D&D General How Do You Handle Falling Damage?

[Laurefindel]

I know many people use a bloodied condition at 50% hp.

My preference would be to have more damage monitors than just hp and exhaustion. Exhaustion helps, but something like aggrevated damage from Vampire (for fire, acid, and such) would help. Targeting Constitution is also an option IMO.

I often fall back on the exhaustion track to simulate deteriorating conditions in my houserules. They’re conveniently built in the system and the penalties stack in a not-too-punishing death-spiral. By RAW they’re a bit too hard to get rid of if exhaustion levels are to be handed out more generously, but the concept usually satisfies my ’needs’ for something more granular than fully functional/incapacitated.

 

[ezo]

I often fall back on the exhaustion track to simulate deteriorating conditions in my houserules. They’re conveniently built in the system and the penalties stack in a not-too-punishing death-spiral. By RAW they’re a bit too hard to get rid of if exhaustion levels are to be handed out more generously, but the concept usually satisfies my ’needs’ for something more granular than fully functional/incapacitated.

Yeah, it is the easiest, least evasive fix currently as we do the same thing.

I don't mind the extra downtime if a PC accumulates some levels of exhaustion, however something you might like to use is what we call Endurance -- it is basically "free" levels of exhaustion which all recover during a long rest.

For example, if a PC has CON 14, they have 2 levels of Endurance, countering exhaustion. At 1 or 2 levels of exhaustion, they don't have any effects and recover both levels on a long rest. However, a third level of exhaustion would impose the penalty of disadvantage on ability checks. You would have to recover that 3rd level on a long rest, and then you recover your endurance with another long rest.

ROFLOL. Are you joking? Please tell me you are joking?

No, I am NOT joking in the least. You can continue the discussion with @Lanefan (if they wish) but I'm done with it, especially considering this response.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I often fall back on the exhaustion track to simulate deteriorating conditions in my houserules. They’re conveniently built in the system and the penalties stack in a not-too-punishing death-spiral. By RAW they’re a bit too hard to get rid of if exhaustion levels are to be handed out more generously, but the concept usually satisfies my ’needs’ for something more granular than fully functional/incapacitated.

Do you run the exhaustion system as is? I think it has potential, but I'd add some increasing chance of spell failure as you gain levels of exhaustion, otherwise it seems like the system unfairly favours spells. You can be near death, unable to move, yet still be able to cast spells without issue.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It would try to happen again, because players by nature want the game to be easier. It would be on the designers to push back hard against that change happening.

So it would be better for the game if each action had a 50% of causing perma-death, because harder = better? Perhaps all characters should start off in rags, so they don't have their equipment, which would constantly break, because the harder the game is, the better the game is to play?

Or... is there a point where making the game easier... is better for the game.

You're seriously asking this?

If I (and most players I've known) know nothing can kill my character, things are going to get degenerate in a real hurry.

This isn't "nothing can kill me" it is "this particular fall will not kill me"

Is your game degenerate because your characters know that falling off a horse will not kill their characters, nor will getting punched by a bar maid?

With the bolded, and even though your rationale isn't necessarily wrong, you outright gave them a "We Win" card.

Really? So developing a good plan and executing on it well is no work or effort whatsoever from the players? It is exactly the same as walking into a room and declaring "We Win now!" as loudly as possible?

Look. I know you and me will never see eye to eye on player stuff, because you seem to think all players are forever out to destroy the game and only iron laws of unbending will can prevent them from ruining DnD... but even you have to acknowledge there is a difference between handing out victory and the players having a good plan that you didn't account for.

The way I see it - and run it - if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander; and they know their own tactics and ideas can be turned against them by smart enemies.

And I don't particularly want to get into an arms race where each side crafts ever more complex scenarios accounting for literally everything. It isn't fun for me if the party decides to never separate, in any location, at any time, for any reason, because I might decide to have an assassin group tailing them who will ambush 10 to 1 on a lone party member and slaughter them, just because the party was tailing a member of a bad guy group, waiting until he was alone, and ganking him.

Sure, sure, it could happen. But by all that is good, that level of paranoia would make for the worst possible game. Everything checked for poison constantly, everyone on constant lookout, layers and layers of defenses at all times, just on the off-chance I might decide that this is the time to kill them.

