D&D 5E Why is there a limit to falling damage?

[Umbran]

I'd take a long hard look at the effect and see if it made any sense for that effect to do anything relevant to a creature in flight, probably case by case e.g. something that affects a giant owl's flight might be ignored by a dragon or roc or nearly destroy a normal bird.

They generally involve a Str save, which should handle that for you.

My quibble is that the way the rule is written, the creature so affected is given no chance of regaining control of its flight before hitting the ground. It's as if the writers assume all aerial combat will take place within a few tens of feet of the ground

A combat round is six seconds. When falling, one's acceleration is (to first approximation) 32ft/s^2. Starting in level flight, in six seconds of falling, then, one drops 576 feet. So, they are assuming it is within a few hundred, not a few tens, of feet from the ground.

The solution to that is to simply continue the analogy. If it takes more than the time to the creature's turn to hit the ground, the creature takes half their movement to regain control - like a creature uses half their movement to rise from prone.

When I read "has its speed reduced to 0" I don't immediately leap to thinking of that as permanent immobility

There's stuff that'll reduce your speed to zero temporarily. Being Grappled or Restrained will reduce your speed to 0, for example, and those are conditions you can remove - they aren't necessarily permanent.

 

[Oofta]

From Xanathar's Guide to Everything:

​

Flying Creatures and Falling​

A flying creature in flight falls if it is knocked prone, if its speed is reduced to 0 feet, or if it otherwise loses the ability to move, unless it can hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as the fly spell.​

​

If you’d like a flying creature to have a better chance of surviving a fall than a non-flying creature does, use this rule: subtract the creature’s current flying speed from the distance it fell before calculating falling damage. This rule is helpful to a flier that is knocked prone but is still conscious and has a current flying speed that is greater than 0 feet. The rule is designed to simulate the creature flapping its wings furiously or taking similar measures to slow the velocity of its fall.​

​

If you use the rule for rate of falling in the previous section, a flying creature descends 500 feet on the turn when it falls, just as other creatures do. But if that creature starts any of its later turns still falling and is prone, it can halt the fall on its turn by spending half its flying speed to counter the prone condition (as if it were standing up in midair).​

​

 

[Gammadoodler]

Fair enough.

What if they haven't fallen or seen anyone else fall any significant distance? I've played in campaigns where we made it to mid/high levels without ever taking falling damage. If the party contains a character who prepares feather fall, this is actually quite likely.

In any case, I disagree that a few falls would justify a character having a clear understanding of hit points and the "rules" of falling. The dice are variable. Sometimes a character might fall 60' and only take 6 damage. Other times they fall a mere 30' but take 18 damage. Even if we accept the rules as "physics", it would take a large number of falls to get a proper picture of how it all works. Sussing out the 20d6 cap would require many falls from heights of 200' or greater, which not many creatures could possibly survive in the first place.

That's neither here nor there though, as I don't ascribe to the idea of rules as physics.

The only circumstances under which I think that actually makes sense is if the premise of your game is that the players are in an MMORPG or something along those lines, in which case the premise gives you permission to meta game, at least within the context of what the player-characters would know. The players know about hit points because they can see health bars above everyone's heads.

On the other hand, in a standard TTRPG setup, I don't think that characters are meant to be consciously aware of HP or how falling damage functions. A high level character is confident in their skills and knows they're lucky, but has no concept of hit points. Only the player knows about hp. When the character has lots of hp, they feel great, with attacks that should have killed them going wide. When they are low on hp, they feel like they are on the ropes, with lethal blows coming ever closer to landing.

Hence, the character has no idea that they can walk off a 1500' cliff and survive without serious injury. Even if it has happened to them before, they'd simply believe that they were immensely lucky. However, no sane individual would want to push that luck and risk almost certain death just because they're feeling lazy. IMO, the only way to "justify" such action is if the player is meta gaming.

The characters perceive their world in essentially the same way as we perceive our own world. They are therefore unaware of game abstractions such as hit points, which only exist in the context of the game, rather than being a construct within the campaign world itself.

I think there might be some confusion regarding the level of insight the character has into whatever hp are intended to represent.

