$
            – linksassin
            May 16 at 6:09






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            Any spell that can bring down a flying creature is affected too. For that matter, any method of forced movement is at least slightly affected.
            $endgroup$
            – Miniman
            May 16 at 6:15






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            The fact your rogue can carry another (struggling) person 30 feet up a wall in 6 s sounds like the movement and/or grappling rules are broken, not the falling damage rules. At the very least, climbing that fast should require having both hands free. Are they allowed to make that climb while wielding a 2-handed weapon? Or while encumbered with gear equal to their own weight?
            $endgroup$
            – The Photon
            May 16 at 16:09














          9












          9








          9





          $begingroup$

          The only spells that would have a bad interaction with this are spells that forcibly move an unwilling target and are not restricted to toward/away from the caster, and thus can move targets upwards.



          The only spells that come to mind here are Bigby's Hand and Telekinesis.



          Bigby's Hand could drop a grappled target from 60ft up, then move down and re-grapple to cause 20d6 (70) damage every other round. Consider that its normal expected damage is 18 per round, and this tactic would approximately double its effectiveness.



          Telekinesis has a similar issue, moving a targeted creature 30ft upwards each round and dropping them every second round for a similar 20d6 per two rounds.



          The biggest issue here is really that both of those spells are very reliable, as they target Athletics/Acrobatics and Strength instead of AC or Saving throws.



          Otherwise, you'll also have to be wary of some grappling character builds - dragging a creature up the side of a building could easily become more damaging than simple attacks at a relatively low level.



          For example a level 3 Thief Rogue could attack someone for ~14.5 each round with Sneak Attack.

          Or they could grapple and drag them 30ft per round up a building/cliff/etc, dealing approximately 20d6 damage every third round (plus another attack in the middle round), again nearly doubling the expected damage output.




          All in all, the two spells mentioned are the most problematic parts as they can be tacked on to many spellcasters, and don't require an unorthodox character build that specifically takes advantage of this houserule.



          But consider also that in a world where a 60ft fall is lethal to most spellcasters under level 12, every spellcaster capable of knowing Feather Fall will know Feather Fall, and mitigate the increased danger that way.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The only spells that would have a bad interaction with this are spells that forcibly move an unwilling target and are not restricted to toward/away from the caster, and thus can move targets upwards.



          The only spells that come to mind here are Bigby's Hand and Telekinesis.



          Bigby's Hand could drop a grappled target from 60ft up, then move down and re-grapple to cause 20d6 (70) damage every other round. Consider that its normal expected damage is 18 per round, and this tactic would approximately double its effectiveness.



          Telekinesis has a similar issue, moving a targeted creature 30ft upwards each round and dropping them every second round for a similar 20d6 per two rounds.



          The biggest issue here is really that both of those spells are very reliable, as they target Athletics/Acrobatics and Strength instead of AC or Saving throws.



          Otherwise, you'll also have to be wary of some grappling character builds - dragging a creature up the side of a building could easily become more damaging than simple attacks at a relatively low level.



          For example a level 3 Thief Rogue could attack someone for ~14.5 each round with Sneak Attack.

          Or they could grapple and drag them 30ft per round up a building/cliff/etc, dealing approximately 20d6 damage every third round (plus another attack in the middle round), again nearly doubling the expected damage output.




          All in all, the two spells mentioned are the most problematic parts as they can be tacked on to many spellcasters, and don't require an unorthodox character build that specifically takes advantage of this houserule.



          But consider also that in a world where a 60ft fall is lethal to most spellcasters under level 12, every spellcaster capable of knowing Feather Fall will know Feather Fall, and mitigate the increased danger that way.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered May 16 at 5:46









          SpeedkatSpeedkat

          4,435735




          4,435735







          • 4




            $begingroup$
            You might mention that 60 ft fall (around 18 metres) is not terribly fun in real life, either, so similar levels of precautions might be expected. The spellcasters who have a reason to fear heights would presumably be more prepared than those who do not encounter such risks in most of their life.
            $endgroup$
            – Thanuir
            May 16 at 5:58






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            I'd say Reverse Gravity might be affected by this as well.
            $endgroup$
            – linksassin
            May 16 at 6:09






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            Any spell that can bring down a flying creature is affected too. For that matter, any method of forced movement is at least slightly affected.
            $endgroup$
            – Miniman
            May 16 at 6:15






