D&D 5E Feather Fall hanger on

[Ovinomancer]

First, what's wrong with waiting for the guards to look the other way? They might not actually look the other way in that round so the trigger does not occur, but I will certainly be 60 feet off the ground at some point during my fall!

You'd obviate any stealth check or perception check based on this declaration, though?

True, but I was referring to the fact that the game system already allows for this kind of precision regarding triggers and Ready actions.

It does not, actually. No other reaction or trigger relies on timing to a precision of less than half a second.

In the game, what the Ready action is doing is effectively changing the casting time of a spell from '1 action' to '1 reaction, with a trigger'. Since feather fall already has a casting time of '1 reaction with a trigger' then the timing precision for each is identical: RAW, there is no issue!

Dude, you're usually on top of rules, so I'm a bit shocked at how badly you have this. When you ready a spell for a reaction, you cast it on your turn and hold the release, subject to concentration checks, until your trigger moment. The time to cast is not shortened, it's lengthened (if you consider casting from start of casting to release of spell, at least).

Bollocks! 'falling while wearing mismatched socks', 'falling while whistling the tune of She'll Be Coming Round The Mountain When She Comes' are not different trigger conditions when the trigger is 'when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls'. As long as you are falling, the trigger condition is still ongoing, and the socks you wear and the tune you hum and the moment you cast the spell are ALL during the trigger condition of 'falling'.

Yes, they are, and if the spell had any of those triggers, you couldn't use it while whistling Dixie in matched socks. They are distinctly different. The issue you're stating here is that since falling is the trigger that many other things that aren't falling can be added and won't affect the trigger. To that, we agree -- the trigger is still 'fallis'. However, that's not what's going on here, you're not adding uncessecary specificity to 'falls' you're adding more granular specificity and changing how the spell actually triggers. Feather fall triggers on 'falls,' and you're changing that to 'being within 10' of the ground.' You can, for sure, but this entails you doing a number of other things to 'falls' that increase granularity unnecessarily.

To expound, can you instead, under your understanding, state that you will cast feather fall:

10' from the ground?
1' from the ground?
1" from the ground?
.1" from the ground?
Some infinitesimally small distance from the ground?
At the very instant that you actually touch the ground?
At some point where you've made initial contact with the ground, but have yet to suffer any damage from compaction?
At the point where you've suffered half of the falling damage from the first half of your body hitting the ground, but while the rest of your body is still falling?

Where, praytell, would you draw that line? According to your arguments, I see no difference between 60', 10', and 1" or the fraction of almost nothing above the ground -- they're all still while you're falling and within the instantaneous casting you're preferring. Which will you pick?

And this matters because you're now breaking the fall into chunks, where you can essentially say, "I'm ignoring all of those falling triggers at 10.9', 10.8', 10.7'. 10/32344423312411441354564635233413424'" and so on until you hit the trigger point you're chosing. Because you have to do this if you're going with your interpretation because you cannot set a trigger at '10' above the ground,' because that's not the trigger for feather fall -- it's only 'falls.' So your ruling instead insists that there are any number of divisions of that trigger that are continuously checked and only bypassed because of a table convention to not run through them all and see if the player wants to use their reaction that that particular slice.

I'm also curious as to when you declare this falling happens -- do players fall on their own turns only, or do you stop every initiative count and declare that those falling have fallen another increment or 12?

You can cast feather fall when someone 'falls' as is within 60' of the caster. That's the same as saying 'is falling' to any degree I'd care to discuss, what with the imprecision of our shared language. So, that's the trigger, and you can argue it only occurs once in any given fall -- if you chose not to react to that trigger, you chose to forgo reaction to that trigger for it's entirety. You don't get to call back a AO when your opponent leaves your threatened area only to change your mind and use it in the last 1" of their movement -- you forgo and it's for that entire leaving, not just the last little bit.

Counterspell. Imagine a caster in the process of casting a spell with a casting time of 1 minute. You are able to cast counterspell when its trigger occurs, which is, "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". Tactically, if the caster wasn't casting that ritual then he would be casting nasty spells against you and your mates. If you counterspell his ritual as soon as you can then he will subject you to 9 rounds of nasty spells. If you spend 8 rounds casting your own spells against his allies and wait until round 9 to counterspell his ritual then you have saved yourself a load of hurt. This is because you timed your response to the trigger intelligently.

And it is just an intelligent use of feather fall to cast it within the last 60 feet if you can see the ground. It's not cheating or twisting the rules or deliberately mis-interpreting the trigger. I am falling, I am still falling, okay, I cast it....now!



Well, that's commendable, especially on the Internet.

