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

[Lanefan]

I don't often get asked to opine on the likeliest version of imaginary physics, in imaginary worlds and how they might act on imaginary fantasy heroes..

Let's consider.
1. Across all these editions, they haven't started that gravity does operate the same as on Earth.

In an indirect way they have, at least for on or very near the ground, when giving ranges for character weight.

2. There is a gamist abstraction for falling in every edition of dnd as far as I'm aware, that serves as literal proxy for the effects of gravity. If we're arguing how it's intended to function, it's a bit hard to get around the explicit intended function outlined by the game designers. Have we just always dispensed with these in the name of 'realism'

Where something can be governed by real-world physics, i.e. there's nothing fantastic involved, there's no good reason not to use them.

Falling is one such instance.

3. The mechanics of gravity as an attractive force between two objects based on relative mass and distance. Assuming we're good with PCs having roughly equivalent mass as creatures on Earth, are all D&D settings are located on equivalent sized or massed landscapes? Pretty damned doubtful, especially when you start including all that 'planes' nonsense. As such, similar to Earth gravity is verrry unlikely even from a 'realism' perspective.

Here I agree. In my own case I use Earth-like numbers simply for convenience, and because I'm not physicist enough to be able to figure out how all the numbers would differ were I to use a world of significantly greater or lesser mass.

That said, one of my setting was on a world that was considerably larger than Earth, but it was less dense and thus gravity at the surface was about the same as ours. That world did have a deeper atmosphere - air remained breathable to higher altitudes than on Earth - and the faster surface speed required to give a day-long rotation added significantly to the Coriolis force that drives a lot of weather patterns (thus, wild and unpredictable weather was common almost everywhere), so I was able to think that far through it.

4. Existence of contrary evidence. There are plenty of creatures that could not function the way they do in D&D under the normal effects of Earth gravity.

If game-world magic didn't exist I'd agree with you 100%. But it does, and thus introduces a whole realm of physics we don't get to experience in reality.

For the benefit of our little Human brains, however, it's just easier to default to Earth-based physics when and where we can.

That, and there's at least one creature on Earth than in theory can't function the way it does yet in practice does so without problem: the common bumblebee.

Interesting, I proposed this method of tracking damage upthread, to combat metagaming.

I am curious how these games actually played. It seems to me that it would very easily lead to paralysis by caution and or recklessness out of ignorance. Or.. That the DM has to give increasingly precise descriptions of the party's health state to allow them to make rational decisions such that they might as well just hand over the character sheet. Are there options preferred over metagaming?

There's a big difference between being told "you're at about half" and "you're at 18 of 35". The latter introduces much more precise thinking than the former. and from what I've heard most DMs who ran this way tended to speak in fractions e.g. you're at about 3/4, you're at about 1/4, you're in really bad shape, etc.

But it's how I narrate monster hit points sometimes, particularly when those hit points are mostly meat (which is the case with most really big monsters) and thus the wounds are rather obvious. And there's other monsters, such as most jellies and all incorporeal undead, where there's no visible difference between full hit points and having only 1 h.p. left.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I can't say I'm a fan of the standard falling rules. I am fine with even non-magical high level D&D characters being mythic heroes that can do stuff normal people never could. However, I think with falling rules as they stand we get to bizarro superhero land far too quickly. Most fifth level characters can fall from a top of a five storey building without any risk of death. This simply seems wrong to me. I'd be fine with if a level fifteen character could do that. Another thing that bugs me is the lack of 'tumble.' Characters skilled in acrobatics should be able to fall from greater heights than ones without it. And of course the size not affecting the falling damage is another weirdness.

I've been trying to brainstorm rules that would increase the default falling damage but would allow acrobatics to reduce it. But it is really hard to get anything that would match my intuitions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I can't say I'm fan of the standard falling rules. I am fine with even non-magical high level D&D characters being mythic heroes that can do stuff normal people never could. However, I think with falling rules as they stand we get to bizarro superhero land far too quickly. Most fifth level characters can fall from a top of a five storey building without any risk of death. This simply seems wrong to me. I'd be fine with if a level fifteen character could do that. Another thing that bugs me is the lack of 'tumble.' Characters skilled in acrobatics should be able to fall from greater heights than ones without it. And of course the size not affecting the falling damage is another weirdness.

