D&D 5E Feather Fall hanger on

5ekyu · Jan 8, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
Deliberate exclusion. I was listing the things I would permit.

However, if it was Darkness and Silence, then I would let him cast it when he left the Silence.

In other words, the spell is designed to let you react to falling by letting you fall slowly. As long as you do it as soon as you are able, and not try to game the system to get extra advantage, then I'm not going to prevent it from working.

Oh, and regarding the "splat" rule: as I suggested earlier, I do agree upon further reflection that death is maybe too harsh a penalty. I think I would prefer an option where failing the acrobatics check results in a penalty that isn't death. Maybe stunned for a round, and starting the subsequent round prone.

Or something to that effect.

See, I do not know about your players, but if i told them "hey, whether or not you can cast FF as a reaction when falling out of a silent-darkness will be determined by whether or not you could have cast it before and if i think you were trying to gain an advantage - i am pretty sure my players would check me for drugs... not necessarily to stop me from taking them as deciding they needed them to keep playing in my game.

I would feel stupid explaining that the "can this be done" would be dependent on the intent as opposed to the actions, approach and circumstance and that would violate my STUPID RULE which says that if i would feel stupid explaining a rule to my players, i dont use that rule.

i would also not be inclined to try and cover that as an interpretation of RAW based on the definition of "is",... wait.. of "falls" when my actual "reason" is derived from my perception of their "try to game the system to get extra advantage"

Matter of fact, if i just read FALLS as FALLS and not FALLS BUT ONLY FALLING IF... then choosing when to trigger feather fall is no more a "try to game the system to get extra advantage" than is moving to a position before casting Thunderwave so that it knocks a creature over a ledge.

case 1 - My bard can move to the left side or the right side of the creature with the same movement used for either.
if i go leftside i am between the creature and the drop and my thunderwave pushes them further into the room leaving me at the ledge where i can be shoved off by any number of possible situations.
if i move to the right side, i am in the room without a dropoff worry and a thunderwave failed save pushes them off the ledge giving me a big gain.

As long as the Gm does not change how things work, i get a lot more from making one decision and suffer a lot less risk from the other.

this is NOT to me a case of "try to game the system to get extra advantage" but is a case of playing the character as intelligent and using the way things work in game competently. The advantage gained is not "extra" its just what one should expect from making the better decision.

Similarly...

case 2 My character an pushed off a ledge by some meddling bard's thunderwave for a long long fall.
I can choose to cast FF now and slow my fall right here... possibly getting attacked by those other meddlesome kids, possibly having the FF run out before i hit bottom, possibly getting attacked along the way by flying beasties or at least fireballs since 60' per leaves me in range
i can fall for a while then cast my FF when i get close, getting me pretty quickly out of the range opf most of their spells/attacks etc.

As long as the Gm does not change how things work, i can get a lot more from one choice than the other.

this is NOT to me a case of "try to game the system to get extra advantage" but is a case of playing the character as intelligent and using the way things work in game competently. The advantage gained is not "extra" its just what one should expect from making the better decision.

But simply put, whether or not i thought it was an attempt to game the system or not would not affect or impact my ruling from one case to the next. My ruling is about the "way things work in the setting and the game" not "is this a try to game the system to get extra advantage"

but thats me. others may disagree and that is fine.

Guest 6801328 · Jan 9, 2018

5ekyu said:
See, I do not know about your players, but if i told them "hey, whether or not you can cast FF as a reaction when falling out of a silent-darkness will be determined by whether or not you could have cast it before and if i think you were trying to gain an advantage - i am pretty sure my players would check me for drugs... not necessarily to stop me from taking them as deciding they needed them to keep playing in my game.

I would feel stupid explaining that the "can this be done" would be dependent on the intent as opposed to the actions, approach and circumstance and that would violate my STUPID RULE which says that if i would feel stupid explaining a rule to my players, i dont use that rule.

i would also not be inclined to try and cover that as an interpretation of RAW based on the definition of "is",... wait.. of "falls" when my actual "reason" is derived from my perception of their "try to game the system to get extra advantage"

Matter of fact, if i just read FALLS as FALLS and not FALLS BUT ONLY FALLING IF... then choosing when to trigger feather fall is no more a "try to game the system to get extra advantage" than is moving to a position before casting Thunderwave so that it knocks a creature over a ledge.

Wow. You are really bending over backwards to make this sound complicated.

"I cast Feather Fall."
"You can't...you're inside a silence spell."
"Oh. When I come out of the silence spell I try to cast it."
"Ok. You're about 80 feet above the ground, floating down."
"Cool."

case 1 - My bard can move to the left side or the right side of the creature with the same movement used for either.
if i go leftside i am between the creature and the drop and my thunderwave pushes them further into the room leaving me at the ledge where i can be shoved off by any number of possible situations.
if i move to the right side, i am in the room without a dropoff worry and a thunderwave failed save pushes them off the ledge giving me a big gain.

