D&D 5E Feather Fall hanger on

[Guest 6801328]

Ha. Ok, that's a strong enough declaration of innocence that I'm now willing to spring the trap, given that at this point we would both get hit by it.

The problem is tricky for the same reason it's tricky to resolve the question of how, if your movement rate is 30, you can move all of it all on your turn, as opposed to having it be spread out over the entire round. It's just a limit of the rules.

But given that, I would say that you don't move any on the turn in which you take the reaction, whether its yours or not, and at the beginning of your next turn you will have fallen 60'. On any turns in between you will be "somewhere" between those two points, which I guess I'd rule is halfway in case it matters (e.g., if somebody casts Dispel Magic on you, causing you to fall).

Consistent with the laws of physics? No. Close enough for government work? Yes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Context matters.

The thread in question was spawned by a module reference which stated in one of its scenes that if the players said they were looking for ambushes they would get Advantage on the roll.

So that discussion is not about adding a roll for an already defined game aspect, but about allowing Advantage on a roll just by making a statement in player mode.

Equivalent would be say "if player states they are looking for fireball, the get advantage on saves vs fireball."

In this case, its different because it boils down to whether the GM has decided that a caster can use reactions when they want as long as the conditions are met or if there is some additional requirement and roll needed.

Now, honestly, i did not go back to read this stealth held action thing, but. If it were someone wanting to say bypass stealth roll (or gain advantage) by means of hold action "when they *look* away" that would not fly with me and i would explain that 5e base assumption is folks turning and looking around normally in the course of the round, so the stealth check itself and lighting concealment etc is already a test to see if that succeeds.

However, if they were waiting "for a distraction" and say an ally started a fire or sounded an alarm to distract the guards to be looking elsewhere and that was when the sneaker acted, that would be dome with Advantage or maybe no roll if they eaited for the chance the guards stepped away entirely, leaving the area unobserved.

Those are both to me applications of the same principle - to gain Advantage on a defined mechanic you need a circumstance or effort or sacrifice to gain it. Like fighting defensive, help actions, melee vs prone etc. A general principle, shown often in the rules, applied consistently.

Compared to what i see here which is a GM deciding to add new limits and chances of catastrophic failure to a very specialized spell based on ruling its casting reaction works under some new principle that will mostly only come up for it (mostly.)

Even then, as i have said here, a GM can make any ruling they want that their players will abide by it. If you look a lot of the questiond have been centered around is this going to be how other reactions are handled or something unique for this spell. (Basically sounds like it will apply to any case which manages to duplicate the circumstance but that is really going to mostly translate to "just this spell" based on what i have seen in play unless monsters/adversaries/players get to speeds in the 400s or whatever you sussed out as your latest justification.)

See it boils down to this... With the FF all the player is asking is for the spell to work as written and for reaction to work as written for no exception to be made for a typical case... Falls usually have a bottom.

They are not asking for Advantage on a roll or to bypass an established skill check altogether.

As i have said here repeatedly, that is not a reduction in player choice or a decision to add a new definition category of "are you trained in this way of using that spell" that i wpuld choose to add. I tend to consider spellcasters trained in how to use their spells in tactical sotuations and i would not consider "casting FF within say abc feet of the bottom" as some novel enough case that they would not have trained for it.

I am a lot more lenient and likely to give "works as normal" rulings when no unusual circumstances are in play than i am to give Advantage on established checks or allow bypassing established checks where no trade-off or special circumstance applies.

If thst seems inconsistent to some... Hey thats life.

So really the only difference is that I read the text of the spell and think that it means "when you or somebody starts to fall" and you read it and think it means "at any point you choose while they are falling."

 

[Arial Black]

Funny I just re-read the description and didn't see the word "instant" anywhere.

Bit if history:-

In the 3.5E spell description it says, "You can cast this spell with an instant utterance". The reason for this line is that this spell was written before the concept of 'immediate actions' was invented. In 3.5E, the casting time for FF was '1 free action;. Since free actions can only take place on your own turn, this would render the spell useless for all those times when you fall when it isn't your turn. So they had to include a paragraph specifying 'instant utterance' and "You may even cast this spell when it isn't your turn", which would be against the rules without that line.