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            The fact your rogue can carry another (struggling) person 30 feet up a wall in 6 s sounds like the movement and/or grappling rules are broken, not the falling damage rules. At the very least, climbing that fast should require having both hands free. Are they allowed to make that climb while wielding a 2-handed weapon? Or while encumbered with gear equal to their own weight?
            $endgroup$
            – The Photon
            May 16 at 16:09













          • 4




            $begingroup$
            You might mention that 60 ft fall (around 18 metres) is not terribly fun in real life, either, so similar levels of precautions might be expected. The spellcasters who have a reason to fear heights would presumably be more prepared than those who do not encounter such risks in most of their life.
            $endgroup$
            – Thanuir
            May 16 at 5:58






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            I'd say Reverse Gravity might be affected by this as well.
            $endgroup$
            – linksassin
            May 16 at 6:09






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            Any spell that can bring down a flying creature is affected too. For that matter, any method of forced movement is at least slightly affected.
            $endgroup$
            – Miniman
            May 16 at 6:15






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            The fact your rogue can carry another (struggling) person 30 feet up a wall in 6 s sounds like the movement and/or grappling rules are broken, not the falling damage rules. At the very least, climbing that fast should require having both hands free. Are they allowed to make that climb while wielding a 2-handed weapon? Or while encumbered with gear equal to their own weight?
            $endgroup$
            – The Photon
            May 16 at 16:09








          4




          4




          $begingroup$
          You might mention that 60 ft fall (around 18 metres) is not terribly fun in real life, either, so similar levels of precautions might be expected. The spellcasters who have a reason to fear heights would presumably be more prepared than those who do not encounter such risks in most of their life.
          $endgroup$
          – Thanuir
          May 16 at 5:58




          $begingroup$
          You might mention that 60 ft fall (around 18 metres) is not terribly fun in real life, either, so similar levels of precautions might be expected. The spellcasters who have a reason to fear heights would presumably be more prepared than those who do not encounter such risks in most of their life.
          $endgroup$
          – Thanuir
          May 16 at 5:58




          3




          3




          $begingroup$
          I'd say Reverse Gravity might be affected by this as well.
          $endgroup$
          – linksassin
          May 16 at 6:09




          $begingroup$
          I'd say Reverse Gravity might be affected by this as well.
          $endgroup$
          – linksassin
          May 16 at 6:09




          3




          3




          $begingroup$
          Any spell that can bring down a flying creature is affected too. For that matter, any method of forced movement is at least slightly affected.
          $endgroup$
          – Miniman
          May 16 at 6:15




          $begingroup$
          Any spell that can bring down a flying creature is affected too. For that matter, any method of forced movement is at least slightly affected.
          $endgroup$
          – Miniman
          May 16 at 6:15




          3




          3




          $begingroup$
          The fact your rogue can carry another (struggling) person 30 feet up a wall in 6 s sounds like the movement and/or grappling rules are broken, not the falling damage rules. At the very least, climbing that fast should require having both hands free. Are they allowed to make that climb while wielding a 2-handed weapon? Or while encumbered with gear equal to their own weight?
          $endgroup$
          – The Photon
          May 16 at 16:09





          $begingroup$
          The fact your rogue can carry another (struggling) person 30 feet up a wall in 6 s sounds like the movement and/or grappling rules are broken, not the falling damage rules. At the very least, climbing that fast should require having both hands free. Are they allowed to make that climb while wielding a 2-handed weapon? Or while encumbered with gear equal to their own weight?
          $endgroup$
          – The Photon
          May 16 at 16:09












          4












          $begingroup$

          The increased danger of falling will have worldbuilding implications. Formerly mundane heights become deadly encounters.



          Instant Death (PHB 197):




          Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0
          hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining
          damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.




          When falling from 40 ft even at full hit points, most low-level characters (pc, from my experience, and npc; DMG 274 for avg hit points for CR X monsters) will outright die. The damage from iconic spells such as fireball pales in comparison to the danger of heights.



          Climbing on a tree in the forest may become a deadly encounter. As a DM you will have to be knowledgeable about how tall houses, walls, structures and how high the cliffs of the famous narrow streets between ambush-cliffs are, the mundane life now presents deadly encounters everywhere. Pit traps (DMG 122-123) become deadly. Falling already is a common hazard (PHB 183), any terrain with heights will be more dangerous and treacherous, the odds of someone walking through weather that obscures vision when there is the danger of falls drastically diminishes. A bridge crossing a river at 40 ft is now treated like a bridge that would cross a canyon at 100 ft.



