Another thing to consider is how this works at higher levels.
Let's say for example a 20th level monk falls between 200 to 500 feet so that it will occur in 1 round and do the max 20d6 damage.
That's about 70 damage on average but the monk's slow fall reduces 100 damage... so the monk can jump or fall from any height and land on someone and they both take no damage???
Or the 70 damage is split evenly between the 2 creatures and they each take 35 damage... since the monk takes 35 damage he reduces the damage he takes by 100.
I don't have to consider it at higher levels. Because the same can be true at low levels. It doesn't make it any more realistic in any way to say only one of the people takes the damage than it does two. Or that because the Monk understands and controls his body to the point that he can control how he falls to avoid damage should not also inadvertantly affect the person they fell on.
Your obsession over these numbers shows a possible intention to try and turn this into another attack without actually making an attack by purposely falling on another. That is clearly not the point or the intent of the Falling rule.
So Let me change tactics a little. The Feather Fall Spell. Functionally it is mostly the same thing as Slow Fall. Where it differs that It cannot affect multiple people all falling at the same time and it does not guarantee all damage will necessarily be negated but what it gets in return for that is it is a very low resource ability to use without having to worry about magic and the inherent problems that can come with spell casting.
By your interpretation. Because Slow Fall reduces the falling damage of the person that is falling. And Feather Fall reduces the damage of a person that is falling. Feather Fall should in fact deal damage to anybody that gets landed on from the fall with Feather Fall active. Yet that is clearly not what Feather Falls intent or the way it is worded says. Because the two in function in this regard are the same thing. Featherfall should not and does not deal damage to a person landed on and the Monk that uses Slow Fall may not necessarily deal damage to a person landed on for the exact same reason. Because they functionally reduce the damage of the Fall.
It also makes sense that if a monk knows how to fall in a way that is going to reduce impact. this reduction of Impact is going to work regardless of who or what they land on. And since it's not designed to make exception to deal damage to the things that are landed upon. There is no reason it should not effectively reduce damage inadvertently for anybody the monk lands on because the way they land is designed to reduce impact and injury. They are going to do it instinctively. They are not going to necessarily be able to reduce their own damage while dealing damage to another. If they are going to want to deal damage. they are going to want to not going to want to use their skill to soften the blow. So it makes sense that in attempting to deal that damage the monk would also take damage by not using slow fall at all.
If a creature falls into the space of a second creature and neither of them is Tiny, the second creature must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw or be impacted by the falling creature, and any damage resulting from the fall is divided evenly between them. The impacted creature is also knocked prone, unless it is two or more sizes larger than the falling creature.
...any damage resulting from the fall is divided evenly between them (this doesn't say you take like the monk's slow fall, it says any damage is split evenly... so the full damage from falling is split and then the monk reduces the half he takes because that's what slow fall actually does... the 2nd creature takes half of the full falling damage having no ability to reduce this damage at all, and the monk can't reduce any of it for him because the monk's ability only works on the monk... it might not say 'only' but the 'you take' part clearly means this is for the monk alone.
If any damage resulting from the fall is to be split evenly, then applying Slow Fall only to the monk breaks the rule because you're not splitting the damage evenly.
You keep trying to rearrange the order here, and it just looks more and more ridiculous each time.
wooooo, this turned into a whole thing. as i said at the outset, i think either reading is defensible, and as always the answer is Ask Your DM, but i correctly suspected people would have strong feelings one way or the other.
The issue is, and always has been, timing. But there will always be certain people who will ignore the existing language, and invent new language, to justify their perspectives. But, fine, I'll start from scratch. First up is the general rule for falling.
Falling
A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer. At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall.
And this is pretty easy to understand unto itself. But what's clear here is the damage isn't assessed until after the fall; at the moment of impact. Next, we'll look at the monk's feature.
Slow Fall
Beginning at 4th level, you can use your reaction when you fall to reduce any falling damage you take by an amount equal to five times your monk level.
The key phrase here is "when you fall." This feaure, this reaction, can only be used while falling. Arguably, it can only be used at the moment the monk begins to fall. The language is subtly different from, say, Feather Fall. And, despite what others might claim, it doesn't need the "only" qualifier. The monk falling is the trigger. And it reduces the damage the monk suffers. If the intent was to allow the monk to reduce the damage suffered by another falling creature, it would say so.
And, lastly, we look at the edge case of falling onto another creature.