I look forward to your reconsideration in light of counterspell's trigger very definitely not being a discrete, instantaneous event.



Again, counterspell. Done and done.

How long does it take to cast a spell, then? Is it .7 seconds? Where in the 'cast a spell' action does counterspell come into effect? Is it's timing important otherwise? If I counterspell, say, in the first .2 seconds of someone casting a spell, is the outcome at all different than if I counterspell in the last .2 seconds of their casting? Do I gain any advantage for casting earlier as opposed to waiting for the end?

All rhetorical questions, of course, the answer being 'timing doesn't really matter, you react to the trigger.' If the trigger is 'falls' and 'within 60'', then when you fall, that's the trigger, if you fall from 10', well, that trigger is 10' from the ground, good for you. If you fall from 500', well, that trigger is 500' from the ground. There isn't a new trigger unless the falling creature stops falling and starts again, because the trigger is 'is falling' and you've ignoring it. Later, when they've fallen 490', they are still in the same triggering fall that you've already ignored.

Now, all of that is fascinatingly nitpicky about the rules. You can go there, but I'm not going to bother thinking about that at the table. What I am going to do is realize that the player trying to cast feather fall in the last 10' of a fall is seeking an advantage from doing so, and that's cool -- I want them to do such things. But free advantages aren't handed out because you imagine that you can just do these really cool things -- if you could, they wouldn't be really cool -- so that sound likes it's an easy task for an adventurer, and timing is the purview of initiative, so, if you want to seek that advantage by pushing the spell, awesome, DC 10 init check to time it right. Because that's the kind of choice that's meaningful and interesting. Want to avoid that? Sure, cast it at a safe altitude and there's no check.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Counterspell is a great example. Thanks. You're right, there really is at least one official, unambiguous example of a reaction that is explicitly allowed to occur a time of the player's choosing.

Here's the official text:

Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell.

Range: 60 feet

Components: S

Duration: Instantaneous

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. Etc.

Note that it says "casting", not "casts". And it even adds "in the process of" for good measure, just to make sure we get the point.

If the description had read, "when you see a creature within 60 feet of you cast a spell" we would have been stuck in the same argument. Right?

So what this tells me is that when the reaction is meant to be interpreted in a way that allows some leeway in timing, the rules are very explicit about it. And the description for Feather Fall lacks that explicitness. Previously I wrote:

and therefore I conclude (although agree that it's not proof) that they chose "falls" either because they intended the stricter interpretation or, as with stealth and hiding, they intentionally left it up to the DMs.

But given this new evidence I would have to say that "falls" most likely means they intended the stricter interpretation.

If, on the other hand, the casting time had used "casts" and then the body of the description were phrased as it currently is, I would have had no choice but to concede that Feather Fall might work the same way. But that's not what they wrote. Such a shame, really.

So, thank you (both) for alerting me to this illuminating exception to the pattern. Any other examples?

 

[5ekyu]

That is exactly how [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] said you read it: You see no reference to when they starg to fall, but he does.

I see it, too.

Actually, he stated how he thought i read into it... i simply responded with that what i read was , quoted the exact reaction text and remarked on the absences of a limitation to what they mean by falls. Falls is the broader term in normal use and can usually include within CONTEXT both the start of a fall and the general case of falling.

One can normally determine which by context.. you know - reading the stuff around it.

Like say that part *in* the spell where it refers to targeting "falling creatures."

To believe that FALLS in the reaction summary is intended to specifically exclude "falls" as in "falls past" and only applies to the first say 1' of a fall when it initial starts, then one has to assume that seeing a creature falling past is not going to allow a FF cast to save it because seeing someone already falling does not trigger the spell's reaction.

Not only does that not make sense, not only does it ignore the context of the spell as a whole but it really does show a rather marked difference between how this spell is read as "intended" over the various years it has been in effect.

let me ask you a simple example.

Fight on a rope bridge.

Across the bridge on a ledge there is a fight where a darkness prevents you from seeing it.

But you spot a character falling out of the darkness. You could not see the "falls" as defined by "starts to fall" but you do see the character already falling leaving the darkness.

Are you saying that by your reading of feather fall and its "falls" trigger meaning "starst to fall" you would rule there is no trigger to the reaction and feather fall cannot be used by your character to stop that fall?

Now, maybe your answer is yes and you think thats fine.
Now, maybe your answer is NO and you really do think falling is what the trigger means.
Now, maybe you think well its a little of both and decide "falls" doesn't include falling but really means "when you first see the triggering event which is somebody falling" but at that point you are drastically adding in a lot of stuff well beyond the decision to limit FALLS to "starts to fall" by cutting out its "falling" definition too.

