ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Malkyne on September 14, 2012, 06:47:40 PM
-
It's clear in the rules that evocation Focus Items apply specifically to either Defensive or Offensive evocation. But, does that mean we can't use Foci for non-combat evocation? This might include things like Harry's "Flickum Bicus," which are certainly quick-evocation, but also don't really have a combat purpose. One might argue that it's not worth even bothering using the evocation mechanics for trivial spells like that, but non-combat evocations are not necessarily trivial, and could mean the difference between life and death.
-
It's clear in the rules that evocation Focus Items apply specifically to either Defensive or Offensive evocation. But, does that mean we can't use Foci for non-combat evocation? This might include things like Harry's "Flickum Bicus," which are certainly quick-evocation, but also don't really have a combat purpose. One might argue that it's not worth even bothering using the evocation mechanics for trivial spells like that, but non-combat evocations are not necessarily trivial, and could mean the difference between life and death.
Flickum Bicus is covered by 'mundane applications' and doesn't need any foci as it needs no power (no stress!) and requires no roll (just like using a lighter would not require a roll).
For purposes of foci, each maneuver is either offensive or defensive, and the same applies to counter spells.
-
Flickum Bicus is covered by 'mundane applications' and doesn't need any foci as it needs no power (no stress!) and requires no roll (just like using a lighter would not require a roll).
For purposes of foci, each maneuver is either offensive or defensive, and the same applies to counter spells.
What he said. Even if an evocation is out of combat, it's still offensive or defensive. It's up to you and the GM to determine which. Basic guideline I use is if the intent of the spell is to destroy or disrupt, it's offensve. If the intent is to fortify or protect, it's defensive. Also if the spell isn't going to cause stress/consequences or create an aspect, then I wouldn't even bother rolling.
-
Basic guideline I use is if the intent of the spell is to destroy or disrupt, it's offensve. If the intent is to fortify or protect, it's defensive.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from, with the intent thing, but there are definitely some ambiguous situations. Amusingly, in YS, under the "Hyperawareness" spell, it says "defensive (sort of) maneuver." Yeah, exactly... sort of. ;D
If you base the distinction on intent, I don't think it's a good idea to specify offensive/defensive in advance, on a per-spell basis, the way the YS spell examples do. For example, a simple gust-of-wind spell has both offensive and defensive applications.
-
If you base the distinction on intent, I don't think it's a good idea to specify offensive/defensive in advance, on a per-spell basis, the way the YS spell examples do. For example, a simple gust-of-wind spell has both offensive and defensive applications.
The Rote rules, unfortunately, absolutely necessitate that such be spelled out in advance if Foci are to be used in the casting (which also happens to be the only time that the distinction matters at all).
-
My understanding is that you either have to justify it as defensive or it falls under thaumaturgy, even if it is low complexity. Most spells that affect the caster or put a maneuver on a scene is considered defensive, while effects such as stress and maneuvers on another target are usually considered attacks. Whether the spell means life or death is hard to justify outside of combat, since technically the only time a player can 'die' is by risking it all in a conflict.
-
The Rote rules, unfortunately, absolutely necessitate that such be spelled out in advance if Foci are to be used in the casting (which also happens to be the only time that the distinction matters at all).
Even from a narrative perspective it holds true. Rote spells always have to be done the EXACT same way ever time. The logic being that the character has spent several weeks or even months attuning their mind to the spell, or have just done it so often over the years that It's like second nature. To flip a spell from being defensive to offensive on the fly would be a pretty big deal with a rote, which is basically just magical muscle memory.
But already mentioned, It really only matters with rote spells are involved due to the creative nature of magic in the game.
-
Even from a narrative perspective it holds true. Rote spells always have to be done the EXACT same way ever time. The logic being that the character has spent several weeks or even months attuning their mind to the spell, or have just done it so often over the years that It's like second nature. To flip a spell from being defensive to offensive on the fly would be a pretty big deal with a rote, which is basically just magical muscle memory.
I'm not entirely convinced that this is or even should be true.