Falling onto a Creature
If a creature falls into the space of a second creature and neither of them is Tiny, the second creature must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw or be impacted by the falling creature, and any damage resulting from the fall is divided evenly between them. The impacted creature is also knocked prone, unless it is two or more sizes larger than the falling creature.
The key here is, "any damage resulting from the fall is evenly divided between them." The damage has to be evenly applied; though there may be mitigating or aggrivating factors. But any damage resulting from the fall has already been reduced by the monk using Slow Fall. After all, if the impacted creature succeeded in their saving throw we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The monk would just take the damage.
Falling onto another creature is just another means of reducing the damage. It's not something for monk's to exploit by nullifying any damage they might take from the fall. It's rather plainly written to not condone such a course of action. But if you do want to try and weaponize a fall, there are options:
It's not an attack, so bludgeoning damage from falling can ignore the damage immunity of an iron golem or werewolf.
Some creatures, like skeletons, don't care what source the bludgeoning damage comes from for their vulnerability, and that template (DMG 282) can be applied to virtually any NPC.
the whole point of the OP was that this could be weaponized... if you're just catching up now?
1. Roll up fall damage.
2. 2nd creature rolls his save.
3. If falling damage is split evenly the the 2nd creature takes his half and the monk takes his half... since the monk has an ability that allows him to reduce falling damage he takes he could indeed take nothing... but monks sometimes take nothing from falling anyway.
A 4th level monk can't take any damage from 30 foot falls (3d6 or 18 max). They reduce 20 falling damage that they take which makes it 0 so they're not even prone.
Except the monk can't reduce damage after the split because the monk already reduced damage before the split. The "split" is just another way for the monk to reduce their damage.
You're not transferring momentum to turn into a human cannonball. And it's, quite frankly, both irritating and ridiculous that there are still jackanapes this cheesy with the rules.
Most of what you say is 100% correct and I have always agreed with and never disputed.
The sticking point for me is that the monk's slow fall does not reduce falling damage.
Let me state emphatically one more time... slow fall doesn't reduce falling damage.
Read it please, carefully. Slow Fall reduces falling damage the monk takes.
So it has to be:
1. Falling damage calculated based on height of fall.
2. Figure out if it's split or not.
3. Apply damage to monk and monk reduces damage it takes.
Brian No.
Your premise is flawed. Your beginning statement to come up with these arbitrary false rules of yours do not work. You cannot Say that it does not Reduce Damage and then immediately Declare it does reduce Damage. It is either one or the Other. It is not Both. And this is just another twisting of words to suit your end result. The Monks Damage is partly the other persons damage. You cannot escape this. Slow Fall Does reduce Damage. You cannot reduce this. We are not contradicting anything in any way that you are stating.
Your Creating Contradictions to force it to work for a single person only. And inadvertantly changing the order of operations to make it work the way that you wish by doing so.
the whole point of the OP was that this could be weaponized... if you're just catching up now?
1. Roll up fall damage.
2. 2nd creature rolls his save.
3. If falling damage is split evenly the the 2nd creature takes his half and the monk takes his half... since the monk has an ability that allows him to reduce falling damage he takes he could indeed take nothing... but monks sometimes take nothing from falling anyway.
A 4th level monk can't take any damage from 30 foot falls (3d6 or 18 max). They reduce 20 falling damage that they take which makes it 0 so they're not even prone.
while the Point of the OP may have been to suggest it might be weaponizable for discussions. The Truth of the Matter is that it is not weaponizable unless the Monk is willing to forgo using it's abilities and also take Damage. There is no way around this. It is not some kind of powerful surprise combat maneuver that's been created. If you even want to attempt such it is entirely at the risk of your own character because you will suffer damage as well. Twisting the Rules to Weaponize it does not change this fact.
As for Monks taking nothing from falls. Monks often take nothing from falls. This is nothing new or even out of the ordinary. People have been trying to weaponize various things about the monk's potential verticality for Decades and it's always worked out the same. Some work, some do not, And some are just too convoluted or niche to make practical. This just happens to be one that does not even if some players would like it to work.
It's funny how many times I have to state the fact that the monk's ability does not reduce damage, it reduces damage the monk takes. And until you know if the monk is taking the full damage from the fall or only half damage you cannot reduce anything yet, not to mention you only reduce when the monk takes the damage. So therefore you need to know if the 2nd creature makes the save or not. This means this step has to take place before the monk reduces damage. Since it takes place before the monk's damage is reduced the full and total fall damage is split evenly with the 2nd creature taking the full half of the falling damage. Luckily for the monk his damage reduction that affects only him and now reduces his falling damage that he takes.