As long as the Gm does not change how things work, i get a lot more from making one decision and suffer a lot less risk from the other.

this is NOT to me a case of "try to game the system to get extra advantage" but is a case of playing the character as intelligent and using the way things work in game competently. The advantage gained is not "extra" its just what one should expect from making the better decision.

Uh, yeah.

You keep trying to argue this thing that I'm not arguing. You think my reading of the Feather Fall spell is not just a different ruling but actually wrong, so you keep making these analogies asking why I would change other rules to make things harder for players. (Such as forcing your character to go around one side rather than the other.)

Since I don't accept that I'm reading the Feather Fall spell wrong, why would that line of reasoning be productive? Obviously I'm not going to think that your attempts at analogies make any sense at all.

Similarly...

case 2 My character an pushed off a ledge by some meddling bard's thunderwave for a long long fall.
I can choose to cast FF now and slow my fall right here... possibly getting attacked by those other meddlesome kids, possibly having the FF run out before i hit bottom, possibly getting attacked along the way by flying beasties or at least fireballs since 60' per leaves me in range
i can fall for a while then cast my FF when i get close, getting me pretty quickly out of the range opf most of their spells/attacks etc.

As long as the Gm does not change how things work, i can get a lot more from one choice than the other.

See? There you go again. We're not even debating the same thing anymore.

And the rest of your post continues in this same vein...

this is NOT to me a case of "try to game the system to get extra advantage" but is a case of playing the character as intelligent and using the way things work in game competently. The advantage gained is not "extra" its just what one should expect from making the better decision.

Click to expand...

But simply put, whether or not i thought it was an attempt to game the system or not would not affect or impact my ruling from one case to the next. My ruling is about the "way things work in the setting and the game" not "is this a try to game the system to get extra advantage"

but thats me. others may disagree and that is fine.

We are debating (I thought...?) whether one or both interpretations of Feather Fall are correct, not whether changing the rules to penalize players is a good thing to do.

I'm going to summarize my position as succinctly as possible:

1) Based on the language of Feather Fall I conclude that Feather Fall is supposed to be used as a reaction to a discrete event, which is that somebody "falls". I don't believe it is meant to apply to the ongoing process of falling, especially since a spell that does work that way, Counterspell, uses language that very specifically does allow it. The absence of that language in Feather Fall speaks, I believe, to the designers' intent.

2) In cases where a player cannot respond immediately to a fall, such as starting inside a Silence spell, or trying to cast it on somebody else who starts out of range but falls into range, I would allow it to be used as soon as possible. In other words, "react to the situation as soon as you can". Yes, that raises some paradoxes, and I could easily justify saying, "Sorry, that's not how Feather Fall is written so you can't do that..." but I'd rather be lenient and not be a dick.

3) If somebody wanted to get fancy and time their Feather Fall to go off just before they land I would require an additional roll. You know, "greater risk, greater reward" and all. I think acrobatics is appropriate because that is kind of exactly what acrobats do: time landings. I'm not sure (yet) exactly what penalty I would impose for failure. Maybe stunned for 1 round for each 60' or something.

5ekyu · Jan 9, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
You keep trying to argue this thing that I'm not arguing. You think my reading of the Feather Fall spell is not just a different ruling but actually wrong, so you keep making these analogies asking why I would change other rules to make things harder for players. (Such as forcing your character to go around one side rather than the other.)

Actually, based on "As long as you do it as soon as you are able, and not try to game the system to get extra advantage, then I'm not going to prevent it from working." and also the #3 above, it seems that what you are doing is allowing a new trigger for Feather fall, perhaps other spells no idea, if they want to risk a die roll since they are clearly outside your established trigger.

As for your somewhat odd reference to the one side vs other side reference i gave above, i was trying to show the difference between " try to game the system to get extra advantage" and just simple smart play reaping its own rewards.

In the thunder weave the player chooses to go to a side where things running as normal produces better results. there is no "extra" advantage being sought. Just that things act as they normally would and because of the choices made those results are better than if other choices were made. Hopefully, the Gm does not interpret that as "try to game the system to get extra advantage" and rule to keep it from working.

In the FF examples, it really seems to be an ever-morphing set of triggers - originally it was start of fall, not its start of fall or as soon as you see someone falling and now iot is as soon as you see someone falling and can legit cast the spell and whatever else you find to be covered under "not try to game the system to get extra advantage" as far as i can tell plus a special die roll for other cases.

