[Rq-rules] Re: Knockback and falling damage.

[Brad Furst]

I just stumbled onto this below in my archives. The velocity/momentum/ 
kinetic energy topic resurfaces routinely, doesn't it? The thing to  
remember about that square component is that it refers to measuring a  
fall proportional to the length of _time_ of falling. Since we  
parameterize falls proportional to _distance_, then _linear_ is the  
better choice.


On Jul 25, 2006, at 10:49 PM, Tom Cantine wrote:

> I worked out the following table of damage scales for impact at  
> various speeds, although I suppose I should expand it to take into  
> account the enormous amounts of knockback a giant can deliver.
>
> 	Damage	Equivalent speed	Typical situation	
> 	1D3		1-2 m/SR		Walking into wall; tripping over cat
> 	1D4		3-4 m/SR		Running into wall; falling from 1 m
> 	1D6		5-6 m/SR		Sprinting into wall; falling from 2-3 m.
> 	2D6		7-8 m/SR		Trotting horse.
> 	3D6		9-10 m/SR	Charging horse
>
> I based these values loosely on the falling damage rule, noting  
> that every 3 m of height adds a d6 of damage, and so I inferred  
> that damage is linear with kinetic energy. Actually, that seems  
> pretty reasonable, all other things being equal.
>
> However, it seems to me that knockback distance is a linear  
> function of velocity, not of kinetic energy (which is proportional  
> to the square of velocity). To fling someone 60m would require a  
> minimum velocity of about 45 m/s, which is about the speed one  
> would attain after falling about 100 m. So damage on landing should  
> be about 33d6.
>
> I don't think that damage should max out at 12d6, because the  
> entire body is hitting a solid surface, and while 12d6 is every bit  
> as lethal as 33d6, the degree of overkill is a useful indication of  
> how recognizable the residue will be.


Brad Furst
If you've seen one non-sequitur, then all the tea in china.








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20061127/e9e66fcd/attachment.html