And all pointless, because at any point I can send a dozen ancient dragons, backed up by a ghost army, under the command of an evil god, and wipe them off the face of the campaign anyways if I really, really wanted to. After all, the players would bring overwhelming force to destroy their opposition, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander right? No reason for the god of evil and vengeance to not be constantly scrying to see who is ruining his plans and then crushing them ruthlessly without any mercy.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Do you run the exhaustion system as is? I think it has potential, but I'd add some increasing chance of spell failure as you gain levels of exhaustion, otherwise it seems like the system unfairly favours spells. You can be near death, unable to move, yet still be able to cast spells without issue.

Honestly, I know a lot of people didn't, but I liked the new One DnD exhaustion, where it is a stacking -1 to all rolls AND Spell DCs. It feels much more natural to me to allow two or three levels of exhaustion when it is just lowering your bonuses, instead of level 1 being an essential -5 to all skills for the entire day. Plus, it affects casters equally to everyone else.

 

[Lanefan]

So it would be better for the game if each action had a 50% of causing perma-death, because harder = better? Perhaps all characters should start off in rags, so they don't have their equipment, which would constantly break, because the harder the game is, the better the game is to play?

Or... is there a point where making the game easier... is better for the game.

There is indeed such a point, yes. There is also a point, however, at which making the game easier becomes worse for the game; and IMO 5e reached and passed that point on initial release.

This isn't "nothing can kill me" it is "this particular fall will not kill me"

Ah. Misread that. Sorry.

Really? So developing a good plan and executing on it well is no work or effort whatsoever from the players? It is exactly the same as walking into a room and declaring "We Win now!" as loudly as possible?

No; but that you'd allow their making of a good plan to affect your hidden information just to allow the plan to succeed is a slow-motion variant, because sooner or later the players will cotton on to the fact that their good plans are going to work no matter what and that they don't need to worry about things they don't yet know.

Look. I know you and me will never see eye to eye on player stuff, because you seem to think all players are forever out to destroy the game and only iron laws of unbending will can prevent them from ruining DnD... but even you have to acknowledge there is a difference between handing out victory and the players having a good plan that you didn't account for.

I've no objection to players coming up with plans I didn't account for. More, please!

My objection lies with the "fudging" of hidden info to allow those plans to work where they otherwise (maybe) would not.

And I don't particularly want to get into an arms race where each side crafts ever more complex scenarios accounting for literally everything. It isn't fun for me if the party decides to never separate, in any location, at any time, for any reason, because I might decide to have an assassin group tailing them who will ambush 10 to 1 on a lone party member and slaughter them, just because the party was tailing a member of a bad guy group, waiting until he was alone, and ganking him.

Sure, sure, it could happen. But by all that is good, that level of paranoia would make for the worst possible game. Everything checked for poison constantly, everyone on constant lookout, layers and layers of defenses at all times, just on the off-chance I might decide that this is the time to kill them.

Where to me, while there doesn't have to be an assassin hiding around every corner, it only makes sense that a long-standing adventuring group will very likely have attracted the unwelcome attention of powerful foes and rivals, either by outright pissing them off at some point or by simply sticking their noses in where they ain't welcome; and said powerful foes and rivals might fight back. And there's nothing saying said fight-back has to follow Marquis of Queensbury rules or the Geneva Convention; these guys are supposed to be evil, after all.

And so, a certain degree of PC-side paranoia would seem to be justified.

Hell, one of my PCs has (or had, at one point) an entire nation out to kill her; to the point that nation was going to full-on invade another faraway nation just to get to her. So yeah, she's a bit paranoid these days...but she knows that if they're willing to go to that sort of length they're now paranoid about her as well; a condition I intend to exploit to the fullest at some point...

 

[Chaosmancer]

There is indeed such a point, yes. There is also a point, however, at which making the game easier becomes worse for the game; and IMO 5e reached and passed that point on initial release.

You are free to have that opinion, but "the most successful version of the game in its entire history" doesn't seem to be the version I would point to in declaring that the game has not only reached, but exceeded the point where its design makes for a worse game.

Ah. Misread that. Sorry.

No problem

No; but that you'd allow their making of a good plan to affect your hidden information just to allow the plan to succeed is a slow-motion variant, because sooner or later the players will cotton on to the fact that their good plans are going to work no matter what and that they don't need to worry about things they don't yet know.

