The point is, it makes no sense to claim that such a ruling singles out martials when casters are also impacted, possibly a few levels later than martials (unless the martial rolls low and the caster rolls high for hp). Just because you don't like something doesn't make it pro-caster/anti-martial.
Simple comparison. If I said spell slots can't ever be used to cast a spell greater than 4th level, would you disagree that this rule is slanted against full casters? I mean half casters would lose out on those 5th level spells a few levels later...
No, it is not genre breaking. Ancient masters teach heroes special techniques in stories all the time. If there was a subclass or magic item that granted the Meteor Fall feature, would you really bat at eye at it? It was literally just an example of how one might obtain such a feature in an interesting way.
The existence of such a master requires truly implausible fiction; as an item the ability is just as bad. Consider the options when you fall.
1. With ability, slip and fall, 20d6 damage. You survive!
2. With ability, jump, 0 damage. You survive!
3. Without ability, slip and fall, 20d6 damage. You survive!
4. Without ability, jump. You die...
So at a certain level, you are safer when you are clumsy.
To make it clear, if falls are going to be 100% deadly at a certain height(debatable), then they should just be deadly. Intent-based deadliness moves the DM's interventions into the foreground where they don't belong. At that point your character might as well die from impact with a spectral hand flipping the player the bird from beyond the fourth wall.
What I'm saying is, if you want characters to have the ability to jump from a plane like Captain America, actually give them that ability. Having high HP is NOT that ability. Then they can actually leap from tall places and stick an awesome three point landing, rather than leaping from tall places and landing prone with most of their hp gone. The former is cool, whereas the latter is comedic at best (stupid/suicidal at worst).
Here's the thing..Captain America has no such special ability.. He can do it because he's tough enough and skillful enough (probably has a lot of hp).
Besides which, players will decide what they think is cool for their characters. And there is plenty of precedent for the coolness of a hero who just keeps getting up no matter what (in fact, a certain Captain comes to mind..).
Yup, this is the thing that wrecks it. Those characters have abilities that explicitly grant them the capability to fly or teleport. If they were to do those things without those abilities, that would also shatter disbelief.
So abilities which have zero RL parallels are more believable than things that have actually happened in RL....ok? If that's how y'all roll..
(Also, If we need a 'special ability', we could just do this..
Legendary Toughness: when you gain a level, your max hp increases by 1d12+your constitution modifier, which allows you to survive when lesser creatures would perish....)
You wouldn't let a barbarian fly or teleport by taking hit point damage, would you?
Like for instance at the end of a giant club?
That was a (stolen) joke, but high level barbarians without spell support often have to resort to dangerous and stupid plans to attack flying creatures (get thrown, loaded in catapults and cannons, strapping rockets to themselves, other methods involving explosives). Very frequently these result in hp damage. .which is both fun..and heroic..
So in answer to your question, sure I would, if they're gonna take the risks and live with the consequences.
It's metagaming regardless of whether there's a strict benefit to be gained. The player knows the hit point rules and the falling rules, the character doesn't. The decision is something that the player is choosing to do but the character would never do (because real people don't do that unless they're suicidal).
First, I've never contended that taking the leap is smart. But then, neither are barbarians.
Second, there are no 'real people' in D&D settings. All characters are fictional, unless I've badly misunderstood reality.
Third, even so far as there are 'common people' in a D&D setting, PCs are not that, especially by the time where max fall damage is survivable.
As such, I disagree with your opinion on what a fictional character with capabilities waaaayy beyond those of a common person would 'never do' in a D&D setting.
And yeah, if you are good with this metagaming, why not that metagaming (exploiting the experience point rules)?
Because in one circumstance, the player derives no benefit (i.e. no exploit), and in the other case they do (exploit).
Some, minimal amount of metagame thinking is impossible to avoid and overall harmless. However, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to swing that door open and encourage that kind of thinking. I certainly think that too much metagaming is harmful to the experience. It encourages the player to engage as with a board game, rather than immersing themselves in a role playing game.
I agree. I'm not advocating actual exploits like pre-reading adventures, or memorizing monster stat blocks, etc.. I'm suggesting that
1. The character sheet broadly reflects what characters know about themselves, at least in a, 'I'm pretty tough"/"I've got some skills"/"I'm about to die" kind of way. I think this is pretty fundamental to RPGs in general, but especially to D&D. Basically this is D&D functioning as intended.
2. The characters living in the setting have enough experience with the physics of that setting to have some frame of reference for how much potential damage could result from a fall. More controversial, but insofar as the damage rules represent physical reality for the setting, I don't think it's that radical an assertion.
3. There's no advantage gained. In the best case scenario, the character still takes a lot of damage, for a gain of some small amount of time alone at the base of a cliff. It's a dumb thing done by a dumb character that harms no one.
The assumption itself is what's problematic, since the NPC could have been faking being asleep. We might know that wasn't the case from the description of the scene, but the player had no way of knowing that.
FWIW, I wouldn't just decide that an NPC wakes up.
IIRC, the player asked about the unconscious condition and whether they should roll under the guidelines of that condition, which I think is a reasonable response when you're about to roll dice and all the information you have to that point suggests that you should roll a particular way but your DM hasn't confirmed that for you.
At some point, if the creatures were faking being asleep, or got rustled by a bad stealth roll or whatever, the DM should let the players know that was the case. Otherwise you get this justifiable mechanical confusion unsupported by the fiction.
They're two examples of when casters don't get to declare "I use my ability and it works". It was in response to your claim that casters can just do things, whereas martials need to play 'mother may I'.
There are plenty of circumstances where caster abilities don't just work. There have been numerous times in my games where a caster asked me "can I use this spell to do that" and I've responded, "no". Casters IMC don't get to use their abilities in ways they weren't intended to work, either. Although I still think considering hp an ability is a real stretch to begin with.
Hmmm.. ok that's fair. Perhaps i just haven't been at enough tables with 'creative' spellcasters. So the bias could just be my experience so far with my tables.