I'm not suggesting that the character has some kind of readout for current hp or anything. I'm suggesting that over the course of their heroic journey, they've faced increasingly perilous situations and come out on top. And, more than that, situations they encountered earlier in that journey are no longer perilous for them. They can handle more threats than they used to.

As it applies to falling, I wouldn't suggest that the character should know what a specific limit to the damage would be. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a character to say to themselves 'well I fought 3 giants, a dragon and a squad of archers yesterday, this can't be worse than that'.

The player of course does have a greater insight regarding the exact tolerances of the character, so yes there is a metagame aspect to decision-making, generally. But I think that it is frequently unavoidable; the player knows just how low on health their character is, and their character behaves accordingly, whether that includes running through fire, taking opportunity attacks, etc. And I think that it is more often a feature than a bug; when players know their characters can live through cool/reckless/heroic decisions, they're more likely to take cool/reckless/heroic actions and when they know or suspect they won't live through the cool/reckless/heroic decisions, they'll either take safer actions or take the truly heroic ones.

Then at a certain point we get to how we like our heroism flavored. The example that's been around has been the guy who falls because he is 'lazy' and therefore aheroic, and I get the stigma there.

But it gets to be weird ground when we start deciding the things characters can do based on their motivations. Is greed an acceptably heroic motivation, or vanity? If so, why? If they are, is the guy who falls based on a dare or a bet protected? And if not, are adventurers expected to adventure unmotivated by riches or glory.

And this might not be a table problem, as you've had time to train your players what your 'You can't do that because I think it's ridiculous' thresholds are. But, I don't think it's reasonable to expect other players to have that perspective and take as normal that their characters should function differently than the rules describe.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think there might be some confusion regarding the level of insight the character has into whatever hp are intended to represent.

I'm not suggesting that the character has some kind of readout for current hp or anything. I'm suggesting that over the course of their heroic journey, they've faced increasingly perilous situations and come out on top. And, more than that, situations they encountered earlier in that journey are no longer perilous for them. They can handle more threats than they used to.

As it applies to falling, I wouldn't suggest that the character should know what a specific limit to the damage would be. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a character to say to themselves 'well I fought 3 giants, a dragon and a squad of archers yesterday, this can't be worse than that'.

The player of course does have a greater insight regarding the exact tolerances of the character, so yes there is a metagame aspect to decision-making, generally. But I think that it is frequently unavoidable; the player knows just how low on health their character is, and their character behaves accordingly, whether that includes running through fire, taking opportunity attacks, etc. And I think that it is more often a feature than a bug; when players know their characters can live through cool/reckless/heroic decisions, they're more likely to take cool/reckless/heroic actions and when they know or suspect they won't live through the cool/reckless/heroic decisions, they'll either take safer actions or take the truly heroic ones.

Then at a certain point we get to how we like our heroism flavored. The example that's been around has been the guy who falls because he is 'lazy' and therefore aheroic, and I get the stigma there.

But it gets to be weird ground when we start deciding the things characters can do based on their motivations. Is greed an acceptably heroic motivation, or vanity? If so, why? If they are, is the guy who falls based on a dare or a bet protected? And if not, are adventurers expected to adventure unmotivated by riches or glory.

And this might not be a table problem, as you've had time to train your players what your 'You can't do that because I think it's ridiculous' thresholds are. But, I don't think it's reasonable to expect other players to have that perspective and take as normal that their characters should function differently than the rules describe.

Just because you've faced peril and survived, doesn't mean that you assume you can walk off a 1500' cliff and live. The men who survived the storming of Normandy endured extreme peril, but I seriously doubt any of them would expect to walk off a 1500' cliff and be fine.

I believe that it matters whether the player is trying to meta game and abuse the rules vs playing their character like a believable person who fits the tone of the campaign. Laziness is the simplest in-character "justification" for that meta gaming in this circumstance, but certainly not the only possible one.

I'm not sure why you're claiming that I'm expecting everyone to see things as I do. I've said multiple times to play as you like, as well as qualifying many of my statements with subjective modifiers such as IMO (in my opinion) or IMC (in my campaign).

As for taking issue with their characters functioning differently than the rules describe, everything is subject to rule zero.

You, yourself, stated that stabbing yourself in the heart falls outside the hit point rules. That's also making characters function differently from what the rules describe. From a purely RAW perspective, stabbing yourself in the heart with a dagger should deal 1d4+modifier damage. If a character declares that they are stabbing themselves in the heart and you decide it does something other than 1d4+mod damage, you've changed the rules on them (probably unexpectedly, unless you have a house rule for stabbing yourself in the heart).

The rules are a framework for adjudication of circumstances that are expected to come up in a game of heroic fantasy. They can't be expected to cover every possible corner-case situation. That's one of the GM's primary roles IMO. To bridge the gaps between what the finite rules cover, and the infinite options that the players might attempt.

 

[oriaxx77]

Supeheroes don't die from falling.

 

[CleverNickName]

Supeheroes don't die from falling.

But supervillains might...and considering how my players behave around merchants and innkeepers? Well. Let's just say there's room for debate.

 

[rczarnec]

But supervillains might...and considering how my players behave around merchants and innkeepers? Well. Let's just say there's room for debate.

No, they just seem to die and then reappear in time for a sequel.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There you go again.

Stop conflating what your player knows with what your character knows.

Your character knows that falls hurt, and even minor falls can kill. Just like what we know.

Well, except that if I can get a boulder dropped on me, solidly enough that I am pinned by it, without any actual injury, I...probably can walk away from big falls. And I know it.

For a human, jumping down 40+ feet is not heroic, it's downright stupid and suicidal, and the rules should reflect that.

It is heroic. It's exactly the sort of thing heroes do.

Yes, and both of those are good things.

Trying to leap from a clifftop onto the back of a passing dragon is - and should be - extremely high-risk, with failure meaning death.

That sounds like a boring game, to me.

Well, you can't be surprised really. After all, higher level PCs are more likely to fail their saving throws then at lower levels. Sad, huh?

Well, that's not accurate. Rather, higher level enemies have harder abilities to save from, as they should. It always bothered me that my character had the same chance to save from the abilities of a lich as from the abilities of a low level necromancer. Like that...shouldn't be the case. Me being more powerful as well doesn't make that not weird.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, that's not accurate. Rather, higher level enemies have harder abilities to save from, as they should. It always bothered me that my character had the same chance to save from the abilities of a lich as from the abilities of a low level necromancer. Like that...shouldn't be the case. Me being more powerful as well doesn't make that not weird.

Well, it is accurate really when you look at the larger picture. But, sure, it is only part of it, so if you want the whole story...

Overall a high level character is less likely to make saves because the DCs increase (as you know), but for two-thirds of the saves, they don't. Example, my rogue, who is resisting a DC 12 Frostbite spell, is just as likely to fail at 1st level as he is at 20th. Odds are, he only has a +2 CON mod at level 1, and probably the same at level 20. When you consider most saves don't improve, but the DCs they are saving against do get higher, you are more likely to fail them. The net effect is (again, overall) you are more likely to fail the saves you will likely face at higher levels than at lower levels.

And yes, it is wrong, which is why our group changed it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, it is accurate really when you look at the larger picture. But, sure, it is only part of it, so if you want the whole story...

Overall a high level character is less likely to make saves because the DCs increase (as you know), but for two-thirds of the saves, they don't. Example, my rogue, who is resisting a DC 12 Frostbite spell, is just as likely to fail at 1st level as he is at 20th. Odds are, he only has a +2 CON mod at level 1, and probably the same at level 20. When you consider most saves don't improve, but the DCs they are saving against do get higher, you are more likely to fail them. The net effect is (again, overall) you are more likely to fail the saves you will likely face at higher levels than at lower levels.

And yes, it is wrong, which is why our group changed it.

The rogue should fail the save more often when it's against more powerful enemies. An ancient dragon or a powerful lich should be more dangerous, even to the PCs, than a wyrmling or an apprentice necromancer.

edit: again, that isn't a case of the rogue getting worse at saves. They're the same. They're just facing much more dangerous enemies. Those are two different things.