Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mort" data-source="post: 7988171" data-attributes="member: 762">That's not exactly what some people in this thread have been saying though.The argument has been that the reason for jumping matters. That if a DM agrees with the players reasons for jumping - the character takes standard falling damage. If not, instant death is the result.THAT'S what I have a problem with.That's an old school approach. Tomb of Horrors, for example, is filled with situations where if the PC so much as walks in the wrong direction - instant death.5e has shied away from it. Generally DCs and damage are assigned.If a standard 5e adventure had a woodchipper, for example, it would likely did a bunch of damage (say 10d6) - with the reasoning that 10d6 would kill any regular joe. But that a high level adventurer could figure out a way through it - damaged but not likely killed.Based on the fact that high level adventureres are not, in fact, average joes.It's your game, play how you like. Especially as long as you're consistent about it.I'm not actually arguing that HP have any relationship to gear. A PC could jump naked, or not, and falling damage should be the same (obviously not counting items that actually mitigate falling damage).The "magic shield" thing was just a (bit muddled) attempt at saying you can explain the lack of instant death by saying a high level character can maximise use of gear at hand. But, it's nut necessary - and muddles the issue.I'd argue that high level PCs, ones that can take a hit from a cloud giant or survive an ancient dragon's breath weapon - are much closer to Captain America than Falcon.But again, that's not really the issue. There's no question that a high level fighter has the HP to survive a 200 foot fall. The issue I have a problem with, is A DM deciding to not apply the falling rules because they don't like the player's reason for having the character jump.</blockquote>

Verification