          4 hit points Commoners (MM 345) who fall from 20 ft (roughly the roof of a two floor building) and take 3d6 have a 98.5% chance to drop to 0 hit points, if you decide to follow the basic rules recommendations (BR 76) and don't make a death saving throw for most monsters and NPCs this would mean death.



          While heights always pose a risk, the cumulative damage now amplifies common dangers to potentially deadly encounters that could easily lead to instant death for low-level characters. You would have to adjust your world-building. The implications are broad, terrains like hills, cliffs, ridges, mountains and tall structures will be more dangerous by default.



          Creatures will adjust to a world in which 20 ft falls mean almost certain death for the majority of humans. Expect strategies, ambushes and security measures around heights to be commonplace.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            You could double the hit points of Commoners to feel more realistic.
            $endgroup$
            – Cœur
            May 17 at 14:35










          • $begingroup$
            @Cœur or you could refrain from house rules intended for Dungeons and Dragons Advanced from January 1983.
            $endgroup$
            – Akixkisu
            May 17 at 15:27















          4












          $begingroup$

          The increased danger of falling will have worldbuilding implications. Formerly mundane heights become deadly encounters.



          Instant Death (PHB 197):




          Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0
          hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining
          damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.




          When falling from 40 ft even at full hit points, most low-level characters (pc, from my experience, and npc; DMG 274 for avg hit points for CR X monsters) will outright die. The damage from iconic spells such as fireball pales in comparison to the danger of heights.



          Climbing on a tree in the forest may become a deadly encounter. As a DM you will have to be knowledgeable about how tall houses, walls, structures and how high the cliffs of the famous narrow streets between ambush-cliffs are, the mundane life now presents deadly encounters everywhere. Pit traps (DMG 122-123) become deadly. Falling already is a common hazard (PHB 183), any terrain with heights will be more dangerous and treacherous, the odds of someone walking through weather that obscures vision when there is the danger of falls drastically diminishes. A bridge crossing a river at 40 ft is now treated like a bridge that would cross a canyon at 100 ft.



          4 hit points Commoners (MM 345) who fall from 20 ft (roughly the roof of a two floor building) and take 3d6 have a 98.5% chance to drop to 0 hit points, if you decide to follow the basic rules recommendations (BR 76) and don't make a death saving throw for most monsters and NPCs this would mean death.



          While heights always pose a risk, the cumulative damage now amplifies common dangers to potentially deadly encounters that could easily lead to instant death for low-level characters. You would have to adjust your world-building. The implications are broad, terrains like hills, cliffs, ridges, mountains and tall structures will be more dangerous by default.



          Creatures will adjust to a world in which 20 ft falls mean almost certain death for the majority of humans. Expect strategies, ambushes and security measures around heights to be commonplace.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            You could double the hit points of Commoners to feel more realistic.
            $endgroup$
            – Cœur
            May 17 at 14:35










          • $begingroup$
            @Cœur or you could refrain from house rules intended for Dungeons and Dragons Advanced from January 1983.
            $endgroup$
            – Akixkisu
            May 17 at 15:27













          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          The increased danger of falling will have worldbuilding implications. Formerly mundane heights become deadly encounters.



          Instant Death (PHB 197):




          Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0
          hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining
          damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.




          When falling from 40 ft even at full hit points, most low-level characters (pc, from my experience, and npc; DMG 274 for avg hit points for CR X monsters) will outright die. The damage from iconic spells such as fireball pales in comparison to the danger of heights.



          Climbing on a tree in the forest may become a deadly encounter. As a DM you will have to be knowledgeable about how tall houses, walls, structures and how high the cliffs of the famous narrow streets between ambush-cliffs are, the mundane life now presents deadly encounters everywhere. Pit traps (DMG 122-123) become deadly. Falling already is a common hazard (PHB 183), any terrain with heights will be more dangerous and treacherous, the odds of someone walking through weather that obscures vision when there is the danger of falls drastically diminishes. A bridge crossing a river at 40 ft is now treated like a bridge that would cross a canyon at 100 ft.



          4 hit points Commoners (MM 345) who fall from 20 ft (roughly the roof of a two floor building) and take 3d6 have a 98.5% chance to drop to 0 hit points, if you decide to follow the basic rules recommendations (BR 76) and don't make a death saving throw for most monsters and NPCs this would mean death.



