Falling from Great Heights

[Nikosandros]

Well that would make falling more dangerous for sure.

It also would be nice if those little gems were in a section where the numbers weren't mashed together, making your eyes bleed.

Heh... the AD&D aren't always very clear.

 

[Minigiant]

This, like the "how many town guards would it take to defeat a tenth level X" question, is all the fault of D&D never officially explaining, outside of magic, what a character of with levels greater than humanoid found on Earth can do or handle.

So we have this gulf between people who see them as slightly better mortals bound to reality to nearly unimaginable freaks of nature akin to monsters.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Most of this is covered in my game under the 'No Meta-gaming Rule'.

If you intentionally put your character in harms way because 'it couldn't possibly kill him', then for that action the character is a minion. Otherwise normal rules apply.

Applies to all kinds of situations, hostages, intentional falls, running through fires, getting swallowed because killing from the inside is easier, swimming in acid, guzzling poison, having staring contests with Medusa, make-out sessions with Succubi, letting something stab you full force, etc.

 

[triqui]

Most of this is covered in my game under the 'No Meta-gaming Rule'.

If you intentionally put your character in harms way because 'it couldn't possibly kill him', then for that action the character is a minion. Otherwise normal rules apply.

Applies to all kinds of situations, hostages, intentional falls, running through fires, getting swallowed because killing from the inside is easier, swimming in acid, guzzling poison, having staring contests with Medusa, make-out sessions with Succubi, letting something stab you full force, etc.

So in your game, Wall of Fire are completelly impossible to cross through? Or do you mean a character can run through a magically enhanced red hot Wall of Fire, but not through ordinary campfires?

 

[RYPros53]

Gandalf the grey fell - FAR. And got stronger.
If you want to penalize characters who metagame and jump down from large heights- put metal spikes at the bottom.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, after all the song and dance, I really gotta ask a few questions:

1. How often do your characters fall farther than, say, 50 feet? Because, scratching my head, I can't honestly think of that many times.

2. How often did that character then climb back up and do it again? I know I've never seen that, but, maybe my group is the outlier here.

3. How often do your players intentionally burn hit points by jumping down long distances simply to save time?

4. Is this really something that comes up so often that we need rules more complicated than, d10/10 feet fallen? Really?

 

[Elf Witch]

Sure! Some of us are willing to do just that.

So!

They can throw in a quick optional rule. It'll be as popular as encumbrance, but hey.

That is cool with me and since I use the rules for encumbrance and cover I have no issue of it being an optional rule.

 

[Sunseeker]

Ok, after all the song and dance, I really gotta ask a few questions:

1. How often do your characters fall farther than, say, 50 feet? Because, scratching my head, I can't honestly think of that many times.

Twice over 15 levels. Though we did have reflex saves on the first on to try and grab a foothold and not go splat.

2. How often did that character then climb back up and do it again? I know I've never seen that, but, maybe my group is the outlier here.

Once or twice in the same party, but we had no desire to sit at the table all day while Bob tried to successfully climb the cliff. After one person made it up, we made it easier on the rest(as the guy on top could lower rope or something)

3. How often do your players intentionally burn hit points by jumping down long distances simply to save time?

Never seen it happen. 20-foot jump? Maybe. 50+? Never.

4. Is this really something that comes up so often that we need rules more complicated than, d10/10 feet fallen? Really?

I don't think so, but I already have a harsher solution to prevent stupid.

 

[El Mahdi]

That's how it's been, by the RAW before houserules, in every edition thus far. As I said, whether you want it to be that way in 5e is up to you, but unrealistic falling damage and many other unrealistic mechanics have been features rather than bugs since before 1e.

It's a feature and not a bug in your game. In mine, and many other games, it is a bug. Without that qualifier, your statement is not correct.

It's a small yet very important distinction. One that I feel is crucial to remember.

People who try to houserule things to "fix" falling damage and lava and such are missing the larger picture, I feel, no offense intended to you; D&D should definitely not start at "mid-level people are realistic" and work its way up, it should start at "mid-level people are mythical Greek heroes" and be able to be adjusted up or down.

Again, in your game.

The only shoulds that exist as far as D&D goes is that each and every individual group has the right to decide how D&D should be played at their table.

The only big picture being missed by anybody here is that.

Neither the rules nor anybody else, get to decide the way that D&D should be played.

Monte and Company are designing a game that will support that. People may as well start getting used to that concept now.

If there's one thing that's stayed the same through the 2e-3e change and the 3e-4e change, it's that realistic people are low-level and the game world always tries to model that, with the rate at which you become unrealistic varying by edition. Moreover, it's much easier to houserule in absolutes based on heroic rules ("Lava kills you, period") than it is to extrapolate more heroic rules from absolutes ("How much damage does Kratos take from laval?").

I know it's not universally accepted that it's easier to add things than subtract things. However, the stated design goals of D&D Next (from Monte and Company) is that it is easier to add things than subtract. It's the way they are designing the game, whether one likes it or not.

You have every right to have the opinion that subtracting mechanics is easier to you. But purposely denying or fighting against the idea that D&D Next is being made with the concept of Adding modules and mechanics one wants, rather than Subtracting modules and mechanics one doesn't want, is futile.

So play what you like, and feel free to houserule to your heart's content, but I strongly believe that the based D&D power curve should remain where it is.

I don't believe the power curve should stay where it is, but it's certainly your right to disagree with me. It does appear though that Monte and Company don't agree that everything should stay where it is as far as the base game. It does however mean that you will be able to play your game using D&D Next, and I will be able to play my game using D&D Next. I'm expecting that a need for houserules will be greatly mitigated in the next edition of the game. So far, my expectations seem like they will be fulfilled.

But, as to play what you like...

Mmmm Hmmm...play what I like, just as long as I (and everybody else) remembers the way the game should be played...?!?

Sorry, but putting a caveat such as this on the end of continued statements about how the game should be played, does not make one tolerant of other styles and ideas. It just means that one recognizes what's correct, whether they agree it's so or care about being correct themselves.

So, Sorry. I'm just not buying it. I don't believe you actually mean that.

 

[Incenjucar]

That is cool with me and since I use the rules for encumbrance and cover I have no issue of it being an optional rule.

I'm not sure why you mentioned cover but hurray! Everyone wins.