At the very least, from a narrative standpoint, I see no substantial difference between 'offensive' and 'defensive' versions of a spell like 'ventas servitas' beyond what it targets.
-
I'm not entirely convinced that this is or even should be true.
Per the book, rote spells can't be changed from one casting to another. "...always manifests in exactly the same way each time, has the same power level, places the exact same aspect, etc. Any change in the parameters of the spell disqualifes it from being a rote." (YS257)
-
I'm not entirely convinced that this is or even should be true.
At the very least, from a narrative standpoint, I see no substantial difference between 'offensive' and 'defensive' versions of a spell like 'ventas servitas' beyond what it targets.
it's not the greatest arguement narrativly I agree. But it does explain why Harry doesn't use Feugo to say, make a wall of fire, or to use his kenetic shield to barrel through a group of thugs.
As far as Ventas Servitas goes, in most (not all) cases in the books itwould probably be a Maneuver on the scene. Now a picky GM may be critical of using the rote for certain types of maneuvers (offensive or defensive), I probably wouldn't as long as it fits the general theme of the rote, and still followed all other paramaters.
-
Usually, magic you do outside of combat will be covered by thaumaturgy, since you can do pretty much the same thing, only safer. Picking a lock instead of busting the door open, for example.
If you don't have thaumaturgy, just treat the scene as a conflict and do what you would do in a conflict. Busting open a door would be offensive, obviously. Cushioning the blow from a 3 story fall would be defensive. But those would be quick and dirty spells, you would not really be able to pick the lock with an evocation spell, because it is too delicate a task. By the same logic, you could conjure up a gale of wind to slow your fall, but you could not actually make a "slow fall" type of spell, where you glide safely to the ground. Those would be thaumaturgy only.
-
Heck I would go as far as saying a "slow fall" spell would be enchanted it's or potions only. Unless you actually planned on jumping off a building ahead of time and performed the spell.
-
Per the book, rote spells can't be changed from one casting to another. "...always manifests in exactly the same way each time, has the same power level, places the exact same aspect, etc. Any change in the parameters of the spell disqualifes it from being a rote." (YS257)
I'm well aware of that. I was arguing against a narrative explanation of that rule that ignores the fact that the exact same (narrative) action, taken in different circumstances, might be represented in this system by a different mechanic.
it's not the greatest arguement narrativly I agree. But it does explain why Harry doesn't use Feugo to say, make a wall of fire, or to use his kenetic shield to barrel through a group of thugs.
I could have sworn that he uses it to purposefully blow through a wall or somesuch on at least one occassion. And doing so would make perfect narrative sense, while being wholeheartedly forbidden by the Rote rules.
As far as Ventas Servitas goes, in most (not all) cases in the books itwould probably be a Maneuver on the scene. Now a picky GM may be critical of using the rote for certain types of maneuvers (offensive or defensive), I probably wouldn't as long as it fits the general theme of the rote, and still followed all other paramaters.
You might allow it, but a change from offensive to defensive or vise versa disqualifies the spell from being a Rote in the RAW.
you could conjure up a gale of wind to slow your fall, but you could not actually make a "slow fall" type of spell, where you glide safely to the ground. Those would be thaumaturgy only.
I can readily imagine a skilled earth mage making a quick manipulation of gravity, or, if they're wearing enough ferrous metal, magnetics, that the result sees them to the ground gently and safely.
-
The only time I can think of Harry using his shield to knock down a wall is when he's getting thrown through one. xD Using it to prevent his spine from getting shattered. Any other situation I can think would be him using Fozare (sp), which would be an entirely different rote.
Also keep in mind the rules for repurposing energy spend on unused block spells can be turned into attacks. Which could also be a narrative loophole.
-
The only time I can think of Harry using his shield to knock down a wall is when he's getting thrown through one. xD Using it to prevent his spine from getting shattered. Any other situation I can think would be him using Fozare (sp), which would be an entirely different rote.
Poor quote pruning on my part. I was referring to 'fuego' being used to punch through a wall.
