D&D 5E A character in free fall, falls how many feets by turn?

[Netherstorm]

David Noonan tackled this topic in the 30th level 4e adventure where the heroes fight Tiamat on a platform that is really high up. This is a quote from "Last Breath of the Dragon Queen" in Dungeon #175:

"Here’s one last option for DMs with a real flair for the dramatic. The standard rule for falling is that a character hits bottom immediately. That’s fine for typical falls, but this plunge is an eighth of a mile! A D&D combat round is 6 seconds long, and a body falls just 576 feet in 6 seconds (but it takes less than half a second to travel those last 74 feet . . .). That means a falling character won’t technically hit the ground until the same initiative point for Tiamat comes around again on the following turn. The character has one full turn to try to save himself by, say, activating Bahamut’s golden canary to transform into a gold dragon beneath him or, if the dragon is already summoned, to command it to swoop down and catch him. Alternatively, another hero who can fly could dive off the platform and overtake the falling character in grand cinematic style, catching him and arresting his plunge just feet above the floor. Neither of these things is especially realistic or even truly within the rules, but they’re creative solutions that ought to be rewarded and they’re tremendously dramatic."

 

[Syntallah]

For me the issue is, yes, I do want my games to emulate a movie where the characters are the heroes. I prefer a Mary Jane Spiderman ending to a Gwen Stacey ending. If a player asks me "is there a way I can try and save X," I'm going to go out of my way to say yes, that's something you can try. That's not something which will stretch my verisimilitude at all, since I'm taking the action movie reality as a given. D&D does that in so many other ways, I'm always surprised when people pick on one particular thing to stand their ground on. It's not wrong (of course not) but it just makes me wonder why this particular issue is the one to try and be realistic on.

While I agree wholeheartedly that D&D is very obviously a simulationist Game, for me, the pet peeve of falling damage goes waaaaaaaaay back. I have seen (and had) players jump out of windows, off cliffs, from an airship over Khorvaire, etc, precisely because they've done the math, and know that the damage to their character is insignificant. Rather than have the "would your character do that ?" discussion in the heat of the moment, I like to have rules in play (that the players are aware of!) that will mitigate that metagame a bit.

 

[Celebrim]

It's not wrong (of course not) but it just makes me wonder why this particular issue is the one to try and be realistic on.

It's not so much just a matter of realism, as it is a matter of internal consistency and adjudication impartiality.

Generally speaking, a role play game consists of a proposition, fortune, adjudication loop. The player makes a proposition, "I want to do foo.", if the outcome is doubtful a fortune mechanic is introduced, and then based on the results of that proposition the GM describes the outcome. It's my desire that the stakes of a proposition be somewhat predictable and observable from the combination of the setting and player experience of the real world, and not depend on DM whim or sense of what he thinks is best for the story. Realism is important only in so much as it helps inform that decision making loop on the player's end.

If it occurs to me, "Hmmm... the player might fall of this high place." or "Wow, it might be awesome of the players could fall off and then do something dramatic to avoid striking the ground.", then rather than arranging for a desired goal by being flexible in my ruling, I prefer to arrange that by controlling what I explicitly have full control over as a GM, namely the particular details of the setting. So rather than say, "Hmm... it would be interesting if the player's had 3 rounds to try to come up with a solution before they go 'splat!'", I'll say, "Since it is interesting for the players to have at least 3 rounds to try to come up with a solution, the most interesting height for the cliff is 3000 feet (or whatever accounts for the desired time)"

I prefer a Mary Jane Spiderman ending to a Gwen Stacey ending

As the GM, I consider my preference largely irrelevant. If it is a matter of obtaining my preference, then I should not GM at all. I should write novels instead. As the GM, I have too much power to allow myself to have those sort of preferences or to allow those preferences to influence play. If I were to allow myself to influence play according to my preference, I and only I would ever have my preference. The players have no tools to actually be able to thwart my will, they'd just be observers of my story, brought along for the ride to validate how cool my story was. This is utterly unfair to the players. To allow the players to have free will, I must scrupulously avoid interfering in the story directly, shaping the story only by subtly shaping the possibilities provided by the setting and relying my inability to always predict the future to ensure that it isn't a railroad, and the subtly of that shaping to ensure that even when there are rails they are very unobtrusive.