RAW supports it. RAI doesn't. Rule of cool definitiely does.
Forget the Rule of Cool. It can be used to justify literally anything. That, alone, disqualifies it for this discussion. Stick to the RAW. And we've gone over it more times than I care to count. I really don't know why you keep going down this path, but whatever.
The monk's damage is reduced no matter what. There's no expressed stipulation that it can only reduce the damage the monk takes; you're inventing that. Regardless of when Slow Fall's reduction in damage takes place, it still reduces the monk's damage. This is the RAW. Stop making stuff up to justify your shenanigans.
Whether or not the damage taken by the monk is reduced further is determined by another creature. In other words, the impacted creature is just another way of reducing that fall damage. The monk isn't a humanoid cannonball who can simply transfer damage to another target and suffer nothing in return.
To allow what you want to allow is nothing more than a bad-faith interpretation of the rules to allow exploitative nonsense because you think it's cool. And that's never been a valid talking point when discussing the rules. If you want to throw the rules out the window to do whatever you think is fun, then fine. Just admit you're throwing out the rules.
Fall. Reduce. Split. That is the order of operations.
Also. No matter how many times you say it. A contradiction is still a contradiction and a bad faith argument. Doesn't matter how many times you say "this doesn't work but this does exactly what I said doesn't work but with stipulations I'm adding myself" Still does not work. If it doesn't Work then it doesn't work. period. If it does work then because of order of operations It works first. Just like Damage Reduction does. If you have damage reduction from something like the Heavy Armor Master Feat. It would apply first. Not last. Your Order is completely wrong. We are not breaking your imaginary rules. We are not breaking the rules by RaW.
Our Words do not change because the Truth does not change. No matter how much you throw fits at it and tell them to change or complain that nothing said is changing. Nothing said is changing because your not changing. Not because the rules are not changing.
Sort of like the way you keep saying the same thing doesn't make it so or true or especially a fact. It's just yours and a few others opinion. There are billions on this planet that will see it always matters how much damage you take. To know what the monk takes is important because there is a new rule from Tasha's that might split that evenly with the 2nd creature. Once you roll up the fall damage you then have the 2nd creature make a saving throw, if it fails the falling damage is split evenly and the monk's half can be reduced by the monk's slow fall... which 4th level and higher monk's can do all the time.
(out of curiosity what page number is the Order of Operations on?)
[REDACTED]
The order of operations, as it were, is determined by the trigger for Slow Fall.
Slow Fall happens when the monk falls, when they are in the air, not when they actually suffer the damage at the point of impact. If it were intended to be used as they take damage, then it would be worded accordingly.
Slow Fall reduces the damage the monk would take. Whatever damage remains can then be reduced further, under a specific set of circumstances, by sharing it with another creature.
EDIT: You keep getting hung up on what's in the PHB, but the answer isn't in the PHB. It's in Tasha's. That's because the rule for Falling onto a Creature is a response to what's in the PHB.
If a creature falls into the space of a second creature and neither of them is Tiny, the second creature must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw or be impacted by the falling creature, and any damage resulting from the fall is divided evenly between them.
"Any damage resulting from the fall."
There are no rules for Damage reduction, it just happens. There are rules for Damage Resistance, but that's not applicable here. We just care that the damage the monk would take from the fall is reduced by Slow Fall. And that reduced damage is the resulting damage of the fall, which is then split between the monk and whatever creature was unfortunate enough to not avoid the falling monk.
Actually, that's not quite right. It's not the monk sharing damage with the impacted creature. It's the impacted creature failing to avoid taking half of the monk's damage.
This isn't something the monk can weaponize because it isn't up to the monk. And this back and forth has been going on for, what, a week? Give it a rest already.
Sort of like the way you keep saying the same thing doesn't make it so or true or especially a fact. It's just yours and a few others opinion. There are billions on this planet that will see it always matters how much damage you take. To know what the monk takes is important because there is a new rule from Tasha's that might split that evenly with the 2nd creature. Once you roll up the fall damage you then have the 2nd creature make a saving throw, if it fails the falling damage is split evenly and the monk's half can be reduced by the monk's slow fall... which 4th level and higher monk's can do all the time.
(out of curiosity what page number is the Order of Operations on?)
