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

[pogre]

I'm a rules guy. To me, taking 20d6 damage you could have easily avoided is punishment enough.

To me, the more serious underlying problem is that the player seems to want to play a fantasy supers game, and the DM wants to run one based on fantasy realism. IMO, this is the issue that needs to be resolved, not changing the rules on falling damage.

I thought one of the earlier suggestions was pretty good: ask the player to narrate how the character "only" took 20d6 damage when he reached the bottom, whether it is hitting the ground so hard at the point of impact that it slowed the character's fall, or clawing at the side of the cliff to slow his descent while laughing maniacally at the adrenaline rush.

I hear you. But let me make this more clear about the situation - The player does not want a supers game - he wanted to use his hit points as an elevator - a short cut. He offered no other justification and flat out said as much. I clearly explained the consequences that would be incurred and he chose not to do it.

What's interesting is that this player sometimes complains about how easy 5e is and how he wishes the game were grittier.

Now, if the player said his PC, "Looks over the side of the cliff. That's a long drop, but there are a few branches and roots and ledges. I think I see a way for me to get down. I'm going to take some heavy bruising and bashing, but I think I can make it!"

That would make a difference to me.

A lot of you disagree with that.

That's cool. As I said up-thread, after thinking about it, I'm good with this being a gray area of DM's call in my home campaign. This thread was helpful in reaching that conclusion.

BTW - I run very much RAW at AL and Cons.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I hear you. But let me make this more clear about the situation - The player does not want a supers game - he wanted to use his hit points as an elevator - a short cut. He offered no other justification and flat out said as much. I clearly explained the consequences that would be incurred and he chose not to do it.

What's interesting is that this player sometimes complains about how easy 5e is and how he wishes the game were grittier.

Sounds to me like your player just wants to attack the rules. All RPGs require a degree of suspension of disbelief, if you player isn't willing to buy into that I can't see a long term future for them in the game.

Now, if the player said his PC, "Looks over the side of the cliff. That's a long drop, but there are a few branches and roots and ledges. I think I see a way for me to get down. I'm going to take some heavy bruising and bashing, but I think I can make it!"

That would make a difference to me.

A lot of you disagree with that.

I would allow it. 5e is designed around an action movie sensibility, if an action hero could survive it a D&D PC could survive it.

 

[Gammadoodler]

That's not how I play. I don't have a "preferred scenario", and I'm very careful to honor the established fiction. I think you may have missed the point of my anecdote, but I realize how it might look from what I've described. The reason the creatures woke up is because they were attacked. I didn't intend this as a gotcha moment, and it didn't carry any heavily negative consequences for the players. They wanted to fight these creatures, and finding them asleep allowed the PCs to get into position around them and gain surprise quite easily. I think the player that was unhappy with my ruling may have seen it differently though, and my point was that I think this was because he had already made up his mind about how he thought his action should have been resolved, whereas my expectation is for the players to commit their PCs to an action and then be alright with finding out what happens next. The "what happens next" for the player's declaration of "I attack the creatures" was "The creatures wake up. Roll Initiative." I think now that I could have done a better job of foreshadowing that this was going to happen, but it really hadn't occurred to me that someone might have the assumption of a guarantee that a creature is going to stay asleep while being attacked, and it certainly wasn't my intention to mislead anyone in that direction.

I don't know your players or how things roll at your table. It sounds to me like you are trying to operate in good faith.

That said, I wonder how unreasonable it is for players to have expectations regarding rulings at least with respect to things for which there are rules.

Typically PCs are expected to do things like set watches, or cast spells to secure where they sleep. They do these things because they expect that being attacked while they are asleep is dangerous which is both reasonable in the fiction and is reinforced by the rules. If the creatures in the world aren't doing things to protect themselves yet still get a chance to win initiative to save themselves, it feels like the creatures aren't playing by the same ruled as laid out in the fiction.

Of course if your players typically don't have to worry about securing where they sleep because they can just wake up before paying the price, this is all moot.

At the end of the day, players are not residents in the fiction. They have the rules and what you've told them as basis to make decisions. Sure they should generally be willing to adapt to what happens, but it's not unreasonable for them to have issues when they find out they had bad information when they made their decisions, no way to know about the bad information, and it's to late to fix it.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, I do. Because I can reliably survive having a boulder dropped on me and pinning me. It isn’t a fluke. It’s absurd to posit that the character doesn’t understand hat they have experienced. I’ve survived failed saves vs dragon fire that would have incinerated a common guard even on a success. I can keep coming up with examples.