In particular, if I make the conscious choice of wanting a story where the players are the heroes, then I deprive the players of the ability to be the heroes. If the players do heroic deeds because I've arranged things such that heroic deeds are the order of the day, then the players haven't not obtained these results by choice, by cleverness, or by virtue of their moral and heroic qualities of these things. If on the other hand, I'm maintaining impartiality and letting the chips fall where they may, when the players do obtain heroic results, they can rightly lay claim to the consequences. The very fact that the Gwen Stacy outcome is likely, is what makes the Mary Jane outcome so valued.

Note that originally, in the context of silver age comic books, it was the fact that the Gwen Stacy outcome was so unthinkable - rescues being routine and expected - that delivered the moment's dramatic impact. It's widely regarded as the most important single scene in the history of comic books. Saving the world, or even a single human life, suddenly stopped seeming so effortless as to be meaningless. Character's suddenly lost plot protection.

 

[Blue]

It's not so much just a matter of realism, as it is a matter of internal consistency and adjudication impartiality.

And trust between the players and DM. Oh, and suspension of disbelief. That giant should crush itself because of the square cube rule.

And most importantly fun. And what is fun varies from table to table. There's no correct answer for this because there are really PLENTY of correct answers for this.

Actually, I'm actively against adjudication impartiality because of it's implications. Yes, there are a set of rules to follow, and they are the social contract that builds trust and is a foundation of the players allowing the DM the authority they have within the game. But there is also a human DM who should be going beyond what can be codified in the rules. Who can grant a character an out-of-initiative action to - at the risk of their own PC - leap off an cliff with a rope to catch the plummeting, unconscious PC. That's not an allowed reaction by the rules so it's something that an impartial adjudicator won't allow. Frankly, I wan an adjudicator who is not impartial, but rather actively interested in crafting a fun, engaging session. Even if it takes going beyond what the rules cover. Yes, the out-of-initiative action is not consistent because I wouldn't allow it every round - but allowing one player to selflessly risk their PC to save another is what gaming stories are made of.

Generally speaking, a role play game consists of a proposition, fortune, adjudication loop. The player makes a proposition, "I want to do foo.", if the outcome is doubtful a fortune mechanic is introduced, and then based on the results of that proposition the GM describes the outcome. It's my desire that the stakes of a proposition be somewhat predictable and observable from the combination of the setting and player experience of the real world, and not depend on DM whim or sense of what he thinks is best for the story. Realism is important only in so much as it helps inform that decision making loop on the player's end.

This is a fantastic and perfectly valid style, one of many. There's a rhetorical divide with "DM trust" and "DM whim" on opposite sides. If you find DMs to be whimful and need to reign them in, go for it. And I can see that DMs can be inconsistent and having an external yardstick to keep them on path can be useful.

To me, a DM can design a killer encounter or no-win situation easily within the rules if they want to. If you already trust your DM not to do that, I'm not sure why there are lack of trust during a game for smaller matters.

As the GM, I consider my preference largely irrelevant. If it is a matter of obtaining my preference, then I should not GM at all. I should write novels instead.

This had me blinking in confusion. In the earlier quotes I see stylistic differences between us, and I can see how yours can make sense for your table even if they wouldn't fit mine. Here I see something I can't comprehend. Every person at the table has a preference that matters. If they are out of sync people will not be happy or will get less enjoyment from a game. It's good to set expectations before starting a campaign to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Now, if you are saying that you shouldn't railroad, yeah I agree. But again, unless your preferences are out-of-whack with your players then there will be a problem. They want a light hearted silly game to blow off steam and you want gritty political shades of grey, and that's not hammered out there's a definite problem. Even if you just submerse your preferences will you still be having as much fun? GM's fun is as important - no more, no less - than anyone else's sitting around the table.

