Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gammadoodler" data-source="post: 8038528" data-attributes="member: 6914290">Simple comparison. If I said spell slots can't ever be used to cast a spell greater than 4th level, would you disagree that this rule is slanted against full casters? I mean half casters would lose out on those 5th level spells a few levels later... The existence of such a master requires truly implausible fiction; as an item the ability is just as bad. Consider the options when you fall.1. With ability, slip and fall, 20d6 damage. You survive!2. With ability, jump, 0 damage. You survive!3. Without ability, slip and fall, 20d6 damage. You survive!4. Without ability, jump. You die...So at a certain level, you are safer when you are clumsy. To make it clear, if falls are going to be 100% deadly at a certain height(debatable), then they should just be deadly. Intent-based deadliness moves the DM's interventions into the foreground where they don't belong. At that point your character might as well die from impact with a spectral hand flipping the player the bird from beyond the fourth wall. Here's the thing..Captain America has no such special ability.. He can do it because he's tough enough and skillful enough (probably has a lot of hp).Besides which, players will decide what they think is cool for their characters. And there is plenty of precedent for the coolness of a hero who just keeps getting up no matter what (in fact, a certain Captain comes to mind..).  So abilities which have zero RL parallels are more believable than things that have actually happened in RL....ok? If that's how y'all roll..(Also, If we need a 'special ability', we could just do this..Legendary Toughness: when you gain a level, your max hp increases by 1d12+your constitution modifier, which allows you to survive when lesser creatures would perish....)Like for instance at the end of a giant club? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />That was a (stolen) joke, but high level barbarians without spell support often have to resort to dangerous and stupid plans to attack flying creatures (get thrown, loaded in catapults and cannons, strapping rockets to themselves, other methods involving explosives). Very frequently these result in hp damage. .which is both fun..and heroic..So in answer to your question, sure I would, if they're gonna take the risks and live with the consequences.First, I've never contended that taking the leap is smart. But then, neither are barbarians. Second, there are no 'real people' in D&D settings. All characters are fictional, unless I've badly misunderstood reality. Third, even so far as there are 'common people' in a D&D setting, PCs are not that, especially by the time where max fall damage is survivable. As such, I disagree with your opinion on what a fictional character with capabilities waaaayy beyond those of a common person would 'never do' in a D&D setting.  Because in one circumstance, the player derives no benefit (i.e. no exploit), and in the other case they do (exploit).I agree. I'm not advocating actual exploits like pre-reading adventures, or memorizing monster stat blocks, etc.. I'm suggesting that 1. The character sheet broadly reflects what characters know about themselves, at least in a, 'I'm pretty tough"/"I've got some skills"/"I'm about to die" kind of way. I think this is pretty fundamental to RPGs in general, but especially to D&D. Basically this is D&D functioning as intended.2. The characters living in the setting have enough experience with the physics of that setting to have some frame of reference for how much potential damage could result from a fall. More controversial, but insofar as the damage rules represent physical reality for the setting, I don't think it's that radical an assertion.3. There's no advantage gained. In the best case scenario, the character still takes a lot of damage, for a gain of some small amount of time alone at the base of a cliff. It's a dumb thing done by a dumb character that harms no one. IIRC, the player asked about the unconscious condition and whether they should roll under the guidelines of that condition, which I think is a reasonable response when you're about to roll dice and all the information you have to that point suggests that you should roll a particular way but your DM hasn't confirmed that for you. At some point, if the creatures were faking being asleep, or got rustled by a bad stealth roll or whatever, the DM should let the players know that was the case. Otherwise you get this justifiable mechanical confusion unsupported by the fiction.Hmmm.. ok that's fair. Perhaps i just haven't been at enough tables with 'creative' spellcasters. So the bias could just be my experience so far with my tables.</blockquote>

Verification