Except here's the thing. We're providing you with fact. We've shown you the rules. We've shown you how they don't contradict and we've shown you where they function and why they function in that way. You keep trying to change that by trying to focus on words that don't mean what you keep trying to make them mean. Mention of the monk in it's slow fall ability is just a plain language statement. It is not some magical statement that means it only works for the monk somehow. It means it works for the monk, and anything else it's damage applies to. That includes other targets that might take part of the damage for one reason or another such as the falling rule in Tasha's. The Damage that the other target makes is entirely based upon the damage that the monk takes. Not the damage the Monk Rolls. The Damage the Monk Takes. But in your desperation to weaponize this ability. Your ignoring this fact in favor of a twisted interpretation of a large number of the words involved and assigning arbitrary extra importance or even repeatedly adding in extra words to make them fit the outcome you are argueing for. Your actually starting with an outcome and then trying to make everything fit. That's not how things work. The Outcome does not dictate the importance of various words in the different abilities and rules. The different abilities and Rules Dictate the Outcome. Working backwards is flawed and incorrect because it ignores lots of details that should be taken into account.
For Example. With Slow Fall. Rolling Damage is often moot because the Monk often reduces more damage than the fall could ever actually do. This is because people forgoing the roll are basically following the same procedures as if they had rolled it anyway but saving time because the numbers involved are not going to net any kind of unpredictable answer. This does not change just because the monk is falling on somebody else. You still end up in a situation where you can compare numbers and if the number for the reduction is higher then it is pointless to go any further. This is Because the Damage Reduction Number is effectively a thresh-hold point where there is even any damage to apply. This is because Slow Fall actually activates before Damage even technically happens since it's place in the Order is when the Fall happens.
If you truely need a way to most accurately look at this as a form of mathematical equation. Your math isn't:
Roll falling damage divided by Tasha's Falling rule save fail Divided by/minus resistances and other modifiers minus Slow Fall Equals Damage Taken.
It is actualy Slow Fall Reduction + Rolled damage divided by/minus Resistances and other Modifiers divided By Tasha's falling rule Equals Damage Taken.
You actually start with a Negative Number by pure technicality and then have to add upward to even get a positive number to have damage to do anything else with. But this looks funny to a lot of people that don't do a lot with higher level math because most things in our life don't really work with it. And under most circumstances For the purposes we're applying it to reversing the order of the Slow Fall Reduction and the Rolled Damage doesn't actually matter that much because the totals come out the same. However with Tasha's Falling Rule it does matter because it means a great deal of difference for not just one but potentially 2 targets.
I know a lot of people argue that you can't reduce damage you haven't taken yet. But strictly speaking. That's not exactly true. It happens in variuos places throughout the game and is represented in a variety of ways. One of the Most Common is actually in temporary hitpoints. These are hitpoints above and beyond your maximum without changing your maximum value as we all know. But what these are effectively doing is Reducing Damage from a future source before that source has actually dealt it's damage as long as it is within the time span that the temporary hp remains. The only Difference Between Temporary HP and the Slow Fall Ability of the Monk is when they do what they do. This is based upon the wording of them. Temporary HP Limits itself specifically to the moment that your recording damage on your sheet. Slow Fall on the Other hand says "this pool of damage mitigation applies the moment you use a reaction as you fall."
As I pointed out once Before. Tasha's slow fall uses the same wording that you've tried many times to say that Slow Fall must come last. The Difference Between Slow Fall and the Tasha's rule is that Slow Fall tells us a different time to apply it. Tasha's on the other hand does not.
Slow Fall doesn't say the damage the monk would take... it says the damage you take.
Therefore it is applied when the monk takes the damage.
And to determine the damage he takes you have to know if it's split or not.
(Still no page number on that Order of Operations rule... or are you guys just trolling me all this time with your own made up bullshat.)
Stop looking at Slow Fall for your justification when it's the older rule. The newer one is, again, a response to that rule.
"...any damage resulting from the fall is divided evenly..."
The monk reduces the damage they would take, and this result is divided evenly. It's not complicated. If you cannot admit this...we can't help you.
Ignorance is never a valid point of view, but this isn't ignorance. This is you just ignoring what's in front of you for the sake of cheese. You're choosing to keep this charade going.
If the 2nd creature fails it's saving throw then it is taking half the damage and the falling damage the monk actually takes will also be half instead of full, since the monk's slow fall ability says it reduces damage the monk takes, it seems logical to me to determine if the falling damage is split first so we know how much the monk can actually reduce to himself. Once that's determined then apply the full damage from the fall, half to each, and then reduce the damage the monk takes.
