D&D 5E Falling/Diving into Water

[Joe Liker]

the problem is that isn't clear at all... infact I would think that most divers I know are more likely to be athletic then acrobatic, and most acrobats I have seen in no way make for good divers... I use both because there is a theroticl way to do both

No, it really is clear. I guess a lot of people try to bring real-world definitions into the picture, but it's important to stick to the game definitions. Athletics is used to move your body with brute force, hence Strength. Acrobatics is for feats of agility and finesse, hence Dexterity.

Diving is about contorting your body and controlling your movements, not eking a big burst of power out of your muscles. Thus it falls very unequivocally on the agility side of the line, as do tumbling, tightrope walking, and figure skating. Yes, you need a minimum level of physical strength to pull off any athletic (small 'a') feat, but the above are all activities where you need a great measure of fine control on top of that.

Climbing and jumping, on the other hand, while certainly more difficult if you are clumsy, are more about the brute force aspect of the activity. It's only at extreme levels of competition that fine control and finesse come into play. D&D skill checks are generally more about getting the job done than competitive sportsmanship.

And if none of this explanation works for you, all you have to do is follow the rules. There are enough examples in this and other editions that the intent of the divide is pretty easy to suss out. Just think about who would be able to do it better: the Hulk or Daredevil?

 

[Riley37]

Real-world point of comparison: the La Quebrada Cliff Divers routinely dive 35 metres (115 ft) into the sea.
Therefore, it should be possible to build a 5E PC who can do the same.

This does not necessarily mean that a low-level PC wizard should be able to survive 115' fall into water. The La Quebrada divers are specialists; a high-level Monk or Champion Fighter should match their abilities.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Real-world point of comparison: the La Quebrada Cliff Divers routinely dive 35 metres (115 ft) into the sea.
Therefore, it should be possible to build a 5E PC who can do the same.

This does not necessarily mean that a low-level PC wizard should be able to survive 115' fall into water. The La Quebrada divers are specialists; a high-level Monk or Champion Fighter should match their abilities.

my suggestion would work... 115ft is 11d6 into water is /2 so the average is 18 damage... make an athletics or acrobatcs check and even with a 0 mod (lets be honest those guys should be at least prof and have a +2 stat so +4 even if you place them at 1st level) sothey will take 5-24 damage off that, and on average 12-16 damage off most times... so even at 1st level wizard it is very likely (Cut not guaranteed) to survive that.

 

[Gnarl45]

I would make the first 20-40 feet free and then an Athletics check to negate some of the damage beyond that point. I wouldn't bother with an exact formula for the DC though.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I like to keep things simple and cinematic. Minimum damage from falling into water. Skill check to avoid all damage if diving in (DC probably around 5 per 20 feet).

 

[jgsugden]

Keep it Simple: Half normal damage from a fall, every (conscious) PC can make an athletics or acrobatics roll to reduce damage by the result of the check. It'll work just fine like that...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I like to keep things simple and cinematic. Minimum damage from falling into water. Skill check to avoid all damage if diving in (DC probably around 5 per 20 feet).

This is probably the best suggestion. The DC's and damage proposed are just weird for most of this thread. The high dive is about 30 feet and people are not routinely suffering potentially deadly amounts of damage from it, which would be occurring quite often if it actually required some of these rolls, even assuming an 18 in stat and +3 proficiency.

If I'm running a pirate campaign, this is something I want to encourage as thematic, so want the forgiving mechanics to reflect it anyways. "Laughing and then jumping off things" is a key swashbuckler ability gained at 1st level.

 

[Quickleaf]

I would make the first 20-40 feet free and then an Athletics check to negate some of the damage beyond that point. I wouldn't bother with an exact formula for the DC though.

I'm thinking along the same lines too.

Say, diving deliberately into water negates the first 40 feet, while falling into water negates the first 20 feet, for purposes of calculating falling damage.

Real-world point of comparison: the La Quebrada Cliff Divers routinely dive 35 metres (115 ft) into the sea.
Therefore, it should be possible to build a 5E PC who can do the same.

This does not necessarily mean that a low-level PC wizard should be able to survive 115' fall into water. The La Quebrada divers are specialists; a high-level Monk or Champion Fighter should match their abilities.

Yeah, the La Quebrada divers in Acapulco are sort of my litmus test for handling extreme dive conditions.

So, if we use my guideline above with a skilled diver and the 115' drop... They take damage as if they fell 70' since it is a deliberate dive into water... That's 24 (7d6) damage... Say the diver is a 4th level monk, their slow fall reduces that damage by 20... So they take 4 (0-22) points of damage.

That feels right to me. The kind of jump you don't want to do more than once or twice a day.

