DM Corner: Death from above!
Ubiquitous
been about six months since our last game).
The party is travelling along the bottom of a 100 foot ravine. At the
top are several trolls who ambush those who pass by jumping and falling
onto the victims.
Are there rules for "death from above" maneuvers like that?
--
The trouble with American journalism, in short, isn't that it's too skeptical,
but that it's too willing to throw skepticism to the wind when it suits the
agenda of proclaiming every war a Vietnam and every Republican president a
Nixon.
Alcore
> I have an idea for an encounter but am stuck on how to implement it [...]
>
> The party is travelling along the bottom of a 100 foot ravine. At the
> top are several trolls who ambush those who pass by jumping and falling
> onto the victims.
Ummm... Why are they surrendering their height advantage?
They should be throwing rocks. Rocks that gain energy from falling.
I would model this as the Trolls "picking up and dropping" rocks that
they would never be able to throw for a normal attack and applying
large damage dice, possibly including some adjustment for the height
fallen before they hit the PCs.
Now with that said: If the trolls choose to become their own missile,
I would apply the same falling damage to anything they hit that they
themselves would be subject to.
> Are there rules for "death from above" maneuvers like that?
Not that I've noticed... but note my suggestion: Apply the same
damage to what they land on that they would be subject to from the
fall.
Gene P. <alc...@uurth.com>
Slidell LA
Tetsubo
> I have an idea for an encounter but am stuck on how to implement it (it's
> been about six months since our last game).
>
> The party is travelling along the bottom of a 100 foot ravine. At the
> top are several trolls who ambush those who pass by jumping and falling
> onto the victims.
>
> Are there rules for "death from above" maneuvers like that?
>
My thoughts on this are, "Why are the trolls 'softening' themselves up
for the party?"
Also, why surrender the height advantage?
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
Daily Booth: http://dailybooth.com/Tetsubo
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
dr...@bin.sh
> The party is travelling along the bottom of a 100 foot ravine. At the
> top are several trolls who ambush those who pass by jumping and falling
> onto the victims.
stupid strategy, but potentially awesome.
> Are there rules for "death from above" maneuvers like that?
nothing official. in the past, i've used...
death from above
you hurl yourself down onto a foe, pointy end first.
+2 to hit, -1 per 10 feet fallen
take 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, max 20 dice
deal one weapon die of damage per 10 feet fallen, max 20 dice
e.g. making an attack from 100' with a dagger deals 10d4
points of damage, plus strength and any other modifiers.
making the same attack with a greataxe deals 10d12 damage.
steel thyself for flying barbarians hurtling recklessly from the sky
onto dragons.
--
._n_______n_. dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
| --------- |== -----------------------------------------------------------
I"/""|"|Z7""' "That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
lJ | | That which does is fracking toast after I respawn."
|_l
Darin McBride
> +2 to hit, -1 per 10 feet fallen
> take 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, max 20 dice
> deal one weapon die of damage per 10 feet fallen, max 20 dice
>
> e.g. making an attack from 100' with a dagger deals 10d4
> points of damage, plus strength and any other modifiers.
> making the same attack with a greataxe deals 10d12 damage.
I don't think the greataxe from 100' is going to do that much more damage
than the dagger from 100'... I'd go with the same "bonus damage" that the
rest of the game uses: extra d6's. Like sneak attacks, or energy modifiers
to your weapons, we just add an appropriate number of d6's.
From 10', count it as just the weapon (your body, barring natural armour
that may make it count as a weapon, is improvised, so maybe 1d4 for a medium
creature). For each additional 10', add an amount of dice based on the
overall size of the projectile. Whether the troll is wielding a dagger or a
greataxe, it's a large creature. Add dice for the overall large creature.
(Dragons diving and smooshing you can hurt.) A maximum of 200' - after
that, assume terminal velocity (not that accurate, but close enough for
government work).
So, your greataxe is 1d12, +1d6 for each 10' after the first 10', or
19d6+1d12. Still painful.
At least, that'd be the way I look at it.
Baird Stafford
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> I have an idea for an encounter but am stuck on how to implement it (it's
> been about six months since our last game).
> The party is travelling along the bottom of a 100 foot ravine. At the
> top are several trolls who ambush those who pass by jumping and falling
> onto the victims.
> Are there rules for "death from above" maneuvers like that?
Seems to me it's essentially a Charge from a different direction. I
might insinuate falling damage into the mayhem, though, with unprepared
characters taking the d6/10' and prepared characters adding it to damage
done by set weapons. Maybe not all of it, but certainly some of it.
Baird
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
there is. -Yogi Berra
Glenn Dowdy
"Baird Stafford" <ba...@newstaff.com> wrote in message
news:baird-CF658D....@news.giganews.com...
> In article <N4KdnVg-ed0wUPDX...@giganews.com>,
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> I have an idea for an encounter but am stuck on how to implement it (it's
>> been about six months since our last game).