The default assumption for falling is only the creature falling is taking damage. You don't get to hide behind the language of Slow Fall, taking the default assumption, and twisting that to fit an optional rule written six years later. The newer rule was written with the older rule in mind. It is a response, an addendum, to the rules found in the Player's Handbook.
Slow Fall does not say it only reduces the damage the monk takes because it doesn't need to. It can't slow another creature's descent, and it can't transfer the damage to another falling creature. But what Slow Fall does do is change the result of the damage. And that's the key factor here.
Some on here are trying to say an ally can get underneath the monk and the monk's slow fall somehow reduces falling damage that hasn't been dealt yet so the ally can willingly fail the save and split the reduced damage so they both take nothing... or whatever else they're trying to get to work here.
Not only does that not work, because if the monk negates damage completely there's nothing to divide between them, but the ally underneath would still be knocked prone by the impact. And failing a saving throw is, by RAW, only something you can do if a feature says you can. Tasha's also gave us the Telekinetic feat, which includes such a clause.
If you willingly ignore that both the RAW and RAI of slow fall is that the falling damage is reduced to the monk alone then maybe what you're suggesting would work.
But those 2 words I mentioned before right after the phrase 'reduce any falling damage'... change the meaning from being able to reduce any falling damage to 'reduce any falling damage you take' which means only falling damage dealt to the monk.
The way this all worked before Tasha's rule didn't matter as much. The monk was always taking the fall damage so you just applied the damage reduction and the order didnt matter so much. Now because the 2nd creature will sometimes be impacted the amount of damage the monk reduces will be the final amount he takes from the fall. Might be the full amount or it might be evenly divided between the two. If the save fails that's good news for the monk as his slow fall reduces falling damage he takes, which is from his half of the falling damage only.
Okay, see, now this is straight-up hypocritical. You're admitting to the default assumption for falling and saying it doesn't matter. And then you cleave to that rule, rather than actually read and follow the text of the optional rule that you claim allows for this interaction. You cannot have it both ways. You either give the optional rule dominance or you discard it.
The resulting damage is shared. That resulting damage is post-Slow Fall because you do all the calculations before factoring in Damage Resistance or Vulnerability. If there was a rule saying the monk gets to save their Slow Fall for the point of impact, it would say so in Tasha's. You keep looking in the wrong place for your flimsy justification. And I bet you know it's flimsy, which is all the more frustrating.
Listen Brian, I don't think anyone here has actually agreed to your approach is what the rules are as written... pretty much the entire thread is in response to arguing everything you've stated is fact, and no real common ground...
The good news, none of us are your DM. If you're going to run this rule, persuade your DM to do so, but you're not even coming close to convincing anyone here
Listen Brian, I don't think anyone here has actually agreed to your approach is what the rules are as written... pretty much the entire thread is in response to arguing everything you've stated is fact, and no real common ground...
The good news, none of us are your DM. If you're going to run this rule, persuade your DM to do so, but you're not even coming close to convincing anyone here
I've stepped away from responding to this thread, but for the record not everyone who has responded or read this thread has disagreed with Brian ( I, for example, agree with his interpretation). Its just that the last few pages has been Brain and like two other people who still care enough to keep this volley of comments going who have been talking. Saying the whole thread disagrees is incorrect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
It's exploitative, and no sane DM would ever assume such an interaction is intended.
There are plenty of ways that falling onto a creature could be "weaponized." You can impose disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws, or force an auto-failure. You can make the falling creature Large, or bigger, so they can impact more creatures. And the falling creature can have Damage Resistance to lessen the toll.
But this is pure cheese, and not even a good kind. You could allow a character to take to a high altitude and fall, all in one six-second turn, for sizable damage, at no cost. And then the falling character, such as the monk, still has their action to Attack a prone target.
You might think that's fun as a player, but that's the kind of shenanigans players are going to want to try all the time. It isn't RAW, and it's dumb as hell. A smart DM is going to want to shut that down so it doesn't become a habit.
Now, would a moderator please lock this thread? Enough is enough.
Tasha's rule does have dominance over the Monk's Slow Fall.
It even gets to be determined right after the falling damage.
Step 1: Monk announces Slow Fall with his reaction. Roll up the falling damage.
Step 2: Tasha's rule for splitting damage.
