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

[Xenonnonex]

Once you reach terminal velocity. You become one with the ground. As all good pancakes do.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I could see that working for me. There's a certain bravado to it that many characters posses.

I could see a couple characters I've played looking off the peak, breathing deep of the mountain air, and saying, "I will not pass into the Night today." and then confidently leaping off.

I don't care if you can fight a giant, someone's going to be scraping you up off the ground unless you can cast feather fall if you fall much over a 100 ft in my campaign.

This is a confusing statement. A realistic human could not fight a giant. At least not the bigger ones. They could maybe hurt the giant, but killing it is...preposterous.

So...in your campaign, the thing that is totally preposterous in any rational world is fine, but the thing that actually happens IRL is off the table...because physics?

 

[Laurefindel]

I could see a couple characters I've played looking off the peak, breathing deep of the mountain air, and saying, "I will not pass into the Night today." and then confidently leaping off.


This is a confusing statement. A realistic human could not fight a giant. At least not the bigger ones. They could maybe hurt the giant, but killing it is...preposterous.

So...in your campaign, the thing that is totally preposterous in any rational world is fine, but the thing that actually happens IRL is off the table...because physics?

Not because physics. Because relatable.

I never fought a giant. I have fallen 20 feet. It didn’t end well. So a casual 100’ leap? Suspension of disbelief is harder when it’s something you’ve experienced. Dodging the club of a giant, in comparison, seems a lot more believable.

At least it is for me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Maybe @iserith has already chimed in, but this approach to DMing is unlikely to persuade players to play a different way. Instead, they'll learn to pretend they have other reasons for doing things, in order to get around rules against 'exploiting player knowledge'.

For example, the player of the barbarian might say he's going to try to climb down. The DM says, "No way, there are no handholds." "I'll try anyway." "I'm telling you you're gonna fall." "S'Ok, I feel lucky."

While all the time the player is thinking, "Of course I'm going to fall. I know I can take 20d6 damage, but I've learned not to say that at this table."

And maybe the DM is even thinking, "That little cheater. He's planning to fall because he knows he can take 20d6."

And maybe, for some, as long as they speaketh not their metagaming aloud it's fine. Me, I'd rather everybody just be up front about what they're doing, so players don't have to lie, and DMs don't have to be suspicious.

 

[Umbran]

I could see a couple characters I've played looking off the peak, breathing deep of the mountain air, and saying, "I will not pass into the Night today." and then confidently leaping off.

And, since you are just so darned epic (and hit points include luck and such)... there's an updraft. Or a pool of water to land in. Or you tuck and roll just so.... Whatever it is, it is there.

I have, more than once considered... maybe a paladin... who has been given a vision of his own death. So, he can throw himself into virtually anything with Quixotic verve... And the thing is, we don't actually have to determine the reality - if the character doesn't die, he was obviously correct that it wasn't his day to die. If he dies, well, trying to dodge it would not have helped.

 

[smetzger]

I have always used d20 for every 10 ft then divide that by the result of a d6.
Average ends up being a little less than the d6 per 10 ft method for lower falls. But the maximum is much higher.

 

[iserith]

Maybe @iserith has already chimed in, but this approach to DMing is unlikely to persuade players to play a different way. Instead, they'll learn to pretend they have other reasons for doing things, in order to get around rules against 'exploiting player knowledge'.

For example, the player of the barbarian might say he's going to try to climb down. The DM says, "No way, there are no handholds." "I'll try anyway." "I'm telling you you're gonna fall." "S'Ok, I feel lucky."

While all the time the player is thinking, "Of course I'm going to fall. I know I can take 20d6 damage, but I've learned not to say that at this table."

And maybe the DM is even thinking, "That little cheater. He's planning to fall because he knows he can take 20d6."

And maybe, for some, as long as they speaketh not their metagaming aloud it's fine. Me, I'd rather everybody just be up front about what they're doing, so players don't have to lie, and DMs don't have to be suspicious.

The solution is very simple.

The DM just says a drop from this cliff, tower, airship, floating island, etc. means you die, no roll. As long as that's made clear to the players, they can plan accordingly.

The rules serve the DM, not the other way around.

 

[Hriston]

Not a bad idea most of the time, but with this particular player it might be something like, "I'm half-Bumble."

I'm not sure what a bumble is in this context. Is it some kind of bird?

The way Bugs Bunny does in when crashing in an elevator, he just steps out at the last moment.

This type of answer and, I think, the one above, depending on the expectations at the table, could be considered disruptive and in bad faith. If the player's description of how they intend to survive the fall doesn't fit with the genre conventions agreed upon by the table, then it may very well be non-permissible.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And, since you are just so darned epic (and hit points include luck and such)... there's an updraft. Or a pool of water to land in. Or you tuck and roll just so.... Whatever it is, it is there.

I have, more than once considered... maybe a paladin... who has been given a vision of his own death. So, he can throw himself into virtually anything with Quixotic verve... And the thing is, we don't actually have to determine the reality - if the character doesn't die, he was obviously correct that it wasn't his day to die. If he dies, well, trying to dodge it would not have helped.

Exactly!

I really want to play that sort of Paladin, honestly. Haven’t yet.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Falling damage doesn't make sense, overall. Force from falling would not be linear at d6 per 10'. Also, smaller and larger creatures should take different amounts of damage for falling, generally. Force = mass * Acceleration, and the acceleration due to gravity is exponential.

I think you mix up a few things...

The accelleration is not exponential as you think. The acceleration due to gravity is actually (nearly) constant at 9.81m/s^2. If you take air resistance into account, the effective acceleration decreases.
The velocity however increases, but not exponential, it is a linear increase (again if you neglect air resistance). The only exponential part is when you are reaching terminal velocity when accounting for air resistance (because that is the reason for terminal velocity).
Probably you speak of thr accelaration that occurs when you hit the ground. Assuming that the time to stop is constant, the force is also only growing linearly, which is no miracle, because the forumar for the potential energy is linear with the height.