-
That would be one of those context dependant situations. If it was a maneuver to place aspect "giant smouldering hole in the wall" then useing Feugo would be againts the rules. If it was framed like a conflict where the wall was given a stress track and the aspect was gven as a consequence via using Feugo, then it's legit.
-
When, narratively, it is preceisely the same spell.
Thus, the narrative justification for the strictness of the Rote rules is void.
-
This one is really going to depend on a group by group basis.
If my group as a whole thinks a rule is stupid or doesn't work in a certain situation we toss it..or at the very least ignore it for the situtation at hand.
Cantrips: never need a focus item.
Non-combat evocation is a misnomer: attacking anything is a conflict. That is why this system has rules for social "combat" (which I hate by the way). The next logical step is to assume any conflict is considered a form of combat just maybe without exchanges and initiative. Placing aspects/maneuvers/blocks even out of combat is still creating conflict to solve a problem. Therefore focus items should work fine.
The question we as a forum seem to be having is defensive vs offensive yes? Easy cop out answer: GM judgement call + player debating his or her case. Then the conflict should resolve normally with or without focus item bonuses.
-
That would be one of those context dependant situations.
I don't interpret it that way. I go with defensive unless opposed in the case of maneuvers.
The resulting aspect may get used defensively, offensively, or as a utility boost but the spell itself only becomes "offensive" if someone has to resist it. In other words, self and scene maneuvers are defensive while putting an aspect on anyone else is offensive.
-
I can readily imagine a skilled earth mage making a quick manipulation of gravity, or, if they're wearing enough ferrous metal, magnetics, that the result sees them to the ground gently and safely.
Sure, but It would just be a short pull of force against the fall, not an actual slow fall.
At least that's my separation between evocation and thaumaturgy. Evocation can only create very short bursts of energy. It is good for a fight, where you need the quick stuff, but it is rather limited in it's application. Thaumaturgy is much more versatile, but it takes a lot longer to cast.
In the example above, I would see evocation more as a quick burst of kinetic energy canceling out part of your own. Thaumaturgy on the other hand would stop you from ever gathering too much momentum in the first place. I would let the evocation spell either be a block against fall damage or a maneuver to tag on the athletics roll against the fall damage. The same situation with a thaumaturgy spell could be resolved with a 3 shift maneuver spell and a tag for effect. But that is not really practical, when you are chased by someone, and you just have to jump.
-
In the example above, I would see evocation more as a quick burst of kinetic energy canceling out part of your own. Thaumaturgy on the other hand would stop you from ever gathering too much momentum in the first place. I would let the evocation spell either be a block against fall damage or a maneuver to tag on the athletics roll against the fall damage. The same situation with a thaumaturgy spell could be resolved with a 3 shift maneuver spell and a tag for effect. But that is not really practical, when you are chased by someone, and you just have to jump.
I mostly agree with you...but your post struck a thought. What if you set up a block against movement to slow or stop a fall?
-
I mostly agree with you...but your post struck a thought. What if you set up a block against movement to slow or stop a fall?
In the example above, I would see evocation more as a quick burst of kinetic energy canceling out part of your own. Thaumaturgy on the other hand would stop you from ever gathering too much momentum in the first place. I would let the evocation spell either be a block against fall damage or a maneuver to tag on the athletics roll against the fall damage. The same situation with a thaumaturgy spell could be resolved with a 3 shift maneuver spell and a tag for effect. But that is not really practical, when you are chased by someone, and you just have to jump.
Unless you mean something entirely different, I think I covered that already. I would never let somebody actually fly using evocation, even if the block against movement they put up is high enough to withstand the fall. Though I could see an evocation spell creating a sort of invisible stepping stone to close the gap between two buildings that are too far away to jump across.
-
Fly using a single casting of evocation?
Not without some funky evothaum.
Hurl yourself into the sky with one spell, and then use subsequent spells to either propel yourself further or to change direction mid-'flight'? If you're insane enough, sure.
-
Unless you mean something entirely different, I think I covered that already.
I meant a block against movement, not against damage. Different but perhaps similar results.