Step 3: Each take half of the damage, the monk's is reduced by Slow Fall.
Easy peasy lemon squeezie.
(Thanks for the $200 imaginary dollars, it actually does matter in an imaginary game.
Dominance does not mean that Tasha's rule goes first. It means that it has the biggest say. Which means your argument about you take turning Slow Fall into a Monk only effect doesn't work. Because Tasha's rule uses the exact same language. And further supporting language. Which means if it is dominant. slow Fall loses and applies to all Damage because it is all the Monks Damage no matter how many people the end result is split amongst.
But no. That ruins your fun and your constant argueing for rule of cool and your constant attempts to exploit the rules to make cheese that you want to do. Home brew it in your own game as much as you like. It's not how things actually work. Rule of Cool rarely actually matches how the rules actually work. That's why it's left up to individual tables and rule of cool doesn't govern RaW.
I agree with Jounichi. This thread needs locked at this point. It's pointless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't have to consider it at higher levels. Because the same can be true at low levels. It doesn't make it any more realistic in any way to say only one of the people takes the damage than it does two. Or that because the Monk understands and controls his body to the point that he can control how he falls to avoid damage should not also inadvertantly affect the person they fell on.
Your obsession over these numbers shows a possible intention to try and turn this into another attack without actually making an attack by purposely falling on another. That is clearly not the point or the intent of the Falling rule.
So Let me change tactics a little. The Feather Fall Spell. Functionally it is mostly the same thing as Slow Fall. Where it differs that It cannot affect multiple people all falling at the same time and it does not guarantee all damage will necessarily be negated but what it gets in return for that is it is a very low resource ability to use without having to worry about magic and the inherent problems that can come with spell casting.
By your interpretation. Because Slow Fall reduces the falling damage of the person that is falling. And Feather Fall reduces the damage of a person that is falling. Feather Fall should in fact deal damage to anybody that gets landed on from the fall with Feather Fall active. Yet that is clearly not what Feather Falls intent or the way it is worded says. Because the two in function in this regard are the same thing. Featherfall should not and does not deal damage to a person landed on and the Monk that uses Slow Fall may not necessarily deal damage to a person landed on for the exact same reason. Because they functionally reduce the damage of the Fall.
It also makes sense that if a monk knows how to fall in a way that is going to reduce impact. this reduction of Impact is going to work regardless of who or what they land on. And since it's not designed to make exception to deal damage to the things that are landed upon. There is no reason it should not effectively reduce damage inadvertently for anybody the monk lands on because the way they land is designed to reduce impact and injury. They are going to do it instinctively. They are not going to necessarily be able to reduce their own damage while dealing damage to another. If they are going to want to deal damage. they are going to want to not going to want to use their skill to soften the blow. So it makes sense that in attempting to deal that damage the monk would also take damage by not using slow fall at all.
If any damage resulting from the fall is to be split evenly, then applying Slow Fall only to the monk breaks the rule because you're not splitting the damage evenly.
You keep trying to rearrange the order here, and it just looks more and more ridiculous each time.
wooooo, this turned into a whole thing. as i said at the outset, i think either reading is defensible, and as always the answer is Ask Your DM, but i correctly suspected people would have strong feelings one way or the other.
The issue is, and always has been, timing. But there will always be certain people who will ignore the existing language, and invent new language, to justify their perspectives. But, fine, I'll start from scratch. First up is the general rule for falling.
And this is pretty easy to understand unto itself. But what's clear here is the damage isn't assessed until after the fall; at the moment of impact. Next, we'll look at the monk's feature.
The key phrase here is "when you fall." This feaure, this reaction, can only be used while falling. Arguably, it can only be used at the moment the monk begins to fall. The language is subtly different from, say, Feather Fall. And, despite what others might claim, it doesn't need the "only" qualifier. The monk falling is the trigger. And it reduces the damage the monk suffers. If the intent was to allow the monk to reduce the damage suffered by another falling creature, it would say so.
And, lastly, we look at the edge case of falling onto another creature.
The key here is, "any damage resulting from the fall is evenly divided between them." The damage has to be evenly applied; though there may be mitigating or aggrivating factors. But any damage resulting from the fall has already been reduced by the monk using Slow Fall. After all, if the impacted creature succeeded in their saving throw we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The monk would just take the damage.
