>>45498 >How would you fix the falling damage rules? What's wrong with them?

>>1421 a high level or even mid level barbarian can survive a fall from near-earth orbit and then stand up and kill 20 or 30 orcs without issue

>>1437 So? A colossal dragon jumping on a character to crush him only deals 4d8+STR, yet hitting the ground at terminal velocity deals 20d6. Both these things are enough to instantly merc a mid level wizard, let alone the average commoner. However, wizard's gimmick is spells. A barbarian's is the d12 hd and con bonus from rage. What you're saying isn't a matter of low damage from falling, it's that Barbarians have huge amounts of survivability (by design).

>>1421 It's not calibrated well for different creature sizes other than medium. Here's my adjustment: >Size Fine (less than 3") Fortitude vs DC 5 +1*each 10ft (cap at 200ft) or dmg 1d6-1 (min no damage); >Size Fine (3" or more) Falling damage *1/10 >Size Diminutive Falling damage *1/5 >Size Tiny Falling damage *1/2 >Size Small/Medium Falling damage *1 >Size Large Falling damage *1.5 >Size Huge Falling Damage *2 Ignore the first 10ft >Size Gargantuan Falling damage *3 Ignore the first 20ft >Size Colossal Falling damage *4 Ignore the first 30ft

>>1437 In my experience 3.5e in general breaks down after 12th level...at least on my table, but I get it >>1451 Imma write this down, thank you!

>>1451 I understand the height threshold due to tallness and how smaller creatures would take less due to better wind resistance, but why the much higher multiplier for bigger things? Are you trying to invoke square cube law? At a certain size and density, a much larger creature is going to do a lot more to the surface of the earth than it will to them.

>>1455 >why the much higher multiplier for bigger things? Are you trying to invoke square cube law? That's the general idea but i'm trying to prioritize gameability, if you want to go more towards the simulationist route use the size carry capacity multipliers to the falling damage result. >At a certain size and density, a much larger creature is going to do a lot more to the surface of the earth than it will to them. Yes i use the creature size + its (relative to it's size on a grid) reach to infer the area affected and apply the standard rule for calculating the falling object damage, which already takes into consideration mass.

>>1457 You misunderstand. For the same principle the lower weight and smaller size of a fine creature can be slowed more by the density and relatively larger 'granularity' of air, a larger and heavier creature will be slowed less by that of dirt it lands in. As it falls faster because wind resistance affects it less, the ground would impact it less for the same reason. TL;DR: A big and heavy enough creature would land in earth like we would water.

>>1486 Fair, so would be better to keep the adjustment only for smaller sizes?

What are the best prestige classes for fighters? Like if I am fighter level 5, what prestige classes are actually worth building toward? No caster options.

>>1537 Depends. Let's start. What weapon do you plan to use?

>>1537 that depends what you want to do, really,

>>1556 >>1570 Honestly anything that is a good strategy. But I'd say anything that helps a "meta" fighter build, or just gives you innately strong options that will make you better off than if you just kept taking fighter levels. Like disciple of dispater seems to be pretty OP if it was allowed and you were willing to use a falchion.

>>1575 Blessed of Gruumsh (with a dip in exotic weapon master for the flurry) should be great, bonus points if you can pounce, one way or another for another style, ashworm dragoons are rad as fuck

>>1486 >>1492 nah, a larger creature has a mass in proportion to the cube of its size, and an impact surface in proportion to the square napkin calculation, based on a spherical giant, if he weights 4 ton and smashes on a 15' square, he takes more damage than a spherical ogre weighting 1 ton and smashing on a 10' square, because of the higher ratio of mass to surface on impact, at the same speed if falling from the same height it's physically logical that a larger creature takes more HP damage than a smaller creature, this even happens irl when small children have a chance to survive falls that would kill an adult >>1486 >TL;DR: A big and heavy enough creature would land in earth like we would water. if it's hard and dense enough to plunge through its an impact crater, maybe, but that means this beast is high enough level and has enough HPs to shrug falling from orbit, that's not the general case of the critters you encounter in D&D on a similar principle, in a homebrew system derived in small part from d&d I played decades ago, there were limits to the damage small pixies could recieve from trolls trying to play tree trunks baseball with them: it requires very little kinetic energy to accelerate a pixie to the speed of a tree trunk, because the momentum transfer is extremely small. This soaking effect disappears of course if the pixie can't be accelerated, because it got smashed gorily on a rock, for instance