-
I think the best you can do against fall damage is to create armor, not a block--in which case it'd be 1/2 however many shifts you can put in it, just like an Athletics roll against falling.
-
I meant a block against movement, not against damage. Different but perhaps similar results.
Can you give me an example? As far as I understand you now is, that gravity will pull you down with an effort measured in shifts, and if you can beat that effort with a block, you will not fall down. Which seems kind of silly to me. Things like Gravity are pretty much matter of fact in my book. If you don't have anything supporting you, you'll fall down. You can protect yourself from that in a number of ways, but the effect itself does not have a number value to roll against.
-
Can you give me an example? As far as I understand you now is, that gravity will pull you down with an effort measured in shifts, and if you can beat that effort with a block, you will not fall down. Which seems kind of silly to me. Things like Gravity are pretty much matter of fact in my book. If you don't have anything supporting you, you'll fall down. You can protect yourself from that in a number of ways, but the effect itself does not have a number value to roll against.
Going by the book, falling damage is always going to cause damage. All you can do to mitigate it is create armor of some sort (the book says by rolling Athletics), but once you're falling, you're going to take some kind of damage.
-
Fly using a single casting of evocation?
Not without some funky evothaum.
Hurl yourself into the sky with one spell, and then use subsequent spells to either propel yourself further or to change direction mid-'flight'? If you're insane enough, sure.
Done it! Totally worth it!
Can you give me an example? As far as I understand you now is, that gravity will pull you down with an effort measured in shifts, and if you can beat that effort with a block, you will not fall down. Which seems kind of silly to me. Things like Gravity are pretty much matter of fact in my book. If you don't have anything supporting you, you'll fall down. You can protect yourself from that in a number of ways, but the effect itself does not have a number value to roll against.
Think Feather Fall in D&D or slow fall abilities Monk classes get in various RPGs and MMORPGs. Mitigate damage not actually stop falling. Fall...slower.
-
Going by the book, falling damage is always going to cause damage. All you can do to mitigate it is create armor of some sort (the book says by rolling Athletics), but once you're falling, you're going to take some kind of damage.
A block would do, creating the spell as armor is not necessary, I think. My confusion was mainly the distinction between a block against movement vs a block against fall damage.
Think Feather Fall in D&D or slow fall abilities Monk classes get in various RPGs and MMORPGs. Mitigate damage not actually stop falling. Fall...slower.
See above. The mitigate damage spell would, for me, be a block against damage from falling (however it plays out narratively), and I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of a block against movement in this circumstance, as UmbraLux put it.
And again, an actual feather fall spell for me would be thaumaturgy. In most cases, you'll end up with 0 stress after the fall anyway, sure. But it plays out in different ways.
-
A block would do, creating the spell as armor is not necessary, I think. My confusion was mainly the distinction between a block against movement vs a block against fall damage.
That's the actual RAW about falling damage, though--you can't block, only create armor.
Gravity is an implacable foe, and falls are its
method of attack. The ground makes the attack
on the victim—and it never misses. It’s an especially
nasty weapon, its blows hitting particularly
hard.
The hit is equal to 5 stress for every 10 full
feet a character falls, so a character falling from
the top of the third floor (or around 30 feet) will
face a 15-stress hit.
Most kinds of mundane protection simply
don’t work against stress taken from a fall. That
leaves stress boxes, consequences, and supernatural
powers to absorb the effects. Armor from
supernatural toughness powers (page 184) applies
(unless the Catch says otherwise), as does armor
from shielding spells (page 252) constructed to
absorb falling impact.
The player may roll Athletics to try to reduce
this somewhat, but usually only for short falls.
The target is Mediocre; for every two shifts
gained on the roll, gain one point of armor
against the falling damage. So a Great (+4)
Athletics roll would take 2 stress away from the
fall’s stress value.
-
The falling rules are kind of terrible. I tend to ignore them.
-
The falling rules are kind of terrible. I tend to ignore them.