Later, they introduced Immediate actions and changed the casting time of FF.

When 5E was written, it kept the Immediate action concept, but re-named it 'Reaction'. There is no longer a need to write the words 'instant utterance' any more, because the 'instant' part is simply how Reactions work in 5E: the trigger occurs, you instantly use your Reaction in response, no need to roll dice to see if you time it correctly.

And if it did instantly change your velocity to zero it would have the exact same effect as hitting the ground. Physics for the win.

If a DM were foolish enough to use Real World Physics to adjudicate spells then every single spell description would have to be re-written! Fireball would cause air to expand rapidly, blowing doors open and smashing windows way outside the spell's blast radius if the spell were cast indoors. Spells which allow you to fly would cause nitrogen bubbles to expand in your bloodstream giving you the bends with possible fatal consequences, Teleport-type spells would cause your atoms to each fly of in different directions as a consequence of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and so on.

The spells in the game cannot work this way. They do exactly what they say they do, no more, no less. FF does not damage you when it changes your falling speed; it would say if it did.

Adding Real World Physics to one spell and not the rest is just an excuse to nerf it.

I think maybe I need to hack up a web app where a number counts down from 100 to 0 as if you were falling that number of feet and you press a button pausing it. I'll have it keep track of the number of attempts. Could be worth some laughs.

I've done a similar thing with digital stopwatches over the years. I find it quite easy.

And that's where this Real World Physics criticism falls down. It is not remotely difficult to say "Now!" (or whatever the verbal component of FF is) in time to activate the spell before you hit the ground if you can clearly see the ground! Wizards don't have to be acrobats to be good at casting the spells they know! Just like they don't need a theodolite to accurately place that fireball blast radius.

Sure, in real life the height might not be exactly 60 feet and the blast radius might not be so precisely placed to get the enemy while avoiding your allies. But the game system does allow this kind of precision both in time and in space. In real life, we wouldn't care about it being precisely 60 feet; we just want to do it close to the ground but before we hit, and 60 feet seems a large enough margin. Also, the DM asks you when you activate it (because you already said you weren't casting it straight away), just like he asks you where you place the blast radius. You have to answer with a meaningful reply, and "sixty feet" is an answer which does the job.

I'm not saying that there can be no hazards! What if the ground cannot be seen clearly, or at all? Are you just going to guess, or are you going to cast it at the last moment you can see is clear? What if there are anti-magic zones on the way down? There can be realistic hazards which do not compromise the game system, but suddenly applying Real World Physics to one spell and not the rest, while ignoring the equally realistic "it would be quite easy, actually!", goes against the DM's duty to run the game fairly.

Oh, yeah, and as far as the Shield spell question: yes, it's just as improbable as the HALO trick. Which is why the text of the spell explicitly allows it.

Let's compare two spells that each have the casting time of '1 Reaction': feather fall and shield.

For FF, the trigger is: when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls.

For shield, the trigger is:when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell.

Since each has more than one possible trigger, let's narrow it down to one specific situation for each spell.

For shield, the situation is that an enemy is throwing a javelin at you. The trigger that is being tested here is 'when you are hit by an attack'. So the question is simple: if the attack does not hit then the trigger has not occurred so you may not cast the spell. If the attack hit then you may cast the spell. It's as simple as that. No rolls to see if you got the timing right, the game system for Reactions is that they occur exactly when you say they do, as long as it is rules-legal for the Reaction to occur then.

For FF, the situation is that you are falling from a height of 600 feet, so the trigger is 'when you are falling'. So the question is simple: are you falling? If the answer is 'yes' then you may cast the spell as a Reaction to falling. Since you are falling at every moment from 600 feet to just above the ground then every moment of that fall satisfies the trigger condition and you may cast the spell. And just like with shield, there is no roll required to time it perfectly.

So the game system itself 'explicitly allows it' because, RAW, reactions (all actions, actually) occur when you say they do, as long as the point you specify is rules-legal for that action/reaction. There is no need to randomly roll to see if you cast it at a different moment or different distance instead.