And if you are on the same page as them, your preferences will make them have more fun because what you do is what they want.

The DM isn't a robot; I could play a computer game for that. DMs are what breathes life into a tabletop game. If the DM lets that go to their head and becomes a tin crown dictator, that's a problem. And burns away DM trust.

As the GM, I have too much power to allow myself to have those sort of preferences or to allow those preferences to influence play. If I were to allow myself to influence play according to my preference, I and only I would ever have my preference. The players have no tools to actually be able to thwart my will, they'd just be observers of my story, brought along for the ride to validate how cool my story was.

*boggle*

A DM who tried to run roughshod of the players like that will likely cause the players to fall back on their ultimate point of control - not playing under that DM.

A DM has absolutely NO authority not granted by the players. Not a whit. Not by the rules, not by anything. And the players can ALWAYS take that authority back. They may also have finer degrees of control, like communication with the DM, but they can always exercise that final option.

The DM only gets to use that authority as long as they are providing a fun game for the players. What you describe is self correcting. I've walked away from campaigns, but in more cases I've talked to DMs or groups. And in even more cases I've sat and had fun, on both sides of the screen.

In particular, if I make the conscious choice of wanting a story where the players are the heroes, then I deprive the players of the ability to be the heroes. If the players do heroic deeds because I've arranged things such that heroic deeds are the order of the day, then the players haven't not obtained these results by choice, by cleverness, or by virtue of their moral and heroic qualities of these things. If on the other hand, I'm maintaining impartiality and letting the chips fall where they may, when the players do obtain heroic results, they can rightly lay claim to the consequences.

Well written. I agree with you on one major point of this: if you hand players things on a silver plate it's not an accomplishment. For meaningful reward, there needs to be meaningful risk. AND conscious assumption of that risk in order to achieve the reward. Plot protection of the PCs leads to a boring game.

But I disagree that I can't want the characters to be heroes. I'm the one creating a setting, and I need to put in risks and opportunities. Players will come up with more things to do then I can ever envision beforehand, but I need to lay opportunities. They will make more that I haven't thought of, and I have to take what they did and run with it.

And at my table, that includes evaluating what they want to do in ways with an eye towards telling a great story following their leads. To take a bit from a campaign I had previously run, one PC's self-imposed task of reuniting warring lands wasn't particularly realistic in terms of geopolitics, but as the other PCs fell around him to make it happen my mandate as DM isn't to crush it, it was to follow their lead and craft together a enjoyable game about the trials and tribulations they had to go through towards trying it.

BTW, thank you. This is a great conversation about gaming philosophy, all kicked off about falling speed. Who would have predicted that? Should we open a new thread?

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

A simple answer: As fast as is necessary, with an option to try to speed up or slow down.

See, in real life, the issue of how fast a human falls is comprised of four factors: The mass of the person, the strength of the gravity, air resistance, and aerodynamics of the position the person is in as they fall. Pretty much, from a realistic standpoint, it's actually pretty rare in real life for the freefall speed to apply as the actual speed someone is travelling. Plus, there are positions you can put yourself in while falling that can reduce or speed up how fast you fall by altering the aerdymanics of your body; that spread-out position you see skydivers do in movies is one example.

Based on personal experience? If you make any effort to try to get it realistic within a DnD game while still having the game playable, your result is going to be Hollywood physics. So, I would recommend not bothering with realism.

 

[painted_klown]

I cannot recall the forumula off the top of my head, but there is a situation in the Cragmaw Hideout where the PCs have an opportinuty to climb a chimney, if they fail, they will fall and it gives you the forumula to calculate damage.

Perhaps someone with the book handy, or who knows this formula off the top of their head will chime in. If not, I will look when I get home, and post the answer here.

EDIT: Home now, with book in hand.

Page 9 of LMoP states: (if) the character falls they take 1d6 bludgeoning damage per 10 feet fallen.

Hope that helps.