I tend to agree. 5 automatic stress for every 10 feet is harsh IMO. 4 shifts of power for 2 armor and a defense roll of +3 to take no stress from a 10 foot fall? Good luck not taking stress from a 10 foot fall if you're a pure mortal without a 4 or 5 in athletics.
I dunno, in my experience most people can jump off the roof of a 1 story house without breaking something. Assuming of course you're falling feet first, otherwise all bets are off.
-
Five stress isn't really a lot, and is only the baseline for a drop of that height. Even if you take all of that, that's a mild consequence, tops, for anything with even a 1 in Endurance--so barring a negative Athletics roll, nothing with an Endurance score is going to break anything. If you can manage even a Fair roll in Athletics (which, being the go-to defensive stat, should be easy for any PC), you're not taking any consequence assuming a full physical track.
And, well, falling from 10 feet is going to cause stress. Don't confuse stress with consequences, remember--a 4-stress hit to someone with a full track isn't even going to slow them down. So unless you're already loaded up with stress, you should be able to tank a 10 foot drop easily anyway.
To my reading, the 5 stress doesn't assume you're falling feet first. The Athletics roll would represent your ability to get your feet under you.
-
Well throwing people off buildings should be a valid combat strategy but as the current rules don't support that I don't find them particularly good.
-
Well throwing people off buildings should be a valid combat strategy but as the current rules don't support that I don't find them particularly good.
Well, the book even says that the falling rules are something of a last resort. Best thing to do, really, is treat getting thrown off a roof as part of a regular attack or a Taken Out result.
-
If the average person (3 stress boxes from average endurance, and average athletics skill) can jump off a 10 foot high roof without breaking anything (and I will be generous and say not taking a consequence, since you could take consequences and not break anything), how much stress should this inflict?
Well they get 0 armor from their athletics of 1, and have 3 stress boxes, so such a fall could deal 3 stress and have the desired result. However, according to this post (http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=49651#msg49651) falling from a height of 10 feet carries a 41% chance of limb fracture (Since it is a rock climbing forum, I think they are talking about all types of falls, not just ones where you have your legs under you). So, looking at this, 5 stress is pretty tame.
Looking further the point where we see a 50% chance of death is 60 ft, which is not far off of the 50 ft (or 25 stress, assuming you take all your consequences and had 3 stress boxes) you would need to kill someone in DFRPG.
It looks to me like the unmodified falling damage is fairly reasonable. I think the main problem with the system is the assumption that the athletics roll only provides armor at 1/2 shifts (and the furtherance of this onto magic). In my opinion, someone with a Superb athletics check and Average endurance should be able to walk away from a 20 foot fall with only a Mild consequence and stress(2+3+5=10, seems good). We can see that people who practice this thing (it is an extreme "sport") can throw themselves form 2nd or 3rd story windows with no serious ill effects.
In short, 5 stress per 10 feet seems reasonable, allowing the full athletics roll/block strength to reduce it, also reasonable IMO.
-
It looks to me like the unmodified falling damage is fairly reasonable. I think the main problem with the system is the assumption that the athletics roll only provides armor at 1/2 shifts (and the furtherance of this onto magic). In my opinion, someone with a Superb athletics check and Average endurance should be able to walk away from a 20 foot fall with only a Mild consequence and stress(2+3+5=10, seems good). We can see that people who practice this thing (it is an extreme "sport") can throw themselves form 2nd or 3rd story windows with no serious ill effects.
Well, the people who participate in such a sport probably have high Endurance, extremely high Athletics, and a mess of stunts to help (probably including one specifically for falling damage).
And it's not an assumption that it's a 1/2 shift armor value, that's the RAW.
So in that case, someone with Superb endurance and the No Pain, No Gain stunt is going to have three mild consequences--meaning they can tank a 20-foot fall without taking a Moderate, even assuming a 0 Athletics roll. Added to that, a stunt for natural Armor:1 or 2 against falling damage specifically and a Superb Athletics score is going to be regularly getting Armor:3 or 4 (or even 5 if he has a stunt to boost Athletics in some way). Presuming declarations ("I'm jumping down onto grass," or "There's a slope that will help me roll and absorb the impact") and fate point spending (A freerunner is going to have at least one aspect he can use here, and shouldn't have much trouble maneuvering if he's got time), and someone who's good enough should be able to drop from 30 feet with a handful of minor scrapes on a regular basis.
