D&D 5E Is Dying really hard?

[OB1]

I should just say a fall of more than 100' is just death unless you have some kind of ability.

How about, make 1 death save for each 10' you've fallen over the initial 10 feet? Would still very likely end in death for any fall over 70', but just like IRL you could get lucky from even much higher distances.

Monks using their slow fall ability add 5 feet per level to the initial 10'.

Works better if you are using a house rule where failed death saves stick with you through at least a short rest.

 

[Stalker0]

For falling, you can use a combination of fatigue and/or death saves and/or automatic death saves to bring a bit more sting back to it if you need to.

Falling is still a bit unrealistic, but its still better than 3e where HP were often twice as high and gravity was the same damage. I still agree though that it could use some work.

 

[devincutler]

Little history.

The original rule was d6 per 10', cumulative.

So 10; was d6.

20' was 3d6 (d6 + 2d6).

30' was 6d6 (d6+ 2d6 + 3d6).

Max damage was 20d6 at 60'. After that, you just 20d6 regardless of height. Yep. (Source: Dragon Magazine #69)

Due to a scrivener's error, approximately four words or so were removed from the PHB, so it appeared to be d6 per 10' (not cumulative), an error that just kept propagating through the system.

But using the proper rules, falling ... really ... sucked.

20d6 for 60' + equals 70hp on average. Not much in 5e terms.

But in 1e terms, that was enough to kill most PCs. Even high level fighters had a good shot of dying. Name level fighter (9) = 5.5hp*9 = 49.5hp. And 3hp/level after that. Constitution bonuses helped, but were less common then.

(Edit- I should add that the cumulative issue wasn't well known, obviously, and most played with the standard d6 per 10', max of 20d6 for 200'; still deadly, but required much longer drops).

To clarify even further...the original rule in 1e was NOT cumulative. Page 105 of the PHB makes it very clear that it is not. Gygax then issued an addendum buried in the write up of the Thief-Acrobat class in an issue of Dragon Magazine...official per se but not likely widely disseminated back then (this was 1983 and D&D was far more popular than Dragon Magazine).

Most people I knew played the non-cumulative, having not been fortunate enough to have that issue of Dragon Magazine.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Kalshane]

Yeah, falling in D&D has never been super-deadly for high level characters. One of my players in the early days deciding to have his fighter take the "quick" way down a 500' cliff is something we still talk about. (He had 106 hps before taking his leap and 3 left on impact. One of the other players decided to spit on him [we were kids] and I handed him a d4 to roll for damage. He rolled a 2. In a game where we were still using the core rule of 0hp=dead.)

 

[Nebulous]

no it isnt. But it's nice to try and make it so, despite the devs.

You know, I often DO wish D&D was more realistic, but it's just a lost battle, I have to concede that it's a superheroes game with fantasy tropes. If I wanted to run a more realistic fantasy game I could change systems, that's about the only way to do it.

 

[Stalker0]

You know, I often DO wish D&D was more realistic, but it's just a lost battle, I have to concede that it's a superheroes game with fantasy tropes. If I wanted to run a more realistic fantasy game I could change systems, that's about the only way to do it.

My friend ran a level 0 game (that eventually become level 1). And while its never realistic per say, you can run it much more low fantasy. 1st level characters still can do very cool things, but have to deal with "realistic" concerns.

The problem for some is that gets boring after a while.

 

[Psikerlord#]

You know, I often DO wish D&D was more realistic, but it's just a lost battle, I have to concede that it's a superheroes game with fantasy tropes. If I wanted to run a more realistic fantasy game I could change systems, that's about the only way to do it.

As far as 5e goes, you are probably right

 

[Nebulous]

Death is trivial once you hit 5th level really. Honestly the rules on damage and healing make it hard to take this game seriously at times. And wack a mole happens a lot in any serous encounter. If I keep running 5e I'll have to house rule the heck out of it. Exhaustion levels for failed death saves is a good idea. I'll probably get rid of revivify. a 3rd level raise dead spell...no thanks.

In my last session i used the falling damage rules. So they were fighting on a swinging bridge and one fell off the side 300 feet to his...unconsciousness. 20d6 is max falling damage so his result of 106 put him in death save mode. Well the cleric zipped down there, hit him with a couple HP of healing and rather than being street pizza he was up and kicking butt in seconds. Since average damage from a fall of 200' or greater is 70 points once you hit high levels if you need to get down from the top of a tower quickly just jump. 500 foot fall? Meh, I'll land it on my face and be up and fighting!

I'm sure I'll be house ruling that.

All IME, YMMV, etc.

Uh, yeah, that's some BS right there. You could also remove the cap, increase it in that case to 30d6. There's a good chance that would outstrip the massive damage threshold and kill the character.

Good lord, sometimes I think half the game is just trying to figure out how to kill the PCs when they reach mid level!!! Makes my brain hurt, lol

 

[Valetudo]

Death is easy. Life is hard....