Look, at least when you were arguing the definition of FALLS - that it meant the moment a fall starts - you had a definition leg to stand on for "this is what RAW means." But now you have gone to "first opportunity" and the "not for extra advantage" etc etc... it really makes it obvious that it boilds down to exactly what you just said...

"...not try to game the system to get extra advantage, then I'm not going to prevent it from working." which is a lot different from what RAW says.

For other reactions, how much advantage you gain from them or whether the Gm decides it is an extra advantage does not affect whether or not you can trigger it. if i have a reaction to give resistance to an ally, there is no question if i choose to not use it for the first attack (cuz its from a minion" and then decide to use it for the attack from the big boss so that the resistance gives them more saving. Sure, if a gm chose to see that as "gaining extra advantage" or wanted to assume that that ability was supposed to be some sort of reflexive think, not a calculated choice or even that i could not gain enough knowledge of the big boss vs the minion from my days in the library... sure they could decide that for their game now that was a die roll or some such. but, likely as not, i would already be well aware of that particular Gms "style" and have already accepted that... so hey, whatever.

have a great Sunday and keep a good eye peeled for those traps.

Guest 6801328 · Jan 9, 2018

5ekyu said:
Actually, based on "As long as you do it as soon as you are able, and not try to game the system to get extra advantage, then I'm not going to prevent it from working." and also the #3 above, it seems that what you are doing is allowing a new trigger for Feather fall, perhaps other spells no idea, if they want to risk a die roll since they are clearly outside your established trigger.

As for your somewhat odd reference to the one side vs other side reference i gave above, i was trying to show the difference between " try to game the system to get extra advantage" and just simple smart play reaping its own rewards.

In the thunder weave the player chooses to go to a side where things running as normal produces better results. there is no "extra" advantage being sought. Just that things act as they normally would and because of the choices made those results are better than if other choices were made. Hopefully, the Gm does not interpret that as "try to game the system to get extra advantage" and rule to keep it from working.

In the FF examples, it really seems to be an ever-morphing set of triggers - originally it was start of fall, not its start of fall or as soon as you see someone falling and now iot is as soon as you see someone falling and can legit cast the spell and whatever else you find to be covered under "not try to game the system to get extra advantage" as far as i can tell plus a special die roll for other cases.

Look, at least when you were arguing the definition of FALLS - that it meant the moment a fall starts - you had a definition leg to stand on for "this is what RAW means." But now you have gone to "first opportunity" and the "not for extra advantage" etc etc... it really makes it obvious that it boilds down to exactly what you just said...

"...not try to game the system to get extra advantage, then I'm not going to prevent it from working." which is a lot different from what RAW says.

For other reactions, how much advantage you gain from them or whether the Gm decides it is an extra advantage does not affect whether or not you can trigger it. if i have a reaction to give resistance to an ally, there is no question if i choose to not use it for the first attack (cuz its from a minion" and then decide to use it for the attack from the big boss so that the resistance gives them more saving. Sure, if a gm chose to see that as "gaining extra advantage" or wanted to assume that that ability was supposed to be some sort of reflexive think, not a calculated choice or even that i could not gain enough knowledge of the big boss vs the minion from my days in the library... sure they could decide that for their game now that was a die roll or some such. but, likely as not, i would already be well aware of that particular Gms "style" and have already accepted that... so hey, whatever.

have a great Sunday and keep a good eye peeled for those traps.

Amazing. It's like arguing with somebody who speaks a different language.

I started writing a response, attempting to straighten out all the things you're not understanding, and I thought, "These are literally the exact same words I've written at least once."

So I'm going to let it go here, left with the conclusion that you have completely failed to comprehend anything I've written.

Guest 6801328 · Jan 9, 2018

So this is entertaining.

I decided to play around with the physics of this a little more. Presumably the HALO jumps work from any height. I decided to play around with 230 feet, stopping 5' short of the ground. Why 230 feet? Because at the speed you would be going after 225 feet you would pass through that 5' cube in about a 24th of a second, which is one of the standards for movie frames. That means that you would have to time your spell to the precision of nailing one frame in a movie.

Let's say that's possible.

That also means that for Counterspell to be able to negate the Feather Fall, the second Wizard (or whoever) would also have the duration of a movie frame to realize Feather Fall was being cast (the "process of casting"), make a decision, and cast his own spell. One 24th of a second.

Just to give some perspective, the sound of the casting won't even reach the maximum range of Counterspell in 1/24 second. About 46 of the 60 feet. (Not that you necessarily need to hear a spell being cast to Counterspell it. I'm just sayin.)

Ok, so earlier we agreed that the spell doesn't have to instantly reduce your speed to 60 feet. But it does have to do it within 5'. Because, you know, you're only 5' away from the ground after your HALO jump.