-
Weapons 5 is equivalent to a rocket launcher. Falling 20 ft is worse than being hit by a rocket launcher by those rules.
-
To Mr. Death:
I assume people do this as their hobby, not their job or something. I would say they get about 1 stunt, and one apex skill, not both. If you build a submerged character whose only purpose twas to survive falling (and that looks like what you have done) they would be a lot more effective than these hobbyists.
Assumption was the wrong word, assertion would be a better one. I know what the RAW is, and like mos people here I think it is dumb. My problem however lies not with the stress (which seems substantiated by the table on injury risk from falls), but with the way it is mitigated.
To ways and means:
Getting hit with a rocket launcher directly does not cause 5 stress, a rocket launcher is an implement that adds 5 stress to a successful attack. Since rockets are much harder to aim than a normal gun and a successful attack with a gun is not necessarily a hit, I would assume a "hit" (aka successful attack) with a rocket launcher is not in fact a direct hit, but just a hit close enough for them to be affected by the blast. A direct hit would likely do way more stress (becuase that would be beating the defense roll by a TON). Not all successful attacks are direct hits, they may be "stressful" near misses, or the stress could be injury suffered from the attempt to avoid the attack.
-
Five stress isn't really a lot, and is only the baseline for a drop of that height. Even if you take all of that, that's a mild consequence, tops, for anything with even a 1 in Endurance--so barring a negative Athletics roll, nothing with an Endurance score is going to break anything. If you can manage even a Fair roll in Athletics (which, being the go-to defensive stat, should be easy for any PC), you're not taking any consequence assuming a full physical track.
And, well, falling from 10 feet is going to cause stress. Don't confuse stress with consequences, remember--a 4-stress hit to someone with a full track isn't even going to slow them down. So unless you're already loaded up with stress, you should be able to tank a 10 foot drop easily anyway.
To my reading, the 5 stress doesn't assume you're falling feet first. The Athletics roll would represent your ability to get your feet under you.
All very good points. I guess the idea is that 5 stress is just enough to indicate that if you're not ready for it or in halfway decent shape, your gonna get hurt.
When I posted I also didn't consider how easy "fall-break" declairations would be. Falling into a tree, flower bed, overhang, sloped ground, above ground patio, swimming pool. The list goes on and on.
-
Since it's become an issue, here's why I dislike the falling rules:
1. They expect me to keep track of distances in feet. Pretty much every distance measurement in the game is in zones, and I like it that way.
2. They're really harsh. Falling 10 feet is more dangerous than having someone firing a rocket launcher at you, as ways and means pointed out. You and I are probably going to get taken out if we take five stress, because we are NPCs and we don't get consequences. And when you scale up to an uber-badass with Fantastic Athletics and Mythic Speed and Toughness, they still get hurt badly if they fall 50 feet. Bear in mind that said character is not in danger when five trained soldiers fire upon them with rocket launchers.
3. They don't translate well into good gameplay. Mr. Death pointed out that it's generally better to represent falls in other ways, and ways and means pointed out that they're not very useful for someone who wants to use falls in combat.
4. They're pointlessly complex. Seriously, why not just say "pick a reasonable-seeming number, weapon 0 attack vs Athletics with accuracy equal to that number". Why all these special rules?
5. They measure distances in the Imperial system. That's just wrong.
6. The way the book is written, it's almost like they're apologizing for providing those rules. It's as if they were somehow forced to add them.
7. They aren't random enough. Falls do not do any consistent amount of damage, they're basically a crapshoot. Especially once you take into account the importance of what you're falling on. So why do falls do more consistent damage than anything else in the game?
