D&D 5E On Falling

77IM · Sep 7, 2014

Here's a nice idea: monk's slow fall takes a reaction. So, based on that, you could rule that a character gets a save to grab the ledge but it costs their reaction.

This has some interesting tactical implications, as people fighting near pits or on narrow walkways may forego their opportunity attacks to save their reactions just in case they fall.

pming · Sep 7, 2014

Hiya.

Juriel said:
Rules dictate how the game will progress. If tossing people off cliffs is a no-save insta-death, then you have no reason to fight with people, it just becomes a game of shove shove Thunderwave okay, clear. And the same applies to the PCs, no saves, just 'sorry the giant tossed you off the cliff, can you eat 70 falling damage? okay, no, roll new char'

This is why it could be a good idea to touch on the subject in some fashion. 'Oh hey, in heroic fiction boss battles at top of a mountain/wizard tower/ramparts don't usually start and end with the first 4 x Repelling Eldritch Blast, so named characters always get a save to hang on' would do it, that simple.

Because, the rules cannot help but shape the narrative and the world, they let everyone know how things operate. And they choose what the players get rewarded for doing. Rules should make the GM's life easier, because he doesn't have to start being an armchair game designer on the spot, fixing stuff like this when all he wanted was a cool backdrop for a boss encounter.

I think you're still thinking "backwards". The rules do not dictate how the game will progress; that is entirely up to the DM and players. The rules may shape the outcome of that progression, however.

Do you think tossing someone off a 400' cliff to jagged rocks below should be "insta-death"? Ok, they use the rules as is and roll 20d6 damage. That doesn't fit with your idea of "heroics"? Ok, give the PC a save for half damage. Still not good enough? Let them make a Dex save to try and avoid being thrown off in the first place. You see, you take the premise of what direction you want the game to progress, then you use the rules to shape that progression. You generally don't want "automatics"; far to predicable and boring...you want some chance of failure so that the chance of success is sweeter when it happens.

I agree with the third paragraph ("Because, the rules cannot help but shape the narrative and the world..."), overall. And, IMHO, the rules do exactly that; make the DM's life easier. It gives the DM a baseline from which to make consistent rulings. However, *all* DM's are game designers...they have to be. It's part and parcel of "The Job". A DM's job is to basically "create on the spot" rules and whatnot simply because no rules system can cover every situation. This is why, IMHO, "simplistic rules" are much better than "specific rules" when it comes to RPG's.

"Designing" a cool climactic storyline ending encounter should focus on what the DM thinks would be cool first...not looking at rules and then designing the encounter (that's the backwards thinking I was talking about). If the DM wants a big, climactic battle at the pinnacle of an icy peak, he should start thinking of what he envisions as being "fun" and "cool", then look up rules that may need to come into play. If he finds rules lacking (either nothing is there to fit it, or they don't help with making it "cool"), then it is the DM's job to come up with something to make it fun and cool. Its not "wrong" for a DM to make up new rules to handle or otherwise encourage some sort of exciting situation. If a DM does nothing to make the encounter fun and exciting, and only uses the boring base-line rules in the book...well, that's a sign of a poor DM, IMHO.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

FitzTheRuke · Sep 7, 2014

pming said:
Hiya.

I think you're still thinking "backwards". The rules do not dictate how the game will progress; that is entirely up to the DM and players. The rules may shape the outcome of that progression, however.

Do you think tossing someone off a 400' cliff to jagged rocks below should be "insta-death"? Ok, they use the rules as is and roll 20d6 damage. That doesn't fit with your idea of "heroics"? Ok, give the PC a save for half damage. Still not good enough? Let them make a Dex save to try and avoid being thrown off in the first place. You see, you take the premise of what direction you want the game to progress, then you use the rules to shape that progression. You generally don't want "automatics"; far to predicable and boring...you want some chance of failure so that the chance of success is sweeter when it happens.

I agree with the third paragraph ("Because, the rules cannot help but shape the narrative and the world..."), overall. And, IMHO, the rules do exactly that; make the DM's life easier. It gives the DM a baseline from which to make consistent rulings. However, *all* DM's are game designers...they have to be. It's part and parcel of "The Job". A DM's job is to basically "create on the spot" rules and whatnot simply because no rules system can cover every situation. This is why, IMHO, "simplistic rules" are much better than "specific rules" when it comes to RPG's.

"Designing" a cool climactic storyline ending encounter should focus on what the DM thinks would be cool first...not looking at rules and then designing the encounter (that's the backwards thinking I was talking about). If the DM wants a big, climactic battle at the pinnacle of an icy peak, he should start thinking of what he envisions as being "fun" and "cool", then look up rules that may need to come into play. If he finds rules lacking (either nothing is there to fit it, or they don't help with making it "cool"), then it is the DM's job to come up with something to make it fun and cool. Its not "wrong" for a DM to make up new rules to handle or otherwise encourage some sort of exciting situation. If a DM does nothing to make the encounter fun and exciting, and only uses the boring base-line rules in the book...well, that's a sign of a poor DM, IMHO.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Sounds right to me.

Tormyr · Sep 7, 2014

Is it really a big deal, though? Falling can cause damage sure, but characters that are at full health will probably survive most falls in areas that they are put in. Even the 400 ft. fall, which you will be harder pressed to find, only does 20d6 damage. That's 70 damage on average and ranges from 20 to 120 damage. I imagine that most characters who are in a situation where there is a 400 ft. fall will be of a level where they can handle it. A level 10 wizard at full health would be unconscious after that fall, but he would survive the fall long enough to get death saving throws and a chance for his friends to save him. I would guess that most characters would not be insta-killed if they encountered a fall of height PC level * 10 ft. For those characters who fall unconscious, it becomes part of the encounter for the others in the party to lend a hand and work together.

