PDA

View Full Version : Boulder Fall [3.5 Spell]



Temotei
2010-09-03, 11:10 PM
Boulder Fall
Transmutation
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 immediate action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One Medium or smaller freefalling object or creature/level, no two of which may be more than 20 ft. apart
Duration: Until landing or 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates or Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (object)

The affected creatures or objects fall quickly. Boulder fall instantly changes the rate at which the targets fall to a scary 600 feet per round, and the subjects take double falling damage upon landing while the spell is in effect. However, when the spell duration expires, a normal rate of falling resumes.

The spell affects one or more Medium or smaller creatures (including gear and carried objects up to each creature's maximum load) or objects, or the equivalent in larger creatures: A Large creature or object counts as two Medium creatures or objects, a Huge creature or object counts as two Large creatures or objects, and so forth.

You can cast this spell with an instant utterance, quickly enough to send a creature into the oblivion that is the ground. Casting the spell is an immediate action, allowing you to cast this spell even when it isn't your turn.

This spell has no special effect on ranged weapons unless they are falling quite a distance. If the spell is cast on a falling item the object does double normal damage based on its weight, with no bonus for the height of the drop.

Boulder fall works only upon free-falling objects. It does not affect a sword blow or a charging or flying creature.

Boulder fall counters and dispels feather fall, and vice-versa.

BladeofOblivion
2010-09-04, 02:29 AM
I remember seeing a similar spell around here somewhere. It was made by Peregrine and called Hardfall. That said, I like this spell.

137ben
2010-09-04, 11:11 AM
One Medium or smaller freefalling object or creature/level, no two of which may be more than 20 ft. apart

Huh? Do you mean that you can cast it on multiple smaller creatures? If so, you should probably specify that. If not, then the target line contradicts itself.

Temotei
2010-09-04, 11:13 AM
Huh? Do you mean that you can cast it on multiple smaller creatures? If so, you should probably specify that. If not, then the target line contradicts itself.

No it doesn't. It's one creature per level, which means there can and probably will be more than one target.

Anyway, that's what feather fall says.

Milskidasith
2010-09-04, 11:25 AM
Double damage from weight... must... use on... hulking hurler...

Anyway, how does this interact with feather fall? Does the person then move at a normal rate, or is it based on which one is cast last?

Temotei
2010-09-04, 11:35 AM
Double damage from weight... must... use on... hulking hurler...

:smallbiggrin:


Anyway, how does this interact with feather fall? Does the person then move at a normal rate, or is it based on which one is cast last?

Ooh. I missed that. We'll say it works like haste/slow, having feather fall and boulder fall counter and dispel each other.

Mulletmanalive
2010-09-04, 12:08 PM
Double damage from weight... must... use on... hulking hurler...

Does the object weight do anything with this? I must have been missing something, it always seemed to be based just on size. Is there a table for this [the falling/weight table doesn't bear any resemblance to the big rocks that giants throw, see]?

Cieyrin
2010-09-04, 03:56 PM
Double damage from weight... must... use on... hulking hurler...

I don't think this actually helps most hulking hurlers, actually, as it only works on free-falling objects. So, unless your hurler can consistently get above their target and drop their ammo, it probably doesn't matter.

Now, if a Roof Jumper performs a Death from Above, then we're really talking something that got much more kick ass. Dragoons ftw!

Temotei
2010-09-04, 04:15 PM
I don't think this actually helps most hulking hurlers, actually, as it only works on free-falling objects. So, unless your hurler can consistently get above their target and drop their ammo, it probably doesn't matter.


This spell has no special effect on ranged weapons unless they are falling quite a distance.

Exact text from feather fall and boulder fall. What "quite a distance" means is up to the DM, I suppose.

Kobold-Bard
2010-09-04, 04:15 PM
I don't think this actually helps most hulking hurlers, actually, as it only works on free-falling objects. So, unless your hurler can consistently get above their target and drop their ammo, it probably doesn't matter.

Now, if a Roof Jumper performs a Death from Above, then we're really talking something that got much more kick ass. Dragoons ftw!

DM: The enemy deals 736d6 damage and there's a new Grand Canyon where your Cleric used to be. :smalltongue:

Ashtagon
2010-09-04, 05:11 PM
The affected creatures or objects fall quickly. Boulder fall instantly changes the rate at which the targets fall to a scary 600 feet per round, and the subjects take double falling damage upon landing while the spell is in effect. However, when the spell duration expires, a normal rate of falling resumes.

Assuming conventional physics and without magical aid, an object will fall about 675 feet in the first round (not accounting for wind resistance). After about 6 seconds, humans hit their terminal velocity, so we can expect to fall a distance of about 1000-1200 feet per round in the second and later rounds.

600 feet per round is rather leisurely by comparison.

jiriku
2010-09-04, 05:49 PM
This effect is rather powerful for a spell that can potentially deal 20d6 falling damage, or considerably more for a collection of dropped objects.

I'd peg it at level 2 or even level 3 unless you add a damage cap. It's too easy to weaponize this, especially when it can affect one dropped object/level.

Milskidasith
2010-09-04, 06:39 PM
Assuming conventional physics and without magical aid, an object will fall about 675 feet in the first round (not accounting for wind resistance). After about 6 seconds, humans hit their terminal velocity, so we can expect to fall a distance of about 1000-1200 feet per round in the second and later rounds.

600 feet per round is rather leisurely by comparison.