>
>> The party is travelling along the bottom of a 100 foot ravine. At the
>> top are several trolls who ambush those who pass by jumping and falling
>> onto the victims.
>
>> Are there rules for "death from above" maneuvers like that?
>
> Seems to me it's essentially a Charge from a different direction. I
> might insinuate falling damage into the mayhem, though, with unprepared
> characters taking the d6/10' and prepared characters adding it to damage
> done by set weapons. Maybe not all of it, but certainly some of it.
>
Glenn D.
Keith Davies
I agree with d6/10', but I'm simpler than you. I wouldn't bother
treating the "first 10'" differently.
Jump 200' down to hit someone? You're at a net -18 to hit (+2 to hit,
-1 per 10 feet fallen) and will do +20d6 (70 points) of damage.
Hmm. Honestly, may not be worth it. I've seen PCs do rather more than
70 points on normal crits (and the +20d6 here isn't multiplied).
Keith
--
Keith Davies "I think everyone in a 4e D&D world must
keith....@kjdavies.org have a huuuuuge fear of heights."
keith....@gmail.com -- Violist, #nethack-ot-dnd IRC channel
http://www.kjdavies.org/
Keith Davies
> In rec.games.frp.dnd Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> The party is travelling along the bottom of a 100 foot ravine. At the
>> top are several trolls who ambush those who pass by jumping and falling
>> onto the victims.
>
> stupid strategy, but potentially awesome.
>
>> Are there rules for "death from above" maneuvers like that?
>
> nothing official. in the past, i've used...
>
> death from above
> you hurl yourself down onto a foe, pointy end first.
>
> +2 to hit, -1 per 10 feet fallen
> take 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet fallen, max 20 dice
> deal one weapon die of damage per 10 feet fallen, max 20 dice
>
> e.g. making an attack from 100' with a dagger deals 10d4
> points of damage, plus strength and any other modifiers.
> making the same attack with a greataxe deals 10d12 damage.
10 dice of damage might be a little light, considering the cost (10d6
damage, -8 to hit). If you were to go with normal damage (weapon + mStr
+ etc.) you might be a little more in line with what you picture.
You might allow ignoring a certain amount of armor bonus (ignore +1
armor bonus per 10' fallen?) instead of the +2 bonus. You get a benefit
against someone heavily armored (and I can't help but think you'd get
Str 24 Bbn12 diving 100' with a greataxe? This would come to
10d12 + 100 + 10*magic = 165+10m on a successful hit. BAB +12, +7 for
Str, -8 for fall = +11 net, +magic and weapon focus. I think you might
want to limit crits to the base damage, not the whole thing. Though the
thought of 30d12 + 300 + 30*magic = 495 + 30m on a dragon is pretty
cool.
Hell, he might still be able to afford some Power Attack on this, for
+20 per BAB spent (+60 on a crit...).
Okay, now *this* is worth it.
> steel thyself for flying barbarians hurtling recklessly from the sky
> onto dragons.
I fail to see a problem with this.
dr...@bin.sh
>> death from above
>> you hurl yourself down onto a foe, pointy end first.
>
> damage, -8 to hit). If you were to go with normal damage (weapon + mStr
> + etc.) you might be a little more in line with what you picture.
maybe, but i never had a lack of eager jumpers as it was,
so i left well enough alone.
>> steel thyself for flying barbarians hurtling recklessly from the sky
>> onto dragons.
>
> I fail to see a problem with this.
agreed.
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "Ryan Dancey put a portable hole inside a bag of holding,
|_|_[T]_|_| and no void appeared -- out of fear of Ryan Dancey."
-- der_kluge
Keith Davies
> On Jul 27, 4:49�am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> I have an idea for an encounter but am stuck on how to implement it [...]
>>
>> The party is travelling along the bottom of a 100 foot ravine. At the
>> top are several trolls who ambush those who pass by jumping and falling
>> onto the victims.
>
> Ummm... Why are they surrendering their height advantage?
>
> They should be throwing rocks. Rocks that gain energy from falling.
> I would model this as the Trolls "picking up and dropping" rocks that
> they would never be able to throw for a normal attack and applying
> large damage dice, possibly including some adjustment for the height
> fallen before they hit the PCs.
>
> Now with that said: If the trolls choose to become their own missile,
> I would apply the same falling damage to anything they hit that they
> themselves would be subject to.
I remember a DM I had telling me about a campaign he was in where they
had a flying ship, and troll assault troops. Parachutes? Who needs
'em, they slow you down!
Then, after the DM ruled that a troll can regenerate from each piece
(chop a hand off, you'll end up with a troll from the hand and one from
the rest of the body) his players installed woodchippers on the ship....
Yeah, that was a quickly changed rule.
Tetsubo
> Alcore <alc...@uurth.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 27, 4:49 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I have an idea for an encounter but am stuck on how to implement it [...]
