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

For falling, you could use lingering injuries instead. Or the exhaustion table. If hit points isn't 'meat damage' but, instead, your ability to dodge, it seems difficult to dodge the ground.

DC rolls based on athletics or acrobatics based on how high the fall is, failure by each 5 points (throwing out random value) is a level of exhaustion. Can still kill them and affects most characters right across the board.

Edit: I have an acquaintance who survived a 10,000 foot drop skydiving. He was hospitalized for a year. The person tethered to him wasn't so fortunate.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The answer is not terminal velocity. That happens a considerable distance after this.

This came up in game when a player whose PC was a barbarian came to gorge 1,500' deep and said, "Yeah, I'll just step off."

I asked if they were committing suicide, because this was going to kill the PC. "Nope," the player replied, "The barbarian will survive the fall."

I stated unequivocally the PC would die - yes, I was aware of the rule - yes, I guess this is a ruling outside the rules, and therefore, a house rule that was unannounced. However, I countered, the player was exploiting player knowledge of the rules to benefit his PC.

So, that's where this question comes from - what purpose does the limit on falling damage serve? What am I missing?

I do remember the falling damage rules debates from the early Dragons and the subsequent ban on articles and letters on falling damage. Just reviving an old D&D tradition: Let's debate falling damage!
Of course there is a limit, you literally can only fall so fast. As for why the limit is where it is, it's simpler, and it allows for epic heroes to survive any fall, which is cool and heroic, and very easy to rule out of if you don't like it.

But yeah, there should always be some chance of coming out of a fall with literally no injury, because that does seem to be the case in real life, and IMO, if it's possible in real life the game shouldn't be more restrictive than real life, unless it's required for the game just work and be playable.
 


dave2008

Legend
Ok, so using @jgsugden damage formula and accepting terminal velocity for a sky diver (who is intentionally trying to slow the process down) is reached at 1,500ft. I will assume humanoids generally get there in about 1,000 ft or so. This brings the cap on falling damage to roughly 17,657 (5050d6).

Hmm. That is a lot of dice and gives non chance for survival. Maybe the d6/ 10 feet rule is better, but with a higher cap of 100 or even 200d6. Mostly likely death, but small chance of survival.
 

Yardiff

Adventurer
I'm not seeing any "survive without injury" in real life. All survivors I've found have had some kind of broken bones at the minimum.
 

dave2008

Legend
I'm not seeing any "survive without injury" in real life. All survivors I've found have had some kind of broken bones at the minimum.
They weren't heroes though ;) You would have to use the optional lingering injury / wounds rules in the DMG for that.
 

Oofta

Legend
Ok, so using @jgsugden damage formula and accepting terminal velocity for a sky diver (who is intentionally trying to slow the process down) is reached at 1,500ft. I will assume humanoids generally get there in about 1,000 ft or so. This brings the cap on falling damage to roughly 17,657 (5050d6).

Hmm. That is a lot of dice and gives non chance for survival. Maybe the d6/ 10 feet rule is better, but with a higher cap of 100 or even 200d6. Mostly likely death, but small chance of survival.

I agree but I don't have that many dice so I'll start using averages. AKA "Splat goes the barbarian".
 


neogod22

Explorer
I guess the 20d6 max is for creatures that would actually survive a fall for that magnitude, not for something that the PCs should be able to exploit.
 

Remove ads

Top