I've been trying to brainstorm rules that would increase the default falling damage but would allow acrobatics to reduce it. But it is really hard to get anything that would match my intuitions.

Ok, here is something I worked on yesterday. It involved some math (of course) and doing some research online. It certainly isn't an exact model but I think works fairly well.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ok, here is something I worked on yesterday. It involved some math (of course) and doing some research online. It certainly isn't an exact model but I think works fairly well.

View attachment 123925

I like how acrobatics and size affect things, though it is a bit weird that DCs are not in five point increments. However, this makes falling even less dangerous than it normally is and even low level characters can easily survive crazy falls.

My current hack is that falling causes d10 damage per 10 feet fallen (max 24d10.) And if you're trained in acrobatics you can roll DC 10 check to reduce the damage by one die, and an extra die for every five points you pass the DC by. (So effectively DC15 to reduce it by two dice, DC 20 by three etc.) I still feel that it might not be dangerous enough though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I like how acrobatics and size affect things, though it is a bit weird that DCs are not in five point increments. However, this makes falling even less dangerous than it normally is and even low level characters can easily survive crazy falls.

My current hack is that falling causes d10 damage per 10 feet fallen (max 24d10.) And if you're trained in acrobatics you can roll DC 10 check to reduce the damage by one die, and an extra die for every five points you pass the DC by. (So effectively DC15 to reduce it by two dice, DC 20 by three etc.) I still feel that it might not be dangerous enough though.

I had the DCs in 5-point increments and it is easy enough to do if you want to (anything from 5-9 is treated as 5, 10-14 is just 10, etc.)

Yeah, but falls really shouldn't kill most PCs IMO. And frankly, if 50% of people IRL survive 48-foot falls, PCs should certainly be able to do it!

FWIW, when this thread first started I thought about making falling damage d20s. Insane luck can make even a commoner survive a pretty good fall, especially with the DEX/acrobatics option thrown in. Since most PCs won't have more than 200 hp, using d20s and 20d20 cap would average 210 damage, more than enough to reliably kill PCs.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Another thing you can do is if the surface is hard, such as rock or metal, and not "softer" dirt/grass ground, double the damage.

 

[Gammadoodler]

In an indirect way they have, at least for on or very near the ground, when giving ranges for character weight.

This is an interesting perspective. I believe it assumes that PC mass is comparable, which is reasonable, but not explicit.

Where something can be governed by real-world physics, i.e. there's nothing fantastic involved, there's no good reason not to use them.

Falling is one such instance.


Here I agree. In my own case I use Earth-like numbers simply for convenience, and because I'm not physicist enough to be able to figure out how all the numbers would differ were I to use a world of significantly greater or lesser mass.

That's basically my point. I don't have any issue with using real-world gravity as a practical expedient to avoid trying to calculate and then teach your players 'real' fantasy physics. But it does mean your world is less realistic (from a character perspective).

That said, one of my setting was on a world that was considerably larger than Earth, but it was less dense and thus gravity at the surface was about the same as ours. That world did have a deeper atmosphere - air remained breathable to higher altitudes than on Earth - and the faster surface speed required to give a day-long rotation added significantly to the Coriolis force that drives a lot of weather patterns (thus, wild and unpredictable weather was common almost everywhere), so I was able to think that far through it.

Appreciate the thought process that went into it. I'm curious, did your players start to make connections for what was causing the differing weather?

If game-world magic didn't exist I'd agree with you 100%. But it does, and thus introduces a whole realm of physics we don't get to experience in reality.

Sure, but this doesn't make Earth gravity any more likely to be the case, so much as it introduces another potential set of rules different from our own. And if we're saying that magic in the world can impact the physiology and capabilities of the creatures in the world, why not the PCs?