>>>
>>>The party is travelling along the bottom of a 100 foot ravine. At the
>>>top are several trolls who ambush those who pass by jumping and falling
>>>onto the victims.
>>
>>Ummm... Why are they surrendering their height advantage?
>>
>>They should be throwing rocks. Rocks that gain energy from falling.
>>I would model this as the Trolls "picking up and dropping" rocks that
>>they would never be able to throw for a normal attack and applying
>>large damage dice, possibly including some adjustment for the height
>>fallen before they hit the PCs.
>>
>>Now with that said: If the trolls choose to become their own missile,
>>I would apply the same falling damage to anything they hit that they
>>themselves would be subject to.
>
>
> I remember a DM I had telling me about a campaign he was in where they
> had a flying ship, and troll assault troops. Parachutes? Who needs
> 'em, they slow you down!
>
> Then, after the DM ruled that a troll can regenerate from each piece
> (chop a hand off, you'll end up with a troll from the hand and one from
> the rest of the body) his players installed woodchippers on the ship....
>
> Yeah, that was a quickly changed rule.
>
>
> Keith
See, I'd let the little pieces regenerate into new trolls. Baby trolls.
Sweet, innocent little baby trolls. With no combat use of any kind. Now,
in a few *years* you might have a new army of trolls.
Rick Pikul
> See, I'd let the little pieces regenerate into new trolls. Baby trolls.
> Sweet, innocent little baby trolls. With no combat use of any kind. Now,
> in a few *years* you might have a new army of trolls.
Cute little baby trolls.
Cute little baby trolls that are crawling around chewing on things.
Thousands of cute little baby trolls that are crawling around chewing on
things.
Thousands of cute little baby trolls that are crawling around chewing on
things in your enemy's capital city
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
tussock
> I remember a DM I had telling me about a campaign he was in where they
> had a flying ship, and troll assault troops. Parachutes? Who needs
> 'em, they slow you down!
That ruins the ability to land amoungst the PCs, and so cancel out
the /Fireball/ threat. Favoured local troll tricks involved rings of fire
resistance and kegs of oil, you know, back when cheesy monster tricks
were all the rage.
> Then, after the DM ruled that a troll can regenerate from each piece
> (chop a hand off, you'll end up with a troll from the hand and one from
> the rest of the body) his players installed woodchippers on the ship....
>
> Yeah, that was a quickly changed rule.
The official rule was that while each piece /could/ regrow a whole
troll, given sufficient months, only the largest /would/ grow one. The
smaller parts would either wiggle over to join up or shrivel away if they
couldn't.
Kill it with fire, as they say.
Fun trick, take a very small piece of troll flesh, burn the rest, and
inject the bit into some poor test subject. Seems a fitting origin for
half trolls.
--
tussock
The different ways one can approach D&D is what makes it D&D.
tussock
> I remember a DM I had telling me about a campaign he was in where they
> had a flying ship, and troll assault troops. Parachutes? Who needs
> 'em, they slow you down!
That ruins the ability to land amoungst the PCs, and so cancel out
the /Fireball/ threat. Favoured local troll tricks involved rings of fire
resistance and kegs of oil, you know, back when cheesy monster tricks
were all the rage.
> Then, after the DM ruled that a troll can regenerate from each piece
> (chop a hand off, you'll end up with a troll from the hand and one from
> the rest of the body) his players installed woodchippers on the ship....
>
> Yeah, that was a quickly changed rule.
The official rule was that while each piece /could/ regrow a whole
Mad Mark
This was unknown to them, lumps of troll, that soon as thawed started to
regen in there backpacks....
FUN!!
Keith Davies
I like your idea better. You've clearly had kids.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Do you know what is in beer? The strength
keith....@kjdavies.org to bear the things you can't change, and
keith....@gmail.com wisdom to ignore them and fsck off for
http://www.kjdavies.org/ another beer." -- Owen, discussing work
Rick Pikul
> I like your idea better. You've clearly had kids.
Nope, but I have dealt with a border collie puppy that loved to chew.
Keith Davies
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:49:32 +0000, Keith Davies wrote:
>
>> I like your idea better. You've clearly had kids.
>
> Nope, but I have dealt with a border collie puppy that loved to chew.
Much the same.
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> I have an idea for an encounter but am stuck on how to implement it (it's
>> been about six months since our last game).
>>
>> The party is travelling along the bottom of a 100 foot ravine. At the
>> top are several trolls who ambush those who pass by jumping and falling
>> onto the victims.
>>
>> Are there rules for "death from above" maneuvers like that?
>
> My thoughts on this are, "Why are the trolls 'softening' themselves up
> for the party?"
>
> Also, why surrender the height advantage?
1) Trolls aren't very smart and 2) they're not taking real damage from the
fall (and it's temporary anyway).