          While heights always pose a risk, the cumulative damage now amplifies common dangers to potentially deadly encounters that could easily lead to instant death for low-level characters. You would have to adjust your world-building. The implications are broad, terrains like hills, cliffs, ridges, mountains and tall structures will be more dangerous by default.



          Creatures will adjust to a world in which 20 ft falls mean almost certain death for the majority of humans. Expect strategies, ambushes and security measures around heights to be commonplace.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          The increased danger of falling will have worldbuilding implications. Formerly mundane heights become deadly encounters.



          Instant Death (PHB 197):




          Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0
          hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining
          damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.




          When falling from 40 ft even at full hit points, most low-level characters (pc, from my experience, and npc; DMG 274 for avg hit points for CR X monsters) will outright die. The damage from iconic spells such as fireball pales in comparison to the danger of heights.



          Climbing on a tree in the forest may become a deadly encounter. As a DM you will have to be knowledgeable about how tall houses, walls, structures and how high the cliffs of the famous narrow streets between ambush-cliffs are, the mundane life now presents deadly encounters everywhere. Pit traps (DMG 122-123) become deadly. Falling already is a common hazard (PHB 183), any terrain with heights will be more dangerous and treacherous, the odds of someone walking through weather that obscures vision when there is the danger of falls drastically diminishes. A bridge crossing a river at 40 ft is now treated like a bridge that would cross a canyon at 100 ft.



          4 hit points Commoners (MM 345) who fall from 20 ft (roughly the roof of a two floor building) and take 3d6 have a 98.5% chance to drop to 0 hit points, if you decide to follow the basic rules recommendations (BR 76) and don't make a death saving throw for most monsters and NPCs this would mean death.



          While heights always pose a risk, the cumulative damage now amplifies common dangers to potentially deadly encounters that could easily lead to instant death for low-level characters. You would have to adjust your world-building. The implications are broad, terrains like hills, cliffs, ridges, mountains and tall structures will be more dangerous by default.



          Creatures will adjust to a world in which 20 ft falls mean almost certain death for the majority of humans. Expect strategies, ambushes and security measures around heights to be commonplace.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited May 16 at 11:20

























          answered May 16 at 10:47









          AkixkisuAkixkisu

          2,765639




          2,765639











          • $begingroup$
            You could double the hit points of Commoners to feel more realistic.
            $endgroup$
            – Cœur
            May 17 at 14:35










          • $begingroup$
            @Cœur or you could refrain from house rules intended for Dungeons and Dragons Advanced from January 1983.
            $endgroup$
            – Akixkisu
            May 17 at 15:27
















          • $begingroup$
            You could double the hit points of Commoners to feel more realistic.
            $endgroup$
            – Cœur
            May 17 at 14:35










          • $begingroup$
            @Cœur or you could refrain from house rules intended for Dungeons and Dragons Advanced from January 1983.
            $endgroup$
            – Akixkisu
            May 17 at 15:27















          $begingroup$
          You could double the hit points of Commoners to feel more realistic.
          $endgroup$
          – Cœur
          May 17 at 14:35




          $begingroup$
          You could double the hit points of Commoners to feel more realistic.
          $endgroup$
          – Cœur
          May 17 at 14:35












          $begingroup$
          @Cœur or you could refrain from house rules intended for Dungeons and Dragons Advanced from January 1983.
          $endgroup$
          – Akixkisu
          May 17 at 15:27




          $begingroup$
          @Cœur or you could refrain from house rules intended for Dungeons and Dragons Advanced from January 1983.
          $endgroup$
          – Akixkisu
          May 17 at 15:27

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f148129%2fwhat-would-be-the-game-balance-implications-for-using-the-gygax-method-for-apply%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

          Bruxelas-Capital Índice Historia | Composición | Situación lingüística | Clima | Cidades irmandadas | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióneO uso das linguas en Bruxelas e a situación do neerlandés"Rexión de Bruxelas Capital"o orixinalSitio da rexiónPáxina de Bruselas no sitio da Oficina de Promoción Turística de Valonia e BruxelasMapa Interactivo da Rexión de Bruxelas-CapitaleeWorldCat332144929079854441105155190212ID28008674080552-90000 0001 0666 3698n94104302ID540940339365017018237

          What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company