For the benefit of our little Human brains, however, it's just easier to default to Earth-based physics when and where we can.

And I have no issue with doing so. But it's a narrative shortcut. And it seems to me that narrative shortcuts are a perfect use case for gamist abstractions.

Basically, if we concede that we're only using Earth based gravity because we don't know how to figure out and use a more appropriate system, there's no merit for using a system that is nearer or farther from the behavior of Earth gravity from the falling damage rules in the PHB. Making falls more or less deadly isn't making them any more or less realistic in relation to the fiction, just to the players' frame of reference (so it's sort of like forced metagaming).

And that's not even addressing the differences between high level D&D PCs and us puny Earth humans...

There's a big difference between being told "you're at about half" and "you're at 18 of 35". The latter introduces much more precise thinking than the former. and from what I've heard most DMs who ran this way tended to speak in fractions e.g. you're at about 3/4, you're at about 1/4, you're in really bad shape, etc.

That makes sense. How does the player behavior change under that system? How often would players encounter things that could one-shot them?
Or how often would they encounter things that were trivially easy?

Basically what was the calibration process for how players calculated risks?

 

[Lanefan]

This is an interesting perspective. I believe it assumes that PC mass is comparable, which is reasonable, but not explicit.

If we're going to suggest that Humans in the game world are significantly different physically than Humans in our world, I'll pass.

Appreciate the thought process that went into it. I'm curious, did your players start to make connections for what was causing the differing weather?

They didn't need to, as it was written up in the intro to the setting.

And I have no issue with doing so. But it's a narrative shortcut. And it seems to me that narrative shortcuts are a perfect use case for gamist abstractions.

Perhaps. My point remain,s, though, that where it's possible and relatively easy to use reality as opposed to abstraction then why not use it?

Basically, if we concede that we're only using Earth based gravity because we don't know how to figure out and use a more appropriate system, there's no merit for using a system that is nearer or farther from the behavior of Earth gravity from the falling damage rules in the PHB. Making falls more or less deadly isn't making them any more or less realistic in relation to the fiction, just to the players' frame of reference (so it's sort of like forced metagaming).

It's one or the other. Saying "we're using Earth's gravity except when it's convenient that we don't" is a recipe for disaster. Players don't know what to expect.

That makes sense. How does the player behavior change under that system? How often would players encounter things that could one-shot them?
Or how often would they encounter things that were trivially easy?

Basically what was the calibration process for how players calculated risks?

No real change IME, for the most part. Cautious would still be cautious, gonzo would still be gonzo, which meant there was nothing really lost by having players track their own hit points.

 

[Gammadoodler]

If we're going to suggest that Humans in the game world are significantly different physically than Humans in our world, I'll pass.

Nah. Just idle observation.

They didn't need to, as it was written up in the intro to the setting.

Guess that makes it easier to act and have a better idea of what to expect. Seems like it could have been an opportunity for mystery.

Perhaps. My point remains, though, that where it's possible and relatively easy to use reality as opposed to abstraction then why not use it?

It's one or the other. Saying "we're using Earth's gravity except when it's convenient that we don't" is a recipe for disaster. Players don't know what to expect.

Not really. It's one thing to use Earth gravity in a what goes up must come down kind of way. It's another to short circuit the game system for the sake of a narrative shortcut.

And the reason to use the abstraction instead of the Earth version realism, is that it's dissonant when you do otherwise. There's no modeling of actual weapon or elemental damage, no secondary infections or septic shock. Psychic damage isn't even a real thing, but it still follows the hp damage mechanics. But just for falling damage, Jim Orckrusher might as well be Jake from State Farm??

It's complication for complication's sake, which, IMO, is best avoided.

No real change IME, for the most part. Cautious would still be cautious, gonzo would still be gonzo, which meant there was nothing really lost by having players track their own hit points.

Interesting. Would be curious to try it.