D&D 5E Why is there a limit to falling damage?

[doctorbadwolf]

According to Gandalf. But if you assume he might be an unreasonable narrator, who knows?

No, we know that he died fighting the balrog.

 

[Laurefindel]

No, we know that he died fighting the balrog.

Yes, but for the company, and the whole world really, the fall alone was enough to declare him dead.

The difference between Gandalf and Captain America is that one survived against the (apparent) odds, the other knows well ahead of time that the fall is easily survivable.

If captain America had been captured by Saruman, he wouldn’t need the eagles to save his ass. Gandalf on the other hand never even contemplated jumping down. And neither did Saruman though of this as an easy way out.

The difference is mostly narrative, but it is an important one for the desired playing style the DM and players go after.

 

[Maxperson]

Cpt America would have a chance of surviving falling from an airplane. In fact, in the comics he simply can be assumed to be able to survive such a fall.

His vibranium shield which absorbs kinetic energy is typically how he survives. It's essentially a feather fall magic item. I'd let the barbarian survive with a feather fall item, too.

Gandalf doesn’t die from the fall. He dies from fighting the balrog.

Gandalf is not mortal and neither is the Balrog. Aragorn, a very high level Dunedain, would have died from such a fall.

 

[Maxperson]

No, we know that he died fighting the balrog.

How?

 

[Maxperson]

According to Gandalf. But if you assume he might be an unreasonable narrator, who knows?

He might also be an unreasonable narrator, but I think you meant unreliable.

 

[Maxperson]

If captain America had been captured by Saruman, he wouldn’t need the eagles to save his ass. Gandalf on the other hand never even contemplated jumping down. And neither did Saruman though of this as an easy way out.

Assuming that 1, he had access to his magic, and 2, that he could survive such a fall without magic. We don't know how he survived the fall with the Balrog. He may very well have cast feather fall on the way down in order to survive and as head of his order, Saruman could negate Gandalf's magic in the way that Gandalf did to Saruman after his return.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, but for the company, and the whole world really, the fall alone was enough to declare him dead.

The difference between Gandalf and Captain America is that one survived against the (apparent) odds, the other knows well ahead of time that the fall is easily survivable.

If captain America had been captured by Saruman, he wouldn’t need the eagles to save his ass. Gandalf on the other hand never even contemplated jumping down. And neither did Saruman though of this as an easy way out.

The difference is mostly narrative, but it is an important one for the desired playing style the DM and players go after.

There is still the entirety of Isengard to escape from, once you’ve jumped off the tower.

And frankly, nothing in D&D has Ever actually translated to Gandalf, and probably never will.

 

[Oofta]

He might also be an unreasonable narrator, but I think you meant unreliable.

D'oh! Autocomplete/correct strikes again. That will teach me to respond on my phone while my wife is driving.

 

[Minigiant]

To be cool.

Rule of Cool.

Tough warriors fall from cliffs. Everybody cries. Then they go retrieve the body and the warrior is still alive, cooking fish on a stick.

 

[pogre]

1st level Wizards have an (optional) class ability that would allow them to survive that fall some X number of times per day, depending on how they prepared for the day. By the time a Barbarian can survive it once, a Wizard could theoretically prepare to survive it dozens of times... without depending on another character for magical healing.

Your player is 100% in the right calling BS on your "ruling".

Strange logic here. Of course there are different niches. Surely we could come up with dozens of scenarios a 1st level Barbarian would breeze through that a high level wizard would struggle with - fairly pointless exercises.

My ruling revolved around the intent of the player.

If they were trying to do something heroic - my ruling would have been different - as I explained up-thread.

I am increasingly confident I made the right call, and I agree with what others have stated - this is not appropriate for a house rule - it falls under the framework of a DM judgment. I stick religiously to the rules in AL and cons, but I am very comfortable with this ruling for my home game. It helps that the player later agreed I made the right call.