I looked at those numbers and discovered that after free-falling 225 feet, to reduce speed to 60 feet/round within 5' you would pull about 82 Gs. That's if you use the entire 5' to slow down, reaching the 60 feet/round speed just as your feet touch. Blackout usually occurs at just 1/10th of that.

Speaking of feet touching, Feather Fall states that you always land on your feet. That means that if, for whatever reason, you were upside down when you cast the spell, you would have to spin around very, very quickly. How quickly? Well, your average speed over those last 5' is about 65 feet/second, which means you have 1/13 second to spin around. For a 6' person, pivoting around the midway point (it should be center of gravity but I'm keeping this simple) your head and feet would pull...drumroll...135 Gs.

/headexplode (both figuratively and literally, in this case)

Now, I'm not saying ANY of this invalidates the HALO jump method. If you want to interpret the rules to allow halo jumps then I think you should ignore the physics and just say "because magic".

But since [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] loves latching onto potential paradoxes in other people's rulings and getting all hyperbolic about it, I thought it would be worth analyzing his method.

5ekyu · Jan 9, 2018

Gotta love those posts that go in for physics vs magic in dnd discussions. Always good for a laugh.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

Guest 6801328 · Jan 9, 2018

5ekyu said:
Gotta love those posts that go in for physics vs magic in dnd discussions. Always good for a laugh.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

I agree! It's hilarious, right?

Which is why it's so convenient to be able to say "because magic" when one makes a ruling that defies logic in multiple ways.

5ekyu · Jan 9, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
I agree! It's hilarious, right?

Which is why it's so convenient to be able to say "because magic" when one makes a ruling that defies logic in multiple ways.

Well, maybe, but to my limited way of thinking, if one wants to go on and on about real world physics and the way things work in most any RPG but yes magic too, there are likely much bigger axes that can grind that break so much bigger physics than say the physics of a low level falling spell and timing microjiffies.

I mean, once me and my players agree to play with flying dragons, ghosts, demons and wishes and trapping souls in gems - we have already given away the minutia of real world newtonian physics being a strong element in the game especially when it applies to the most basic macguffin of the lot.

Just like when we play spy games, we tend to give up all that heavy ballistic gun-math and tend to go with auto-fire vs single shot rules that reflect that style or how if we play scifi of a flavor that has hyperspace or wormholes we don't start trying to rewrite those game elements mid-stream with "real world physics."

We look for the in-game mechanics to reflect the in-game reality and especially to present the cases where they depart from what we see everyday very well, very clearly and very consistently.

that way, when in-game something goes differently from what we have come to expect, we can play our characters going "hey, that went wrong. What is going on?" as opposed to just us the players saying "hey, maybe that was too much extra advantage" or toss it up to just inconsistencies in interpretation hitting again.

But the physics and DND posts and articles and discussions have been a hoot for decades and likely will continue to be for many more. maybe a geek version of the angels head of pins thing.

Guest 6801328 · Jan 9, 2018

5ekyu said:
Well, maybe, but to my limited way of thinking, if one wants to go on and on about real world physics and the way things work in most any RPG but yes magic too, there are likely much bigger axes that can grind that break so much bigger physics than say the physics of a low level falling spell and timing microjiffies.

I mean, once me and my players agree to play with flying dragons, ghosts, demons and wishes and trapping souls in gems - we have already given away the minutia of real world newtonian physics being a strong element in the game especially when it applies to the most basic macguffin of the lot.

Just like when we play spy games, we tend to give up all that heavy ballistic gun-math and tend to go with auto-fire vs single shot rules that reflect that style or how if we play scifi of a flavor that has hyperspace or wormholes we don't start trying to rewrite those game elements mid-stream with "real world physics."

We look for the in-game mechanics to reflect the in-game reality and especially to present the cases where they depart from what we see everyday very well, very clearly and very consistently.

that way, when in-game something goes differently from what we have come to expect, we can play our characters going "hey, that went wrong. What is going on?" as opposed to just us the players saying "hey, maybe that was too much extra advantage" or toss it up to just inconsistencies in interpretation hitting again.

But the physics and DND posts and articles and discussions have been a hoot for decades and likely will continue to be for many more. maybe a geek version of the angels head of pins thing.

Definitely. I think we are saying the same thing: we shouldn't let potential paradoxes over-complicate rules. It's more important to streamline the game so we can focus on the storytelling, right?

Or is that not what you are saying?

D&D 5E Feather Fall hanger on

5ekyu

Hero

Guest 6801328

Guest

5ekyu

Hero

Guest 6801328

Guest

Guest 6801328

Guest

5ekyu

Hero

Guest 6801328

Guest

5ekyu

Hero

Guest 6801328

Guest

Similar Threads