 

[Celebrim]

And trust between the players and DM. Oh, and suspension of disbelief. That giant should crush itself because of the square cube rule.

Well, some megatherium's were 20 tall and could achieve an upright stance. While it's true that a giant of such height couldn't have the proportions of an ordinary human, I think 'crush itself' might be going a bit far. Besides which, this is something informed by setting. It is a conceit of the setting that, giants being descendants of the gods, that they have proportionally higher strength. Conceits of the setting are specific exemptions from reality, and in many cases in a typical consensus fantasy world are well known to the players. Of course there are giants, it's fantasy.

Actually, I'm actively against adjudication impartiality because of it's implications...But there is also a human DM who should be going beyond what can be codified in the rules.

While its true that a human GM is superior to a computer on many grounds, not the least of which is their ability to go beyond the rules - going beyond the rules and breaking the rules according to the situation are not the same things. All GMs must go beyond the rules because no rules set can be comprehensive. Breaking the rules according to your take on what would be good for the story, even if it is to save the life of a PC or to allow for what you consider to be an especially dramatic scene, tends to deprive a player of agency. It's functionally equivalent to fudging the dice, altering the hit points or abilities of NPCs and so forth. You're basically deciding when and how to let the players win, and conversely, when and how to let them lose.

Yes, the out-of-initiative action is not consistent because I wouldn't allow it every round - but allowing one player to selflessly risk their PC to save another is what gaming stories are made of.

And yet, I have these stories of PC's risking their lives to save comrades. They happen organically. I never know how an encounter will play out. I of course on some level prefer the PC's will win and their story continue, but I'm not here in my capacity as GM to ensure that preference is met. Quite often, I breathe as big of a sigh of relief as the players when they pull off something unexpected, and join in the cheering and high fives. Sometimes though, so as to not ruin their fun, I do it secretly - grumbling about how I won't be able to run up my body count today, while smiling on the inside. Sometimes it's good to be the dastardly villain, or at least his proxy.

To me, a DM can design a killer encounter or no-win situation easily within the rules if they want to. If you already trust your DM not to do that, I'm not sure why there are lack of trust during a game for smaller matters.

Trusting your DM to not be grossly unfair is a fairly low standard of trust. You have it very much backwards. If you can trust your DM to be fair in small matters, how much more can you therefore trust him not to be grossly unfair also. But if you can only trust your DM to not be grossly unfair, then we can say nothing about whether he'll be fair or not in smaller matters.

This had me blinking in confusion. In the earlier quotes I see stylistic differences between us, and I can see how yours can make sense for your table even if they wouldn't fit mine. Here I see something I can't comprehend. Every person at the table has a preference that matters.

My preferences come out in the particular themes and design I give to a setting, and the particular goals I give to the NPCs (and therefore conflicts they represent, although I can't really choose which NPCs are to be seen as antagonists and therefore can't really choose which themes the story will certainly explore). This is more than sufficient power and creative freedom and ought to satisfy anyone in my opinion. But to suggest that my preferences for the story ought also in addition to that exert themselves is to give myself undo influence over the story. I can hint or suggest through the structure of play, but I can't or perhaps rather ought not impose. The desire to shape the story is a player stance, and poorly suited to being a GM. Few things get a GM in as much trouble as fanaticizing about how the story is going to play out - what player's will do, what player's will say, how they'll be awed, how they'll be frighten by your monster, how the ambush will play out - rather than brainstorming as to how it might fork or diverge. Some DMs plan out ages and ages along a single path, never questioning whether the PC's will stay on it.

Now, if you are saying that you shouldn't railroad, yeah I agree.

On the contrary, that's not what I'm saying. Railroading is, done artfully and for the right reasons, just another tool in the DM's toolbag. Railroading is bad solely because too often you see GM's use it improperly and precisely for the 'sin' we are here discussing - desiring to be in control of the story and decide what will happen. But railroading can even be used as a tool of increasing player agency in certain situations. I've got an essay around here somewhere on that topic.