No it isn't. Because their plan can still fail in execution. If for example, they go to sneak into the bandit camp and fail to sneak... the plan failed. It was a good plan, but it wasn't executed well. My point was merely that AFTER they have successfully snuck in, I am not going to ALSO require them to roll high enough to hit and ALSO require high enough damage, when they could just as easily bind all the bandits and gag them and achieve the same effect of removing them from the equation. Nor would I have them roll stealth again after every single action they take, because they might fail this time.

Because at a certain point of just layering more and more dice onto the plan, I'm telling them "your plan doesn't matter, because I will ensure it will fail at some point via dice rolls"

I've no objection to players coming up with plans I didn't account for. More, please!

My objection lies with the "fudging" of hidden info to allow those plans to work where they otherwise (maybe) would not.

If the info hasn't hit the table yet, it isn't real. I change hidden information all the time, sometimes because I get a better idea, sometimes because I planned it far in advance and the plot changed because of earlier events, sometimes because I realize that it would make for a less compelling story.

You are of course free to have everything you think of automatically written in stone and immutable, but that just isn't how I operate, and if I feel like the hidden information is more likely to feel like "you can't melt the lock on the back door, because... it is made of anti-acid metals..." than an actually planned reveal... I'll kick that information to the curb and let them have their plan work. They earned the victory through their hard work.

Where to me, while there doesn't have to be an assassin hiding around every corner, it only makes sense that a long-standing adventuring group will very likely have attracted the unwelcome attention of powerful foes and rivals, either by outright pissing them off at some point or by simply sticking their noses in where they ain't welcome; and said powerful foes and rivals might fight back. And there's nothing saying said fight-back has to follow Marquis of Queensbury rules or the Geneva Convention; these guys are supposed to be evil, after all.

And so, a certain degree of PC-side paranoia would seem to be justified.

Hell, one of my PCs has (or had, at one point) an entire nation out to kill her; to the point that nation was going to full-on invade another faraway nation just to get to her. So yeah, she's a bit paranoid these days...but she knows that if they're willing to go to that sort of length they're now paranoid about her as well; a condition I intend to exploit to the fullest at some point...

Sure, I can make it make sense. But again, the goal is not to kill the PCs. The more effort I put into "how can I kill this character" the less of actual DMing I am doing. Have I sent assassins after the PCs? Sure, but I'll often have them arrive at a dramatic moment, or have their signature magical tracking spell be obvious to the PCs. Because "and one morning you wake up to find Jake dead, his throat slit" is just... boring. It isn't good for me, for the party, and it doesn't lead to anything interesting.

So why would I do it? Even if it is "perfectly reasonable" that a high-level assassin hired by a kingdom could sneak past the party and using the rules I've allowed the party to use, kill their target without being noticed... all that does is make the game worse for everyone. And, no, despite what you may accuse, my not just declaring PCs dead has yet to lead to any of them degenerating into thinking they are unkillable gods who face no consequences. As mentioned before, my players are WAY more cautious that I want them to be even. Because I can challenge them, without killing them. I can have them face consequences, without it leading to the need to have all the rules and scenarios be perfectly reciprocal.

 

[ezo]

There is indeed such a point, yes. There is also a point, however, at which making the game easier becomes worse for the game; and IMO 5e reached and passed that point on initial release.

Agreed. While rolling isn't necessary for eveything, it is necessary if there is a serious consequence for failure, and attempting to remove a sleeping opponent definitely has a serious consequence for failing.

In 5E, stealth versus a sleeping foe is fairly easy. -5 to passive perception means you only need a 5 or better typically, so an 80% chance to succeed. It is also a group check if you have more than one PC attempting it, making it almost automatic in most cases. However, not every PC is a trained assassin or an expert in stealth, so there should be rolls, since failing means the target might wake up and alert everyone else.

Then the PCs have to strike, making attacks which are "lethal". Of course, they have advantage on their attacks and damage is already critical. However, hit points incorporate luck, on the target's side. So, not dealing sufficient damage might be narrated as the target turned in their sleep just as the blow fell, turning a possibly lethal attack into something non-lethal.

So, things are rarely ever automatic, nor should they be, when there are serious consequences to failing. A group of professionally training assassins, experts in stealth and with lots of sneak attack damage, could result in such things becoming routine, but still not automatic.