7
\$\begingroup\$

One of my players is a 8th level druid. He favours wild shaping into a tiger. He cast spider climb and walked up/onto the ceiling which was 30 feet high using the wall. He then wanted to use his special attack, pounce, from the ceiling, onto an enemy.

Now I had no problems with him using pounce in this fashion, but the player wanted to deal falling damage on top of the pounce attack.

At the time I was not familiar with the falling damage rules so I ruled no, but after finding and reading them I'm thinking I'm wrong. This has led me to a couple related questions.

  1. Would he take fall damage while pouncing from a high position?
  2. Would he deal falling damage while pouncing?
  3. If both are true, is the falling damage and falling/landing damage counted together or separate for purposes of DR?
  4. Would this all be the same if he was under the effect of a fly spell (and sufficiently up in the air) and pounced?
\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Okay, I think we can be done with flipflopping on the pronouns. The original post had a near-even split between he/him and they/them, with a slight numerical edge to he/him, so landing on he/him seems fine. \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60
    Jan 16, 2022 at 21:34
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Does this answer your question? Do you take falling damage after a high jump of over 10 feet? \$\endgroup\$
    – Dale M
    Jan 16, 2022 at 23:29
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @DaleM What's the Pathfinder 1E relevance of that D&D 5E question? \$\endgroup\$ Jan 17, 2022 at 3:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ Voting to leave open as the dupe target is for D&D5e, not P1e. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jason_c_o
    Jan 17, 2022 at 5:19

2 Answers 2

3
\$\begingroup\$

This doesn't appear to be well-covered under the rules, but here's how I'd rule.

I don't think it's a good idea to let characters use the Falling Objects rules, because (1) a character is not an inanimate object, and (2) characters falling from a great height take a lot more damage than objects do.

However, we can take this sentence from the Falling Objects rules as a baseline:

Note that a falling object takes the same amount of damage as it deals.

So, what I'd rule is: the kitty takes falling damage for falling 30 feet (3d6, with modifiers for falling deliberately and for Acrobatics check). The creature being attacked takes the same 3d6 as the kitty, but doesn't get to make an Acrobatics check to reduce the damage. This damage gets applied on the first successful melee attack made as part of the pounce.

Note that anyone who takes real (not subdual) damage from a fall is knocked prone. It seems fair to rule that this happens to both characters.

As to the Fly spell: we don't have a lot of precedent in D&D for dealing damage by moving at someone very fast and colliding with them. If a wizard cast Expeditious Retreat, and wanted to injure a foe by running into them, I would probably look at them funny. If that same wizard then cast Fly, and wanted to injure a foe by running into them from above, that wouldn't work any better for me.

\$\endgroup\$
4
2
\$\begingroup\$

Allowing pounce without fly or a jump check in this situation is a houserule. It does, however, make a lot of sense and I recommend continuing to do so.

  1. Yes; he has fallen more than 10 feet.
  2. No, but he may deal falling object damage if he is an object, or deal such damage indirectly if he is attending any objects.
  3. Each object's falling damage should be reduced separately. If he is an object, however, the damage he himself takes from falling as a creature and from falling as an object should probably be summed before they are reduced by DR.
  4. Nope! Instead:
    1. No; he has moved 10 feet, but he is flying not falling
    2. No; he is flying, not falling

Note that most flying characters can choose to fall instead, if they'd like, and some special creatures have special 'diving charge'-like abilities that give extra bonuses for charging down at least 10 feet from the air. Example

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ Pounce is a type of charge, and since you can charge while flying, burrowing, or swimming.... I saw no reason why other variants of charge would not be allowed. \$\endgroup\$
    – Fering
    Sep 20, 2015 at 20:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ Oh, sure, but you can't charge while falling, technically, because falling is forced movement; it's not your move. \$\endgroup\$ Sep 20, 2015 at 20:39
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Fering Unless Paizo's finally written its own burrowing rules, creatures, while burrowing, can't charge. \$\endgroup\$ Sep 20, 2015 at 21:17
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ "Allowing pounce without fly or a jump [Note: Acrobatics?] check in this situation is a house rule." Citation? \$\endgroup\$ Sep 20, 2015 at 21:19
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm unfamiliar with any use of pounce specifically mandating a skill check. I mean, sure, the GM could ask for an Acrobatics check to determine distance jumped, but I don't know what any other check would be for. \$\endgroup\$ Sep 21, 2015 at 0:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .