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

[Flamestrike]

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.

There you go again.

Stop conflating what your player knows with what your character knows.

Your character knows that falls hurt, and even minor falls can kill. Just like what we know.

 

[reelo]

One of the reasons why "system shock" SoD should come back in some form. 1d6 damage for the first 1 feet, 2d6 for the next, 3d6 for the next, and so forth, so 6d6 for 30 feet, 10d6 for 40 feet, etc.
And everything above 30 feet should require a SoD check.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

It seems to me that by this reasoning, many second level characters would believe themselves able to handle stabbing themselves in the heart with a dagger. Even if we assume a crit and max modifier, the most that dagger can do is 13 damage. So once a character has at least 14 HP they can stab themselves in the heart once a day every day and be no worse for wear (let's say they're doing it in town where it's safe rather than while adventuring).

To me, however, that's completely unreasonable. If you get stabbed in the heart you are dead or dying. HP simply help prevent you from getting stabbed in the heart. Not by making your chest impervious to daggers, but rather by allowing you to dodge the attack that would have stabbed a lesser hero through the heart.

 

[DND_Reborn]

One of the reasons why "system shock" SoD should come back in some form. 1d6 damage for the first 1 feet, 2d6 for the next, 3d6 for the next, and so forth, so 6d6 for 30 feet, 10d6 for 40 feet, etc.
And everything above 30 feet should require a SoD check.

They sort of have it with the Massive Damage rule, but it is only at 50% of max HP, which for a high level PC with good CON is not reached by the 70 avg dmg from 20d6 still; and it isn't SoD of course.

I've played around with a bunch of rules for things like this but a lot of tables don't want them because they want more "heroic" games.

 

[Fanaelialae]

One of the reasons why "system shock" SoD should come back in some form. 1d6 damage for the first 1 feet, 2d6 for the next, 3d6 for the next, and so forth, so 6d6 for 30 feet, 10d6 for 40 feet, etc.
And everything above 30 feet should require a SoD check.

They sort of have it with the Massive Damage rule, but it is only at 50% of max HP, which for a high level PC with good CON is not reached by the 70 avg dmg from 20d6 still; and it isn't SoD of course.

I've played around with a bunch of rules for things like this but a lot of tables don't want them because they want more "heroic" games.

If your goal is to simply make falling deadlier, then sure.

However, IMO, a feature of the existing system is that it isn't particularly deadly, which mirrors much of heroic fiction (even in the gritty stuff, like Joe Abercrombie's books, major characters rarely die from falling).

Obviously, if you want a more lethal system that's fine. However, at least for myself, making falling more deadly would be undesirable since that might discourage heroic actions (and could be used to decimate flying opponents as well). I like the falling rules as they are; I simply have no desire to see players abuse those rules.

 

[Umbran]

Except what she is doing IS RAW. RAW says that the rules aren't in charge, the DM is.

So, was this expectation about falling damage set at start of play... or even anywhere along the way? Have characters been taking falling damage as normal throughout the game?

Because, while the GM is in charge, they do have some responsibility to be consistent. It they haven't set it forth beforehand, to depart from established pattern suddenly isn't really a great move on the GM's part.

 

[reelo]

If your goal is to simply make falling deadlier, then sure.

However, IMO, a feature of the existing system is that it isn't particularly deadly, which mirrors much of heroic fiction (even in the gritty stuff, like Joe Abercrombie's books, major characters rarely die from falling).

Obviously, if you want a more lethal system that's fine. However, at least for myself, making falling more deadly would be undesirable since that might discourage heroic actions (and could be used to decimate flying opponents as well). I like the falling rules as they are; I simply have no desire to see players abuse those rules.

For a human, jumping down 40+ feet is not heroic, it's downright stupid and suicidal, and the rules should reflect that.

 

[Fanaelialae]

For a human, jumping down 40+ feet is not heroic, it's downright stupid and suicidal, and the rules should reflect that.

In the case of jumping down for no reason, I agree.

However, there is also the case of falling. If you make falling damage too deadly, no player is going to want their character to leap off the cliff onto the back of the dragon as it swoops by. Moreover, it makes fighting monsters that have knockback on a cliff extremely deadly. Lastly, it can be used to trivialize flying monsters by simply knocking them from the sky.

It isn't that you shouldn't make falling deadlier if that is your preference. However, those are reasons that I prefer the existing rules.

It may not be realistic per se, but it isn't at all unusual for a character who falls while behaving heroically to survive in heroic fiction. Hence, I don't see it as a problem in terms of verisimilitude.

 

[Undrave]

Also, never forget: Ladders are for wizards.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

This is a case of blatant meta-gaming... on the part of the DM. You made your ruling (that this fall is fatal) based entirely on factors external to the game world. There's absolutely no reason why the ground would take the character's intent into consideration, when determining how hard they hit. The only things that could possibly affect such a thing are those factors which are actually internal to the game world - the composition of the falling body, what it lands on, and possibly the technique with which they fall.

I have nothing against a blanket house rule regarding the lethality of falling, but it does raise inconsistencies with other parts of the system. I mean, falling from twelve stories up is pretty lethal, but it isn't significantly more lethal than getting shot with ten arrows. In my experience, this line of thinking is a short step from claiming that the rules don't actually model the things that they're clearly attempting to model, even though they spend quite a bit of effort in quantifying the various relevant factors; which raises the further question of why anyone would use this ruleset in the first place, if it doesn't even tell us what's actually going on in the world.

To answer your question, though, the purpose of the limit on falling damage is to reflect that mundane physical hazards really aren't a threat to creatures of a certain power level. It would be inconsistent for any being to die from a simple fall, if they could otherwise withstand taking a meteor to the face. And, whatever else you may try to do with them, Hit Points are still the metric which is used to govern tolerance against injury.