 

[Arial Black]

Your examples are so moronic that I'm tempted to not even bother responding, but, you know, Internet....so....

Yes! That's the point! All of those examples are equally moronic, including randomising when FF gets cast!

 

[Arial Black]

Alternatively, you could see it that both situations are parallel: the rogue and the wizard both get to do something they want to do (Move, or Cast) without rolling any checks. If they want to do so without consequences they have to make a skill check. If the guards weren't there the Rogue wouldn't have to make a stealth check, and if the Wizard doesn't want to use any fancy timing he wouldn't have to make an acrobatics check.

Player: I walk 30 feet to the other side of my empty back yard.
DM: Oh, you want to do so without consequences, eh? Get ready to roll!
Player: WTF?

Sure, attempting hazardous things may have consequences, but safe things should not.

And that's the point: feather fall makes falling safe! You've learned the spell and used a slot to cast it for the purposes of making it safe, there is nothing occurring beyond 'falling' that is working against you, it should remain safe.

In real life it is perfectly possible to fall over and hurt yourself when walking across a clear, flat space. Not a high chance, certainly not 1-in-20, or even 1-in-100, but it is possible. Does that mean that the DM should force a d1,000,000 roll every time a creature uses its movement? Of course not. What kind of game would that be?

Feather fall allows you to fall/jump down safely, landing on your feet. Like jumping from the bottom step. In real life there might be a very small chance that there would be an accident, but in the game you don't roll every time a creature jumps 1 foot to see if he's injured, and nor should you.

If you want drama in this circumstance, have fog shroud the ground or something. Don't invent game system uncertainties just to mess with intelligent use of spells. Don't suddenly invent a spiked pit where there was none until the caster told you he wasn't casting FF straight away. Don't....what's the word...cheat. Play by the rules, don't make up just to mess with the player for being smart.

 

[iserith]

For FF, the situation is that you are falling from a height of 600 feet, so the trigger is 'when you are falling'. So the question is simple: are you falling? If the answer is 'yes' then you may cast the spell as a Reaction to falling. Since you are falling at every moment from 600 feet to just above the ground then every moment of that fall satisfies the trigger condition and you may cast the spell. And just like with shield, there is no roll required to time it perfectly.

The trigger is "...when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls." I think it would be reasonable for the DM to interpret that line not as you do, but as being the moment said targets go from a state of not falling to a state of falling which is the particular instant in which the reaction may trigger. Under that interpretation, your trick to jump into the enemy camp from higher ground (for example) and cast the spell at some point after that particular instant just doesn't work. Alternatively, such a DM might say "Okay, you can stretch the use of that spell a little because it's cool, but the result is uncertain, so let's see an ability check." And that interpretation might have absolutely nothing to do with real world physics.

I personally don't think either interpretation is unreasonable or disrupts the game to any significant degree.

 

[Satyrn]

The trigger is "...when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls." I think it would be reasonable for the DM to interpret that line not as you do, but as being the moment said targets go from a state of not falling to a state of falling which is the particular instant in which the reaction may trigger. Under that interpretation, your trick to jump into the enemy camp from higher ground (for example) and cast the spell at some point after that particular instant just doesn't work. Alternatively, such a DM might say "Okay, you can stretch the use of that spell a little because it's cool, but the result is uncertain, so let's see an ability check." And that interpretation might have absolutely nothing to do with real world physics.

I personally don't think either interpretation is unreasonable or disrupts the game to any significant degree.

Indeed.

My interpretation is the "at the start of falling" one, and I am inclined to entertain the chance of HALO jumping. An ability check is exactly what I'd be calling for.

 

[5ekyu]

So really the only difference is that I read the text of the spell and think that it means "when you or somebody starts to fall" and you read it and think it means "at any point you choose while they are falling."

Actually i read it and see "which you take when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls" and see no reference to only when they start to fall at all...

if that spell said what you read ""when you or somebody starts to fall" i would not allow any option to cast it along the way, justv at the start of a fall. Your chance to react is passed.

For example, i would not allow an AO for "leaves you reach" to be decided later in the turn after you see what they were doing later. You would have to make that decision when the reaction was enabled.