I think the question is for all those characters who are NOT monks, should some sort of check be allowed to further mitigate the damage, or is the "ignore first 40' when diving" rule sufficient?

For example, I could envision a difference between initiating a dive as part of movement versus initiating a dive using an action. In the first case, I'd use just the 40' rule, while in the second case I would use the 40' rule and also might also allow a Dexterity (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to mitigate the damage even further... possibly by the amount of the check (though that feels a bit random), or possibly having a DC (based on the height of dive) to minimize any falling damage they sustain (i.e. 1 damage per 10').

EDIT: Two factors we haven't discussed, but that should be considered, are wearing armor and minimum safe water depth for a dive. I realize that for some groups, people are going to go "who cares if Bruno the paladin in plate armor can reduce falling damage by the same amount as Squeaky the rogue in leather armor?" In other groups, I imagine it could cause suspension of belief.

 

[Quickleaf]

Ok...here's my stab at a house rule...and an example of how it might play out...

Diving/Falling into Water
For a character to even attempt a dive into water, the water must have a minimum depth: 5 feet for dives of 30' or less, 10 feet for dives of 30-90', and 15 feet for dives over 90'. Characters deliberately diving into water (as part of their move, an action, or reaction) reduce the height of the fall by 40-ft for purposes of determining falling damage, whereas characters accidentally falling into water reduce it by only 20-ft. 

In addition, when a character in light armor or no armor uses an action to perform a dive, they may make a Dexterity (Acrobatics or Athletics) check to attempt to either minimize the damage or reduce the minimum water depth required to perform the dive. The Difficulty is Dderermines by the effective dive height (not the actual height): DC 10 for dives of 30' or less, DC 15 for dives of 30-60', DC 20 for dives 61-90', and DC 25 for dives over 90'. Minimizing damage means the diver only takes 1 damage per 10' they effectively fall. Reducing the minimum water depth changes it to 4 feet for dives of 30', 8 feet for dives of 30-90', and 12' for dives over 90' for the diver.

Ex. Pursued by cannibals, the party approaches a 120' cliff overlooking the ocean...

Ranger, ahead of others, dives as an action 120' = 80' = 28 (8d6) = succeeds DC 20 check, takes 8 damage
Monk runs off the cliff 120' = 80' = 28 (8d6) = -20 for slow fall = takes 8 damage 
Sorcerer casts misty step, teleporting downward to reduce falling distance 120' = 90' = 40' = takes 14 (4d6) damage
Rogue on the back of ogre when both fall off cliff 120' = 100' = takes 35 (10d6) damage

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think this is a great question, and would like to offer my thoughts. Basically, I think this isn't risky enough. (Now that I've gone through things, though, I see I come to much the same result, just by another means).

It seems to me that 3 rules are relevant and should be brought into consideration.:
- the Rogue's expertise (in one of Ath/Acr) allows double your proficiency bonus
- Monk's slowfall at level 4 allows (4 x level) DR using a reaction.
- awkward, ungainly armours offer disadvantage on stealth checks.

Realworld concerns include:
- jumping/diving 30' (10m) requires more than 10 and less then 20 feet depth.
- jumping 60' (20m) foot first is safe but hurts, when it's planned, in a pool, without equipment, etc. Diving or falling from that height would be life-threatening for many people.

The acapulco divers are clearly monks -- their ability is not usual. Only with snowfall can falling from that height not do damage.

So I'd propose a simpler approach:

1. Falling damage = (height-20)', assuming 20 water depth.
2. Spend an action to dive/jump, and reduce the effective height another 20 ft.
3. Use reaction to Save for half damage (Ideally it would be a Dex (Athletics) check, but that's non-standard I know), disadvantage when wearing stealth-penalty armours (or simply all med and heavy armours). DC= 10+1 per 10ft or portion of effective height.

So let's see what this does with the examples you give:

120' cliff (about a ten story bldg?) gives DC 20 or 10d6 (120-20) damage (avg. 35).

-- If ranger (level 5) takes action, effective height = 80. If he is proficient in athletics, he adds his prof bonus to the save roll, but likely takes 28 or (DC 18) 14 damage. Roll at disadvantage if wearing med armour.
-- Monk (level 5) has slowfall, takes 15 or (DC 20) 8 and uses a reaction. effective height = 100.
-- Sorcerer casts misty step, effective height = 70. Likely damage = 31 or (DC 17) 16.
-- Rogue on back of ogre might not be able to use his reaction (if they're grappling, say). If he can and he has expertise, though, effective height = 100. 35 or (DC 20) 16 damage.

Ranger and monk are still conscious; the sorcerer may be likely unconscious; the rogue hovering on the edge.

My suggestion makes it rougher on the ranger and the sorcerer, and a bit easier on the rogue, and the same for the monk.

This was fun to think about.