Except objects fall 150 feet the first round, 300 feet per round afterwards, in D&D. Instantly falling 600 feet is, in fact, much faster relative to other D&D falling.

Temotei
2010-09-04, 07:07 PM
Assuming conventional physics and without magical aid, an object will fall about 675 feet in the first round (not accounting for wind resistance). After about 6 seconds, humans hit their terminal velocity, so we can expect to fall a distance of about 1000-1200 feet per round in the second and later rounds.

600 feet per round is rather leisurely by comparison.


Except objects fall 150 feet the first round, 300 feet per round afterwards, in D&D. Instantly falling 600 feet is, in fact, much faster relative to other D&D falling.

Milski's got it right.


This effect is rather powerful for a spell that can potentially deal 20d6 falling damage, or considerably more for a collection of dropped objects.

I'd peg it at level 2 or even level 3 unless you add a damage cap. It's too easy to weaponize this, especially when it can affect one dropped object/level.

I'll make it 2nd level. At 3rd level, it's never going to be used simply because it's very situational.

jiriku
2010-09-05, 12:11 AM
Milski's got it right.



I'll make it 2nd level. At 3rd level, it's never going to be used simply because it's very situational.

For a given value of "situational". Example: I am a 10th level wizard. I carry ten greatswords in my magic bag. I fly. I dump out the bag over my enemy's head and cast boulder fall. My enemy takes 10 greatswords at double terminal velocity to the head. However, if you're building it for your own use, I suppose you can rely on DM adjudication to prevent such shenanigans.

Ashtagon
2010-09-05, 08:04 AM
ok, we both got the maths wrong...



.. .. m/s m/s .. .. .. ..
sec end ave. m ft
time spd. spd. dist. dist.
1 9.807 4.903 4.903 16.087
2 19.613 9.807 19.613 64.347
3 29.42 14.71 44.129 144.781
4 39.226 19.613 78.452 257.388
5 49.033 24.516 122.581 402.169
6 58.839 29.42 176.517 579.124


Distances are cumulative up to that point, and assume no wind resistance. Practically speaking, wind resistance means a typical human stops accelerating after about 6 seconds. Assuming a spherical cow all acceleration (nb. not speed) stops at the 6th second, he will continue to fall an additional 579 ft/round until he hits something solid.

Now of course, these are "real physics" numbers, and D&D has long held weird assumptions about falling. Manual of the Planes (1e), in the Elemental Air chapter, noted falling speed as 500 ft in the first round, and twice that in all later rounds. I see 600/round cited as the most common 3e speed, but I don't recall seeing an actual reference for any such speed in 3e. But I've never seen D&D claim 150 ft/round as falling speed.

Cites?

----

wrt to damage taken by the faller/inflicted by the faller, I'd say the falling object inflicts damage as an object of twice its actual weight, and takes damage as if it had fallen twice as far as it actually had (in both cases, the 20d6 damage cap for falling applies).

Cieyrin
2010-09-05, 02:30 PM
But I've never seen D&D claim 150 ft/round as falling speed.

Cites?


an individual “falls” 150 feet in the first round and 300 feet in each succeeding round

Citation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#gravity)

It's a pain to find the citation, but it does exist in 2 places, one I cited above, as well as mentioned in the flying rules under Minimum Forward Speed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#tacticalAerialMovement).

Milskidasith
2010-09-05, 02:32 PM
There is also no 20d6 cap on damage for weight.

Anyway, real world physics should not be used to model D&D spells.

Ashtagon
2010-09-05, 03:46 PM
Citation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#gravity)

It's a pain to find the citation, but it does exist in 2 places, one I cited above, as well as mentioned in the flying rules under Minimum Forward Speed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#tacticalAerialMovement).

Fair enough. I personally think 150 in the first and 300 in the later rounds is rather leisurely by RL standards, but wow, it's in there :smallconfused:

Actually, this probably explains how high-level characters survive ridiculously long falls so easily. Gravity by D&D RAW is only about a quarter of Earth-normal :smalltongue:


There is also no 20d6 cap on damage for weight.

SRD sez:

For each 200 pounds of an object's weight, the object deals 1d6 points of damage, provided it falls at least 10 feet. Distance also comes into play, adding an additional 1d6 points of damage for every 10-foot increment it falls beyond the first (to a maximum of 20d6 points of damage).

And there have been years of debate over whether or not they intended that 20d6 cap to include both the weight and the distance, or just the distance.

Milskidasith
2010-09-05, 03:56 PM
Ashtagon, I have never heard any debate about 20d6 being a limit from weight as well, and the way the sentence is worded, it is unambiguous that the cap is about the weight.

Temotei
2010-09-05, 06:01 PM
Who needs to post in their own homebrew when you've got Cieyrin and Milskidasith answering for you? :smalltongue:

Yeah, gravity makes no sense in D&D compared to the real world, but neither does fly, for that matter (though a case could be argued for stinking cloud).

Cieyrin
2010-09-07, 01:49 PM
Yeah, gravity makes no sense in D&D compared to the real world, but neither does fly, for that matter (though a case could be argued for stinking cloud).

As in most case, A Wizard Did It (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt).

137ben
2010-09-07, 03:57 PM
Sorry I mis-read the target line. Anyways, great spell!
BTW, real-world physics should definitely NOT be used for D&D. I can't imagine someone climbing at one-half their walking speed with just a -5 penalty.