GM's fun is as important - no more, no less - than anyone else's sitting around the table.

No doubt. If the GM isn't having fun, there is no game. However, the source of a GM's enjoyment is different than a player's enjoyment. Many a bad GM is just a frustrated player whose desires for story went unmet, and now he thinks that the fix to his troubles is to get on the other side of the screen.

And if you are on the same page as them, your preferences will make them have more fun because what you do is what they want.

Yes, but part of what a player often wants is to not have their victories stolen from them, or their agency removed from them.

If the DM lets that go to their head and becomes a tin crown dictator, that's a problem. And burns away DM trust.

We seem to have a bit of a disagreement over where to draw the line though. You seem to be willing to allow things I'd consider plot protection in the name of a good game, and yet simultaneously denounce plot protection as leading to a boring game.

A DM who tried to run roughshod of the players like that will likely cause the players to fall back on their ultimate point of control - not playing under that DM.

A DM has absolutely NO authority not granted by the players. Not a whit. Not by the rules, not by anything. And the players can ALWAYS take that authority back. They may also have finer degrees of control, like communication with the DM, but they can always exercise that final option.

Well sure, but in doing so, they still will not exert control over the game and presumably there own goals are now equally thwarted. A great many players will sit through all sorts of crap to avoid that result. Again, it's not a very high standard to hold a GM to that their players haven't fled their table.

But I disagree that I can't want the characters to be heroes. I'm the one creating a setting, and I need to put in risks and opportunities. Players will come up with more things to do then I can ever envision beforehand, but I need to lay opportunities. They will make more that I haven't thought of, and I have to take what they did and run with it.

This is just saying you as the GM have power over the setting. Absolutely, I agree. But whether you want the characters to be heroes or not is irrelevant. You can't make them be heroes. Believe me, on some level I really wish I had more players who could play characters in a heroic mode instead of as cutthroat mercenaries always foremost looking out for their own interest. Opportunities for heroism abound, but are often left on the wayside in exchange for expediency, security, and personal power. You occasionally see heroics sometimes. But I think a DM wishing for and predicating their happiness on how the player's behave is just asking for heart ache.

And at my table, that includes evaluating what they want to do in ways with an eye towards telling a great story following their leads. To take a bit from a campaign I had previously run, one PC's self-imposed task of reuniting warring lands wasn't particularly realistic in terms of geopolitics, but as the other PCs fell around him to make it happen my mandate as DM isn't to crush it, it was to follow their lead and craft together a enjoyable game about the trials and tribulations they had to go through towards trying it.

This is all well and good and uncontroversial, but doesn't address the point here. If at the end of the game I do unite the warring lands, and I know that you've been metagaming like crazy to make it happen, and fudging dice rolls to keep it alive, it better be a really darn good novelizable story we've created, because everything else about it will be ashes on my tongue. And even then, my suspicion is that if you step back from the story it will have as many plot holes as a screen door. If it's not realistic in terms of the geopolitics, then it's probably not going to be a very believable story either. Just because I want to do something, doesn't mean I expect you to put me on rails to that destination.

 

[jodyjohnson]

At one point the Massive damage rules stepped in to fill gaps with the Falling Damage rules.

For example if I were in a group that really wanted meaty hit points and narrated damage then I wouldn't be doing fast healing and would certainly add some Falling house rules such as falls of greater than 20'xlevel automatically drop to 0 HP and 1 Failed Death save, falls greater than 40'xlevel automatically cause 0 HP status and 2 Failed Death saves. Plus maybe toss in a couple rolls on the Lingering Wound chart. Seems like that might simulate the effects of a 20' or 40' fall on a normal person (1st level). Auto incapacitation, lingering wounds, and the likelyhood of death.

 

[bmcdaniel]

Roll 1d20 for each 10' of the fall (maximum 20d20). Sum this and divide the total by 1d6. Additionally, have the ground make a 'melee attack' on the character at +3 to hit for 1d6 damage, with a bonus of +1 to hit and damage per 10' fallen (maximum +20). There is a bunch of additional complexity for falling on rough and unusually hard ground, or soft ground, or spikes, or if you are not medium sized, and so forth, ...

