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

[Fanaelialae]

No they dont. Damage disproportionately impacts classes with less HP than it does classes with more HP.

Deal 10 damage to a 1st level Wizard. Now do it to the 1st level Barbarian.

Higher HD is a fundamental class feature of martials, granting them luck and plot armor typical of the sword using hero of fiction on which DnD is heavily based. If you're ruling 'insta-death' for things that RAW are simply HP damage, then you're depriving martials of the advantages of that class feature.

I don't think RAW says much about walking off a cliff. Any more than it does about a character stabbing themselves in the heart, or smoking a stick of dynamite.

Even if I were to accept your argument at face value, this would be no more unfair than any number of abilities that ignore hp, such as a banshee's wail which takes you directly to 0 hp. Or a creature like a beholder, which can neutralize magic.

As I see it, HP are intended for non-suicidal actions. Not for sticking your head between a dragon's jaws to see whether your skull is stronger that their bite.

I completely disagree that this deprives martials of anything. It limits the player's ability to meta game, sure. However, it doesn't limit the character, IMO, because I don't for one second believe that the HP and falling rules were designed with the intent of allowing high level characters to walk off a tall cliff as a means of getting more quickly to the botton.

 

[Flamestrike]

I don't think RAW says much about walking off a cliff. Any more than it does about a character stabbing themselves in the heart, or smoking a stick of dynamite.

Ive already said I dont roll with a PC deliberately walking off a cliff and letting his HP sort it out, knowing full well he'll survive. Thats meta-gaming in the extreme.

Wouldn't allow it on those grounds. If a Player did it anyway despite those warnings, he dies.

It's a different story than if the PC falls though. In those cases his high HP and HD serve the role they're supposed to (and are granted to him for) and we narrate it accordingly.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Ive already said I dont roll with a PC deliberately walking off a cliff and letting his HP sort it out, knowing full well he'll survive. Thats meta-gaming in the extreme.

Wouldn't allow it on those grounds. If a Player did it anyway despite those warnings, he dies.

It's a different story than if the PC falls though. In those cases his high HP and HD serve the role they're supposed to (and are granted to him for) and we narrate it accordingly.

Of course. I've said as much.

It sounds like we're pretty much on the same page.

 

[Maxperson]

Higher HD is a fundamental class feature of martials, granting them luck and plot armor typical of the sword using hero of fiction on which DnD is heavily based. If you're ruling 'insta-death' for things that RAW are simply HP damage, then you're depriving martials of the advantages of that class feature.

Except what she is doing IS RAW. RAW says that the rules aren't in charge, the DM is. When something doesn't make sense, like a Barbarian blithely walking off of a 1500 foot cliff and surviving, it's RAW for the DM to just rule death happens. The goal isn't slaughter of the PCs, but if a PC takes an action that would very reasonably result in death, it's within the DMs power by RAW to rule that death happens rather than just roll 20d6.

 

[wingsandsword]

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!

The reason for the Massive Damage rule, when introduced in 2nd Edition, was largely to prevent this. . .to make it so that no matter HOW many HP you have, there's still at least a chance of dying if you take a huge amount of damage (like terminal velocity falling) at once.

They knew 30+ years ago when making 2e, that the high-level barbarian with a ton of HP just deciding to take a terminal velocity fall because he KNEW he could survive the fall no matter what was a design problem.

Hence the "save or die if you take 50 HP of damage or more at once" rule.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I remember that Spelljammer had rules for how much damage you'd take each round from atmospheric re-entry. Which is probably the extreme example of going beyond 200 feet.

 

[Gammadoodler]

And that was her point. Either you misunderstood what she was saying, or you also engaged in a Strawman and argued something she wasn't saying.

.. Or I fail to see the significance of the distinction. Players will have their characters do or not do many hazardous things based on calculated risks. A classic is 'Do I take the opportunity attack?'. At certain hp levels the opportunity attack would be life threatening. At others, it would not. In either case the player is using the metagame knowledge of their current hp, and the potential damage to make the choice. Other examples may include 'Do I run through that wall of fire" or "do I try to block that doorway". Somehow it's only specifically 'falling' where this behavior becomes unacceptable?

No, but basic common sense is. It's blindingly obvious that falls aren't the same, even if from the same point.

We don't need to answer yes to your Strawman of my argument. It's painfully obvious to even laymen that falls vary.

Ah. Is it as 'blindingly obvious' as it is that different weapon strikes even from the same wielder (much less different wielders) vary? And yet somehow we don't ask the DM to make a ruling for every weapon strike. Instead we rely on weapon damage tables and rules abstraction to save the day.

It's almost as if D&D is a game rather than a simulation.

Pardon me. Not Strawman. Strawmen.

You realize this was a direct comparison between the OP's stated scenario and Fanaelialae's acceptably heroic example right? The point is in 'real life' heroic actions are on average more reckless than planned ones and, as such, more likely to fail. Yet here we want to act as if the opposite is true.

I mean there's a question here, are we more concerned with maintaining verisimilitude, or with punishing metagaming?

 

[Flamestrike]

.. Or I fail to see the significance of the distinction. Players will have their characters do or not do many hazardous things based on calculated risks.

Of course. But you're cant conflate character knowledge with player knowledge, which you keep doing. They arent the same thing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

.. Or I fail to see the significance of the distinction. Players will have their characters do or not do many hazardous things based on calculated risks. A classic is 'Do I take the opportunity attack?'. At certain hp levels the opportunity attack would be life threatening. At others, it would not. In either case the player is using the metagame knowledge of their current hp, and the potential damage to make the choice. Other examples may include 'Do I run through that wall of fire" or "do I try to block that doorway". Somehow it's only specifically 'falling' where this behavior becomes unacceptable?


Ah. Is it as 'blindingly obvious' as it is that different weapon strikes even from the same wielder (much less different wielders) vary? And yet somehow we don't ask the DM to make a ruling for every weapon strike. Instead we rely on weapon damage tables and rules abstraction to save the day.

It's almost as if D&D is a game rather than a simulation.


You realize this was a direct comparison between the OP's stated scenario and Fanaelialae's acceptably heroic example right? The point is in 'real life' heroic actions are on average more reckless than planned ones and, as such, more likely to fail. Yet here we want to act as if the opposite is true.

I mean there's a question here, are we more concerned with maintaining verisimilitude, or with punishing metagaming?

The verisimilitude we are concerned with here is not that of the real world, but rather that of heroic fiction. In heroic fiction, a hero fighting a dragon is expected, but a hero walking off a 1500' cliff because they're too lazy to climb down shatters credulity. As such, the prevention of meta gaming and preservation of verisimilitude go hand in hand.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Of course. But you're cant conflate character knowledge with player knowledge, which you keep doing. They arent the same thing.

I don't think that I am, at least not in this particular instance. In order for us to assume a character is acting rationally, we must assume they have some idea of what they can 'handle'. HP represent that understanding for the player. And at some point, it's not unrealistic for a character to look down from on high and go 'yeah I could handle that (but it'd hurt like hell)'. Otherwise, the character wouldn't risk the climb either.