The character knows that they can survive things that other people can’t. To suggest otherwise is entirely preposterous.

The character knows that it has survived such things in the past, assuming such things have happened to it during its career.

What it doesn't know is whether its luck will run as true in the future; whether it will survive the next boulder dropping on it or the next blast of dragon breath...or the next fall from a great height on to a solid surface.

 

[Lanefan]

Sounds to me like your player just wants to attack the rules. All RPGs require a degree of suspension of disbelief, if you player isn't willing to buy into that I can't see a long term future for them in the game.

Not sure I agree here. A player IMO ought to be attacking the rules as an outgrowth of advocating for his-her character, and a DM needs to have strong enough rules and rulings to withstand those attacks.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The character knows that it has survived such things in the past, assuming such things have happened to it during its career.

What it doesn't know is whether its luck will run as true in the future; whether it will survive the next boulder dropping on it or the next blast of dragon breath...or the next fall from a great height on to a solid surface.

It's not just that they've survived things in the past though. It's that over time things that once were perilous ceased to be perilous, or at least became less so. If this were not the case, a few goblins would be an adequate challenge for every encounter of an adventurer's career.

In addition, characters know about when they need to take a break or a health potion. So it's not crazy to expect some dots to connect in a "I used to need a break when x happened, but now I feel fine" kind of way.

For better or worse, 5e has a zero to hero level progression. It's unreasonable to expect that the characters should be completely blind to this.

But you could test it out. Take away visibility of hp totals from the players to prevent them from metagaming and see how they run their characters.

I know I'd be curious to see how that goes.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is a consequence of "bounded accuracy" (which is something I've never liked). It was a reaction to 4E's approach of "add half level to everything". The criticism then was "Why should my character get better at skills that he does not practice?" For example, Stealth for a paladin or Arcana for a barbarian.

Honestly, I don't mind the idea of bounded accuracy, but they just went too far IMO. A cap of 40 would work better to me, and still avoid the treadmill effect. But anyway, to your point, does the Paladin never Stealth? Does the Barbarian never learn from others around him when they discuss Arcana information? So, although these things might not be "practiced", they are used and exposed to enough that using a half-proficiency bonus would work fine IMO.

Its like saying 20th level characters can know they cant be killed by a dagger because a dagger only deals 1d4 damage. They get killed by daggers all the darn time.

Yep, they get killed (potentially) every time that dagger takes them to 0 hp. The problem is when a 200 hp character decides to stab himself in the heart (no idea why, but whatever...) and doesn't die! I completely agree with you about how HP works, so how does the dagger not kill the character in such a case?

This is where narration has to trump mechanics. The DM just tells the player, "Ok, your character is dead. Happy?"

 

[Flamestrike]

Yep, they get killed (potentially) every time that dagger takes them to 0 hp. The problem is when a 200 hp character decides to stab himself in the heart (no idea why, but whatever...) and doesn't die!

They do die.

Player (20th level Barbarian): I stab myself in the heart with a dagger to show the other guy how tough I am!
DM: OK, you die.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Yep, they get killed (potentially) every time that dagger takes them to 0 hp. The problem is when a 200 hp character decides to stab himself in the heart (no idea why, but whatever...) and doesn't die! I completely agree with you about how HP works, so how does the dagger not kill the character in such a case?

This is where narration has to trump mechanics. The DM just tells the player, "Ok, your character is dead. Happy?"

So here's my problem with this example. For the life of me, I cannot find the 'stab something in the heart' mechanic. I can find the 'attack something' mechanics though. And it seems like the folks using this example believe these are the same thing.

If they are actually the same, then characters all through the fiction are indeed surviving heart wounds...like all the time, such that it should not seem odd they do so. If they are not the same, then there is no rules/fiction dissonance because there is no rule.

 

[Oofta]

So here's my problem with this example. For the life of me, I cannot find the 'stab something in the heart' mechanic. I can find the 'attack something' mechanics though. And it seems like the folks using this example believe these are the same thing.

If they are actually the same, then characters all through the fiction are indeed surviving heart wounds...like all the time, such that it should not seem odd they do so. If they are not the same, then there is no rules/fiction dissonance because there is no rule.

As an improvised action not covered in the rules, the DM makes a judgement call. Under "Improvised Actions" in the PHB "When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure. "

Someone stabbing themselves in the heart is obviously trying to commit suicide. Who am I as a DM to argue?

As far as PCs getting stabbed in the heart and surviving on a regular basis, they are not. They may be almost stabbed in the heart on a regular basis.