But i am curious if in the games you run and the games you have played if the falls out of darkness kind of situations would be resolved as "nope, no feather fall for you." or not?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Like say that part *in* the spell where it refers to targeting "falling creatures."

Ah...but note that here 'falling' is an adjective, not an noun. The plot thickens!

To believe that FALLS in the reaction summary is intended to specifically exclude "falls" as in "falls past" and only applies to the first say 1' of a fall when it initial starts, then one has to assume that seeing a creature falling past is not going to allow a FF cast to save it because seeing someone already falling does not trigger the spell's reaction.

Not only does that not make sense, not only does it ignore the context of the spell as a whole but it really does show a rather marked difference between how this spell is read as "intended" over the various years it has been in effect.

let me ask you a simple example.

Fight on a rope bridge.

Across the bridge on a ledge there is a fight where a darkness prevents you from seeing it.

But you spot a character falling out of the darkness. You could not see the "falls" as defined by "starts to fall" but you do see the character already falling leaving the darkness.

Are you saying that by your reading of feather fall and its "falls" trigger meaning "starst to fall" you would rule there is no trigger to the reaction and feather fall cannot be used by your character to stop that fall?

Now, maybe your answer is yes and you think thats fine.
Now, maybe your answer is NO and you really do think falling is what the trigger means.
Now, maybe you think well its a little of both and decide "falls" doesn't include falling but really means "when you first see the triggering event which is somebody falling" but at that point you are drastically adding in a lot of stuff well beyond the decision to limit FALLS to "starts to fall" by cutting out its "falling" definition too.

But i am curious if in the games you run and the games you have played if the falls out of darkness kind of situations would be resolved as "nope, no feather fall for you." or not?

No. That would be the mean, punitive sort of DMing you've been accusing me of.

I'm not arguing that "falls" strictly means "at the moment the fall begins". I'm arguing that it doesn't mean you get to pick the exact moment to trigger it. I'm arguing for the simplest application, which in general will correlate to the moment when the Wizard notices the fall. It's a "reaction" not "an opportunity to cast in a precise way."

 

[iserith]

With regard to any argument that a given interpretation is the DM choosing to be punitive or otherwise desirous of undercutting a player's "good idea," you can't know that unless you know the DM's intent. There is nothing saying it must be necessarily so. It could be, but it might not be. So that's a bogus criticism of any given interpretation.

 

[5ekyu]

Some various points to be responded to...

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".


Well, actually one of the things is not so much "correct" but "consistent."

If you view FALLS as a clear cut "starts to fall" and does not include "falling" (as in falls past") then there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in your approach with the RAW.

In RAw you do not get for any given reaction to redefine the trigger with a die roll. But you have stated you would allow for feather fall a chance to do the acrobatics thing to cast it at a later point in the fall effectively changing the trigger from FALLS (starts) to FALLS (falling) with a die roll acrobatics and a chance of splat.

Now maybe you consistently allow this across your game - make an acrobatics roll to change AO from "leaves your reach" to "enters you reach" maybe?

matter of fact, when you started out, the whole acrobatics thing was about whether or not you were trained enough to pick the precise spot, not whether the trigger condition was including falling or not at all.

Also we again come to context - in this case reading beyond the single sentence taken out of context. Within the spell it specifically allows targeting "falling" creatures. "Choose up to five falling creatures within range."

If you take falls and falling to be two separate things then the way that spell works becomes incredibly screwed up.

When you fall (not falling) you can cast it to help others who are falling but you are currently covered by falls not falling so you are not a valid target?

Once you start falling (lets says a long plummet, you can cast FF then but after that you cannot use FF on say subsequent turns to stop yourself unless you see someone else starting to fall because "falling" is not a valid trigger?

You dont see the start of a fall but then see someone falling and you cannot cast FF cuz falling is not the trigger since you cut that out of FALLS"

But, somehow, an acrobatic check can change that all here, unlike other reactions where you cannot just add a new trigger with a skill roll?

the decision to add in a restricition "FALLS does not inclue FALLING" creates a whole lot of inconsistency and conflicts with the context of the spell and its use and its history... and seems very much hinged on some perception about HALO


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.

Well, see, when a character chooses to "know" a spell that allowing firing a bolt of fire as an attack roll, i assume they did spend time working with that spell learning how to cast it and so forth... not just sitting in a library. When someone chooses to learn a spell which gives a reaction to say give an attack aimed at them a disadvantage, i assume they learned about it and its timing in practice drills not just from reading a book in a library. Some way when someone learns a spell to save them from falling, i assume they learned bits of it from practice including falling.

i would note that it is YOUR decisions that acrobatics is involved that turns this from a physical test instead of an arcane or intelligent one.