Sometimes I think that falling is not deadly enough. Someone can kill themself jumping from a relatively short height if they land head first on concrete. That deadliness is really lost as character level goes up, but I think that overall it still works as presented in the game. For the 400' fall, the DM could decide that the character is stunned until they receive healing as every bone in their body was broken.

I think that the greater danger than damage is that it can take someone out of the action and cause others to take themselves out of the action to save the fallen party member.

pming · Sep 7, 2014

Hiya.

Tormyr said:
Sometimes I think that falling is not deadly enough.

I'm of this line of thought. I like to OLD old 1e way of handling falling; it's 1d6 per 10', cumulative. So if you fall 50' you take 15d6 damage (1d6, +2d6, +3d6, +4d6, +5d6 for 10', 20', 30', 40', 50'; total it all up). I also have no problem removing the 20d maximum...so falling 400' is definitely death, no matter your level...well, at least it's a "Save vs. Death" at some modifier based on distance if I'm feeling generous.

But this is 5e and the rules are supposed to be quick and easy, so I'll give up the more "realistic" (lol...) stuff in favor of what we have now. Maybe if falling becomes more of a thing in my games I'll have to revisit, but now, yeah, 1d6 per 10', 20d6 max, it's all good.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Thaumaturge · Sep 7, 2014

Agamon said:
Fighting in a volcano or on the side of a cliff is dangerous? Let me write that down somewhere so I don't forget it.

Of course, if you happen to forget, there is always this nifty handbook: Fire and Brimstone.

The rules are OGL and compatible with any system.

Here's a sneak peak:

But there are multiple examples of play to help DMs get a feel for the nuances.

Thaumaturge.

The Crimson Binome · Sep 7, 2014

Juriel said:
Rules dictate how the game will progress. If tossing people off cliffs is a no-save insta-death, then you have no reason to fight with people, it just becomes a game of shove shove Thunderwave okay, clear. And the same applies to the PCs, no saves, just 'sorry the giant tossed you off the cliff, can you eat 70 falling damage? okay, no, roll new char'

More reasonably, it becomes a game where people avoid fighting on top of high towers or near active volcanoes, because it's incredibly dangerous. It becomes a game where the mountain fortress has a low wall around the top of it, to prevent people from falling off accidentally. It becomes a game where you Thunderwave the lich off the top of a mage tower, only to learn that it can fly.

It's a different world, but it's not necessarily worse in any way.

Rod Staffwand · Sep 7, 2014

Saelorn said:
More reasonably, it becomes a game where people avoid fighting on top of high towers or near active volcanoes, because it's incredibly dangerous. It becomes a game where the mountain fortress has a low wall around the top of it, to prevent people from falling off accidentally. It becomes a game where you Thunderwave the lich off the top of a mage tower, only to learn that it can fly.

It's a different world, but it's not necessarily worse in any way.

It's objectively worse in EVERY way. Bad. Bad. BadWrongFun.

Kidding aside, falling damage (like all damage) is one of those cases in which real-world physics is far too complex to accurately (or even closely) model in any sort of easy-to-use/easy-to-remember game mechanic. The game goes with an abstract mechanic and asks everyone to pretend it all makes sense.

When running D&D I usually dispense with the "rules" and just decide what should happen when someone falls from a great height or into a hazard (either damage or instant death as appropriate). PCs that can take actions can use one to grab onto a ledge before falling over. In 5E this is a Reaction. Additional rolls and inconveniences usually occur (the PC has to drop their weapon and end up prone when they climb up--that sort of thing).

As for pushing enemies off cliffs and into hazards, I always require an additional save or check unless the enemies are 1/2 the PCs' level or less (chumps get chumped) or if the attacker has an advantage of some sort (such as Advantage). This is mainly a balance reason to keep it from being overused. I like to think of it as the enemy fighting extra hard to not get forced off that cliff--something they don't do if they are getting forced into another section of safe terrain.

I also allow forcing enemies into other enemies, slamming them into walls, and other gimmicks (all requiring an additional save or check) to keep things entertaining.

Grimstaff · Sep 7, 2014

Juriel said:
And that is the entirety of their handling of the subject.

"Climber’s Kit. A climber’s kit includes special pitons,
boot tips, gloves, and a harness. You can use the
climber’s kit as an action to anchor yourself; when you
do, you can’t fall more than 25 feet from the point where
you anchored yourself, and you can’t climb more than 25
feet away from that point without undoing the anchor."

"A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move
nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling"

ExploderWizard · Sep 7, 2014

Grimstaff said:
"Climber’s Kit. A climber’s kit includes special pitons,
boot tips, gloves, and a harness. You can use the
climber’s kit as an action to anchor yourself; when you
do, you can’t fall more than 25 feet from the point where
you anchored yourself, and you can’t climb more than 25
feet away from that point without undoing the anchor."

So, it seems prudent adventurers or anyone else can reasonably equip themselves to prevent catastophic falls. This works for me.

D&D 5E On Falling

77IM

Explorer!!!

pming

Legend

FitzTheRuke

Legend

Tormyr

Hero

pming

Legend

Thaumaturge

Wandering. Not lost. (He/they)

The Crimson Binome

Hero

Rod Staffwand

aka Ermlaspur Flormbator

Grimstaff

Explorer

ExploderWizard

Hero

Similar Threads