-
2. They're really harsh. Falling 10 feet is more dangerous than having someone firing a rocket launcher at you, as ways and means pointed out. You and I are probably going to get taken out if we take five stress, because we are NPCs and we don't get consequences. And when you scale up to an uber-badass with Fantastic Athletics and Mythic Speed and Toughness, they still get hurt badly if they fall 50 feet. Bear in mind that said character is not in danger when five trained soldiers fire upon them with rocket launchers.
Well...no. Centarion was pretty bang on about how ways and means was wrong about that. Look at it this way--a successful 'hit' with a rocket launcher means you're taking at least 5 shifts of stress. If you're falling 10 feet, 5 stress is the most you're going to take.
And to do a little math here, presuming 10 stress boxes, Armor:3, and an effective 9 of Athletics, that means 25 shifts from falling 50 feet is going to end up causing maybe 8 stress worth of consequences, which is hardly insurmountable. And that's assuming they don't make some kind of declaration to boost it or even side-step it. The good thing about falling 50 feet in a game like this is that's a lot of plausible time to declare something like, "I manage to snag an awning and fall into a window instead."
4. They're pointlessly complex. Seriously, why not just say "pick a reasonable-seeming number, weapon 0 attack vs Athletics with accuracy equal to that number". Why all these special rules?
My guess is that falling really isn't something you can dodge or block. Sure, you might get away without a consequence, but being thrown or falling off a lot of height really should have some tangible result to it.
6. The way the book is written, it's almost like they're apologizing for providing those rules. It's as if they were somehow forced to add them.
In a way, I think they were, if only because they realized somewhere along the line someone was going to ask "Well, how do you represent someone falling off a cliff?" And even if they'd prefer that that sorta thing be handled otherwise, they knew there were some people who were going to want to handle it as its own thing.
7. They aren't random enough. Falls do not do any consistent amount of damage, they're basically a crapshoot. Especially once you take into account the importance of what you're falling on. So why do falls do more consistent damage than anything else in the game?
Well, stress is kind of abstract to begin with, and, honestly, gravity is pretty much a reliable constant wherever you go. A lot of the rest of it can be handled via declarations and maneuvers.
I would venture, though, that the rules in the book--if they're going to be used--should only be used for legitimate falling. If someone throws you, that should count as an attack, and in that case falling 50 feet should only be a Taken Out result. If you're jumping, at the least I would say shave 10 feet off the distance to account for the effort and consideration you'd be taking to make sure it's a safe jump. The 10 feet = 5 stress should only be for legit falls--like if the building collapses from underneath you, or a compel against you being clumsy or something like that.
-
I pretty much agree with everything Mr. Death said there.
To answer your other points:
1) I think it is fairly safe to say that a zone of vertical distance is about a floor of a building which is about 10 feet. So each zone you fall is about 5 stress.
3) Falls in combat are certainly included in the result of an attack. I think it says something like this in that section. you can't push someone 50ft off a cliff unless you take them out. If you push them down a small hole (1 zone down) the 5 stress that would cause is likely part of your attack.
5) True, but if you use 1 zone=1 floor=10 ft=3 meters you can get around this.
I think the amount of stress is fine, I think you should be able to reduce it as a strait athletics roll, or magic block, or whatever (I know this is a house rule). I also think Mr. Death is right, if you jump the first 10 ft should be free, or at least a 10 foot down is free, and a 20 ft. down is 5 stress, farther than that I think you are SOL.
-
It is in no way safe to assume an equivalence between distance in feet and zones.
My rocket launcher comment was based on the assumption that the rockets will miss sometimes.
8 stress worth of consequences is massive. In fact, it's Extreme.
You can't dodge or block a bullet either, but you can avoid being harmed by one.
And people get killed by falling 0 feet. They trip, hit their heads, and die. It's not even that rare. Meanwhile, people have survived falls from kilometers up. Falling is not consistently damaging at all. The abstract nature of stress can cover for this, but it should not have to.
Look, you can make anything work with a maneuver/Declaration-heavy approach. Doesn't mean you need to use lousy rules. The falling rules provide nothing that the environmental attack rules wouldn't do better.
EDIT: As a general rule, any rule which people actively avoid using is bad.