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

To read falls and falling as discrete and separate elements in that spell is a choice that brings with it a whole lot of context garbage. FALLS can be read as "start of a fall only" instead of its more inclusive wording but only if one chooses to ignore the context provided by the rest of the spell.

You know, falls can also mean "a waterfall" so maybe there is a just as valid RAW ruling that only allows feather fall when the caster is a waterfall?

"move downward, typically rapidly and freely without control, from a higher to a lower level." Google dictionary falls - definition of fall. first response.

Just to be clear, do you have an actual cite which says from an objective source that falls means "starting to fall"?

 

[Satyrn]

But you spot a character falling out of the darkness. You could not see the "falls" as defined by "starts to fall" but you do see the character already falling leaving the darkness.

Are you saying that by your reading of feather fall and its "falls" trigger meaning "starst to fall" you would rule there is no trigger to the reaction and feather fall cannot be used by your character to stop that fall?

Now, maybe your answer is yes and you think thats fine.
Now, maybe your answer is NO and you really do think falling is what the trigger means.
Now, maybe you think well its a little of both and decide "falls" doesn't include falling but really means "when you first see the triggering event which is somebody falling" but at that point you are drastically adding in a lot of stuff well beyond the decision to limit FALLS to "starts to fall" by cutting out its "falling" definition too.

But i am curious if in the games you run and the games you have played if the falls out of darkness kind of situations would be resolved as "nope, no feather fall for you." or not?

Like [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], I believe you're looking to trap me. Well, whatever. My DMing philosophy includes this mantra: "No two situations are exactly alike, therefore no two rulings must be either."

I'd go with something like your 3rd option, because that looks like the most fun way to handle the situation.

 

[Satyrn]

. . . Also, the semantic nitpicking going on in this thread is reminding me of Maxperson.

I say that fondly, Max.

 

[Satyrn]

You know, falls can also mean "a waterfall" so maybe there is a just as valid RAW ruling that only allows feather fall when the caster is a waterfall?"

Another mantra in my DM philosophy is "There is no RAW."

That means that while there are indeed rules, the wording - the way they are written, the careful semantic parsing of just what exactly that rule says - is not a necessary part of my game.

Or, like handshoes and horsegrenades, close enough is good enough when it comes to ruling (with an iron fist! )

 

[5ekyu]

Ah...but note that here 'falling' is an adjective, not an noun. The plot thickens!



No. That would be the mean, punitive sort of DMing you've been accusing me of.

I'm not arguing that "falls" strictly means "at the moment the fall begins". I'm arguing that it doesn't mean you get to pick the exact moment to trigger it. I'm arguing for the simplest application, which in general will correlate to the moment when the Wizard notices the fall. It's a "reaction" not "an opportunity to cast in a precise way."

So, its OK for feather fall to be triggered by "falling" unless it is used in a way that you dont like them using it for and that is not "punitive sort of GMing" in your mind?

But if you felt it was not about FALLS vs FALLING (as you now claim) how does this part from you make any sense in that context just a few posts up?

"However, that doesn't address my other main point: that every single other reaction in the game (that I have found so far) is a reaction to a discrete event...a moment in time...not an ongoing process. I realize you can split semantic hairs and say that an ongoing fall is an infinite sequence of discrete events, but I truly hope you're not really going to make that cheesy argument. Instead, I'm wondering if you:"


i mean, its not (now?) about the fall (event) vs the falling (process) so why is that very distinction a "main point" for you a few posts up?

Why was that difference important for the counterspell rebuttal of yours??

And again you come back to punitive GMing - not punishing a player by adding in a splat mechanic where one did not exist.

Ok so...

If a character with feather fall standing on the ground sees a prince plummet out of the darkness that covers the view from say 20' up, just comes into view at 20' up already in "falling mode" would you allow the character to feather fall the prince as the spell suggests or would you force an acrobatics check (cuz you know acrobatics and spell casting are somehow linked) of Dc15 with 10' drop per 1 fail (so barring some proficiency or dex bonus a roll of 13+ is needed to avoid splat?

Would the answer change if the prince was the one who could cast feather fall?

Would the answer change if at that moment the character on the ground also "fell" from a different source?

To me, adjusting how a given established mechanic works (feather fall can be triggered as a reaction to falling, not just to the start of fa fall) but then applying a roll for check/fail if you decide they did not practice a specific application back in their undefined and not agreed upon pre-game training days... in a way that can lead to dead character... would be a decision that if I made it as a Gm i would be not surprised at all for it to be viewed as "punitive GMing" as well as a change to the rules we have been using. its why i dont tend to make those kind of decisions.