Any chance you can post the additional complexity?

 

[Celebrim]

Any chance you can post the additional complexity?

I'll see what I can do. The 'Celebrim' DMG isn't in nearly as polished a state as the 'Celebrim' PH.

To start with, since it was just mentioned, I'll note that massive damage works a bit differently under my rules and is meant to interface with the falling rules. Instead of save or die, it's save or suffer some traumatic injury of some sort many of which may lead to death but not necessarily so. Note that in the worst case, you can hit 50+ damage after just a 30' fall. It won't happen often, but it can happen. Generally speaking, rolling a 1 on the divisor dice is pretty lethal, so falling off of a high place is something like playing Russian Roullette for a character. That changes the metagame and keeps falling from heights lethal, without the DM worrying about pit traps leading to TPKS or conversely feeling the need to sprinkle the dungeon with 100' pit traps just to make them reasonably threatening. While we are on the subject: A short guide to pit traps.

Traumatic Damage
If you ever sustain a single attack that deals damage equal to your Traumatic damage threshold or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you must make a DC 20 Fortitude save. If this saving throw fails, you take additional penalties as described by the following table.

Roll Effect Description
1 Decapitated/Skull Crushed Character is instantly dead and only the most powerful magic can restore life.
2-3 Head Trauma The character’s current hit points are positive, they are reduced to zero and the character takes an additional 1d10 damage. If this reduces the character below minimum hit points, the character is dead.
Additionally, for each eye there is a 20% chance that it has been blinded. A character with a missing eye has the ‘one eye’ disadvantage until sight is restored. A character with no functioning eyes has the ‘blind’ disadvantage until sight is restored.
Additionally, there in an 80% chance the character will sustain a concussion causing 1d6 points of Intelligence damage. There is a 20% chance that this damage is permanent.
4 Spine Trauma If the character’s current hit points are positive, they are reduced to zero. The characters spine or central nervous system has been damaged, resulting in paralysis. 75% of the time, this is a loss of function to the lower limbs only (paraplegia), with the result that the character takes 2d6 permanent strength damage and gains the ‘Cripple’ disadvantage. 25% of the time, this is a loss of function to all parts of the body below the neck (quadriplegia), resulting in character’s strength and dexterity being reduced to 0. Spinal injuries are beyond the ability of ordinary medical aid, and ability damage gained in this fashion can only be healed by a regeneration spell or the like is applied.
5-10 Vitals Damaged The character’s current hit points are positive, they are reduced to zero and the character then takes an additional 1d4 damage. If this reduces the character below minimum hit points, the character is dead.
If the character is not dead, the character is bleeding profusely, and the chance of stabilizing is only half normal. Additionally, cure minor wounds or cure light wounds do not heal or stabilize the character unless the character is first brought above 0 hit points by other means.
The character sustains 1d6 points of strength damage and 1d6 points of dexterity damage due to broken bones in his torso and other damage to his core.
11-14 Arm Crippled The character’s arm has been smashed or amputated (in the case of slashing damage). The character gains the ‘one arm’ disadvantage until the limb is restored, and the character takes 1d6 permanent strength damage. If the limb is amputated, this strength damage cannot be restored without the application of a regeneration spell. If there is a question as to which arm has been crippled, 60% of the time it is the character’s primary arm.
The character takes no additional damage, but is bleeding until stabilized.
14-18 Leg Crippled The character’s leg has been smashed or amputated (in the case of slashing damage). The character gains the ‘one leg’ disadvantage until the limb is restored, and the character takes 1d6 permanent strength damage. If the limb is amputated, this strength damage cannot be restored without the application of a regeneration spell.
The character takes no additional damage, but is bleeding until stabilized.
19-20 Roll Again Twice Roll again twice and apply both effects.

If you take damage over several rounds or from multiple attacks or sources within a single round, no one of which dealt more points of damage than your Traumatic damage threshold, the traumatic damage rule does not apply.