So, pretty sure that your "roll for splat" is a pretty clear sign you are not reading that spell reaction the way you just claimed or you may be using reactions quite inconsistently as far as timing goes - which was pretty much the point of the questions.

As an example of what i am talking about.

melee combat between orc and dwarf
orc decides to move back (not disengage)
ME: the orc is backing off, do you want to use your Ao now
assume no.
ME: orc drops 15' back to ally and gets ready cure cast on them, thenm moves back to melee range and swings again.
Dwarf player: i want to use that Ao now.
ME: Sotry that was only allowed to react to him leaving your area and that monent has passed.
Dwarf player: so can i make an acrobatics roll to get it now even though the moment has passed?
ME: nope. But you should look into reach weapons and feats later on if you want t...

Similarly, if the spell had said "when you or somebody starts to fall" then at my table there would be no "as they plummet past my corridor" or acrobatics check.

but again, you can choose to run it how you want at your tables as long as your players consent. i would hope for my games that such a consequential and imaginative reading would have been made clear to them well before the issue became one of potential life and death.

That gets to one of the core items i have for "rulings" vs "rules". i am very disinclined to give on the fly "rulings" that significantly hinder survival chances, that change things away from the seemingly obvious to the more selective in a way that hurts the PCs more than it hurts the NPCs. You may recall my frequent mentions of that being a key element.

To me those things, those changes should be cases of well inf0ormed and prior consent less than they are likely to be on the fly seat of the pants...

Again... "say yes unless you have a compelling reason to say no" and to me there is no compelling reason to say no to this in a ruling - quite the opposite in fact - several compelling reasons to say yes.

But hey, not my table so...

have a great Friday... ooops... no its Sunday... really it is. You can trust me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

However, if they were waiting "for a distraction" and say an ally started a fire or sounded an alarm to distract the guards to be looking elsewhere and that was when the sneaker acted, that would be dome with Advantage or maybe no roll if they eaited for the chance the guards stepped away entirely, leaving the area unobserved.

Those are both to me applications of the same principle - to gain Advantage on a defined mechanic you need a circumstance or effort or sacrifice to gain it. Like fighting defensive, help actions, melee vs prone etc. A general principle, shown often in the rules, applied consistently.

Ok, so harder/easier versions of the same thing, when the harder version comes with mechanical benefit, are also harder/easier to execute in terms of game mechanics. I think we can both agree on this.

Compared to what i see here which is a GM deciding to add new limits and chances of catastrophic failure to a very specialized spell based on ruling its casting reaction works under some new principle that will mostly only come up for it (mostly.)

I don't know why you think my version is "new". Can you name for me another reaction in the game where the player gets to fine-tune when the reaction takes place, with differing results?

Attack of Opportunity: "Can I wait until he reaches the trap before I take it?" Nope.
Mage Slayer: "Can I wait until I find out if my ally makes his saving throw?" Nope.

I may very well be wrong that there isn't another example, and if you can point out an unambiguous exception it will go a long way toward making your argument sound more reasonable, but in the absence of such an example I have a really hard time believing that this one reaction works differently from all the others.

See it boils down to this... With the FF all the player is asking is for the spell to work as written and for reaction to work as written for no exception to be made for a typical case... Falls usually have a bottom.

For the Nth time, we are both quoting the spell "as written" we are just interpreting "falls" differently. Unless you can provide additional evidence to why your interpretation is correct there's no point citing "as written".

They are not asking for Advantage on a roll or to bypass an established skill check altogether.

No, but they are potentially asking to not miss a turn while falling, not be a sitting duck for ranged attacks, etc. (Otherwise why would you be so keen on being able to do this?)

As i have said here repeatedly, that is not a reduction in player choice or a decision to add a new definition category of "are you trained in this way of using that spell" that i wpuld choose to add. I tend to consider spellcasters trained in how to use their spells in tactical sotuations and i would not consider "casting FF within say abc feet of the bottom" as some novel enough case that they would not have trained for it.

Here (as I mentioned before) I think we have a different conception of what 'training' looks like. I picture nerds in robes reading books, practicing pronunciations, and getting lectured on the foolishness of adventuring.