Some creatures, typically those without internal organs and some forms of the undead, are immune to traumatic damage.

Traumatic Damage and Critical Hits: A critical hit which drops a character to zero hit points or less also triggers a traumatic damage save regardless of the amount of damage inflicted.

Traumatic Damage and Falling: A fall which drops a character to zero hit points or less also triggers a traumatic damage save regardless of the amount of damage inflicted.

Traumatic Damage and Called Shots: In some circumstances it will be clear that damage to the defender is confined to a particular portion of the body. In the case of a coup de grace attack, the attacker may choose where to direct the attack. If a character suffers traumatic damage as result of a scything blade attack after reaching his arm into an opening, only the arm can bear the attack. If a medium sized character standing on a flat surface inflicts traumatic damage to a tall gargantuan creature, in most cases only the leg can bear the attack. In such cases, the DM may rule that the roll on the traumatic damage table may be forgone, and select the entry most appropriate to the circumstance.

Looking over that now, I realize it references a bunch of rules you won't have, like for example disadvantages.

Anyway, so first, your size class modifies the damage that you take and the maximum number of dice of damage you can take. The modification is based on the standard 3.Xe scaling table, and is applied to the divisor dice with a minimum of 'divided by 1' (no division by zero, please). And if I didn't mention, round fractions down when dividing. So:

Size Modifier Maximum Dice of Damage
Fine: +8 1
Diminutive: +4 3
Tiny: +2 7
Small: +1 15
Medium: - 20
Large: -1 25
Huge: -2 30
Gargantuan: -4 35
Colossal: -8 40

Bigger they are, the harder they fall.

For example, a horse falling 40' takes 4d20/1d6-1. A Halfling falling the same distance takes only 4d20/1d6+1, where as a shrew takes just 1d20/1d6+8.

It's worth noting at this point that if you are playing with the stock 3.X rules, 'small' and 'tiny' are already sufficiently advantageous that in of themselves they almost ought to add to your LA, because of the raft of important bonuses that they give compared to relatively few drawbacks (mostly grappling, which eventually becomes irrelevant anyway against really large foes where you need an absolute 'get out of jail' power anyway, namely freedom of movement). This is yet one more advantage, so be careful as reduced falling damage for halflings and gnomes is going to make them more attractive. I can't promise you that if you use all the details of my method it's going to be balanced outside of my rules.

Second, as mentioned, you usually suffer at least one attack when you strike the surface with the amount of damage depending on the surface. The ground has a BAB of +3 and attacks your flat-footed AC if you are blind, unconscious or otherwise unaware you are about to hit something. For each 10' you fall, it has +1 to hit and damage. The sort of attack you suffer depends on the sort of ground you hit.

Falling Attacks depending on Surface
Fluid (Deep water, deep snow, etc.) - No attack, and add +2 to the divisor dice. The first 3 dice do non-lethal damage.
Yielding (Shallow water, shallow snow, mud, etc.) - No attack, and add +1 to the divisor dice.
Soft (Turf, sand, flesh, etc.) - No attack
Hard (Flagstone, dungeon floors, cobblestone, hardwood, smooth rock, lava, etc.) - 1d6
Hard and Jagged (breakdown, scree, rubble, junk) - 1d8, 19-20/x2
Short Spikes (1' long or less) - 1d4 attacks at 1d4, x3
Long Spikes (longer than 1', such as upright spear points) - 1d4 attacks at 1d8, x3

Anyway, that's far from perfectly realistic, but anything more realistic than that would get too complicated to easily use in play. More importantly from my perspective though, is that these rules produce the sort of game play I desire. A player is not normally going to look at a 40' cliff and go, "Hmmm.. what the heck, I'm just going to jump down.", even though the average damage from a fall of 40' is going to be very nearly the same as the average damage of 4d6. Heights are still scary while still allowing normally for cinematic treatment. Pits can have a sensible size and still take significant resources from a party.