To be trained to time a landing from a great height I picture something more like Dr. Xaviers, with wizards going into combat simulations and learning...well...acrobatics.

In the 3.5E spell description it says...snip....Adding Real World Physics to one spell and not the rest is just an excuse to nerf it.

Yeah, I shouldn't have gone down the road with trying to apply real physics to the problem. But...that's also where I end up when I start thinking about wizards trying to target a specific 1/14th of a second. Speaking of which...

I've done a similar thing with digital stopwatches over the years. I find it quite easy.

A digital stopwatch is entirely different because it doesn't speed up as the square of time elapsed. Please tell me you understand that part.

I would actually be ok with a wizard stopping in the last 5 feet of a 20 or 30 foot fall, except that I wouldn't want to worry about exceptions. (Which makes me realize, maybe, what the trap is 5ekme or whatever his handle is was trying to set.) At that height you're not going that fast at the bottom. But of course at that height you don't need to get fancy anyway.

It's the big falls, where you're going really fast at the end, where I'm skeptical.

Let's compare two spells that each have the casting time of '1 Reaction': feather fall and shield.

For FF, the trigger is: when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls.

For shield, the trigger is:when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell.

Since each has more than one possible trigger, let's narrow it down to one specific situation for each spell.

For shield, the situation is that an enemy is throwing a javelin at you. The trigger that is being tested here is 'when you are hit by an attack'. So the question is simple: if the attack does not hit then the trigger has not occurred so you may not cast the spell. If the attack hit then you may cast the spell. It's as simple as that. No rolls to see if you got the timing right, the game system for Reactions is that they occur exactly when you say they do, as long as it is rules-legal for the Reaction to occur then.

Right. And because that is counter-intuitive and even physically impossible, they phrased the language to work that way in the rule book.

For FF, the situation is that you are falling from a height of 600 feet, so the trigger is 'when you are falling'.

Not quite. It's "falls", not "falling". Small difference, but I think it leads to most of this debate.

So the question is simple: are you falling? If the answer is 'yes' then you may cast the spell as a Reaction to falling. Since you are falling at every moment from 600 feet to just above the ground then every moment of that fall satisfies the trigger condition and you may cast the spell. And just like with shield, there is no roll required to time it perfectly.

Again, falls not falling. But that aside, I agree there is no roll required to time it perfectly: you get to cast it when you fall without having to roll to see if you're so startled you forget to do it, or become tongue-tied from terror, etc. You automatically succeed. However there is nothing in there that says you get to decide where in the fall it happens.

So the game system itself 'explicitly allows it' because, RAW, reactions (all actions, actually) occur when you say they do, as long as the point you specify is rules-legal for that action/reaction. There is no need to randomly roll to see if you cast it at a different moment or different distance instead.

No. Completely false. There is nowhere in the rules that say they occur "when you say they do". It says they occur in response to something else happening. And every single other example in the game is a very discrete something. No other case that I know of (as I pointed out above to 5ekme) occurs over a time continuum in which the "reactor" gets to makes a decision, with mechanical consequences, about exactly when it occurs.

I really will reconsider all of this if you can point me to one.

Yes! That's the point! All of those examples are equally moronic, including randomising when FF gets cast!

I'm not randomizing when FF gets cast. It gets cast when you fall.

In all those other (moronic) examples you are adding the skill check without also adding a temporal choice. They're not even remotely analogous.

Player: I walk 30 feet to the other side of my empty back yard.
DM: Oh, you want to do so without consequences, eh? Get ready to roll!

Is it possible you didn't even remotely understand my example, or are you being willfully ignorant?

Play by the rules, don't make up just to mess with the player for being smart.

Again, if you think your version is "playing by the rules", find another example where a player gets to choose when a reaction takes place in a way that has mechanical impact (no double-entendre intended).

 

[Satyrn]

Oh, and I'd probably let a player do the HALO thing without an ability check by letting them upcast featherfall. They thought here is they cast the spell when the fall starts, but the magic only kicks in at the end, as soft landing.

Or maybe I'd just tell the players to research a new spell called Soft Landing for those wanting to be paratroopers. Still first level, but uses an action instead of reaction.