Falling onto another creature is just another means of reducing the damage. It's not something for monk's to exploit by nullifying any damage they might take from the fall. It's rather plainly written to not condone such a course of action. But if you do want to try and weaponize a fall, there are options:
Except the monk can't reduce damage after the split because the monk already reduced damage before the split. The "split" is just another way for the monk to reduce their damage.
You're not transferring momentum to turn into a human cannonball. And it's, quite frankly, both irritating and ridiculous that there are still jackanapes this cheesy with the rules.
Lyxon... you're my hero..
SLOW FALL!!!
Brian No.
Your premise is flawed. Your beginning statement to come up with these arbitrary false rules of yours do not work. You cannot Say that it does not Reduce Damage and then immediately Declare it does reduce Damage. It is either one or the Other. It is not Both. And this is just another twisting of words to suit your end result. The Monks Damage is partly the other persons damage. You cannot escape this. Slow Fall Does reduce Damage. You cannot reduce this. We are not contradicting anything in any way that you are stating.
Your Creating Contradictions to force it to work for a single person only. And inadvertantly changing the order of operations to make it work the way that you wish by doing so.
while the Point of the OP may have been to suggest it might be weaponizable for discussions. The Truth of the Matter is that it is not weaponizable unless the Monk is willing to forgo using it's abilities and also take Damage. There is no way around this. It is not some kind of powerful surprise combat maneuver that's been created. If you even want to attempt such it is entirely at the risk of your own character because you will suffer damage as well. Twisting the Rules to Weaponize it does not change this fact.
As for Monks taking nothing from falls. Monks often take nothing from falls. This is nothing new or even out of the ordinary. People have been trying to weaponize various things about the monk's potential verticality for Decades and it's always worked out the same. Some work, some do not, And some are just too convoluted or niche to make practical. This just happens to be one that does not even if some players would like it to work.
Forget the Rule of Cool. It can be used to justify literally anything. That, alone, disqualifies it for this discussion. Stick to the RAW. And we've gone over it more times than I care to count. I really don't know why you keep going down this path, but whatever.
The monk's damage is reduced no matter what. There's no expressed stipulation that it can only reduce the damage the monk takes; you're inventing that. Regardless of when Slow Fall's reduction in damage takes place, it still reduces the monk's damage. This is the RAW. Stop making stuff up to justify your shenanigans.
Whether or not the damage taken by the monk is reduced further is determined by another creature. In other words, the impacted creature is just another way of reducing that fall damage. The monk isn't a humanoid cannonball who can simply transfer damage to another target and suffer nothing in return.
To allow what you want to allow is nothing more than a bad-faith interpretation of the rules to allow exploitative nonsense because you think it's cool. And that's never been a valid talking point when discussing the rules. If you want to throw the rules out the window to do whatever you think is fun, then fine. Just admit you're throwing out the rules.
no.
Fall. Reduce. Split. That is the order of operations.
Also. No matter how many times you say it. A contradiction is still a contradiction and a bad faith argument. Doesn't matter how many times you say "this doesn't work but this does exactly what I said doesn't work but with stipulations I'm adding myself" Still does not work. If it doesn't Work then it doesn't work. period. If it does work then because of order of operations It works first. Just like Damage Reduction does. If you have damage reduction from something like the Heavy Armor Master Feat. It would apply first. Not last. Your Order is completely wrong. We are not breaking your imaginary rules. We are not breaking the rules by RaW.
Our Words do not change because the Truth does not change. No matter how much you throw fits at it and tell them to change or complain that nothing said is changing. Nothing said is changing because your not changing. Not because the rules are not changing.
[REDACTED]
The order of operations, as it were, is determined by the trigger for Slow Fall.
Slow Fall happens when the monk falls, when they are in the air, not when they actually suffer the damage at the point of impact. If it were intended to be used as they take damage, then it would be worded accordingly.
Slow Fall reduces the damage the monk would take. Whatever damage remains can then be reduced further, under a specific set of circumstances, by sharing it with another creature.
EDIT: You keep getting hung up on what's in the PHB, but the answer isn't in the PHB. It's in Tasha's. That's because the rule for Falling onto a Creature is a response to what's in the PHB.
"Any damage resulting from the fall."
There are no rules for Damage reduction, it just happens. There are rules for Damage Resistance, but that's not applicable here. We just care that the damage the monk would take from the fall is reduced by Slow Fall. And that reduced damage is the resulting damage of the fall, which is then split between the monk and whatever creature was unfortunate enough to not avoid the falling monk.
Actually, that's not quite right. It's not the monk sharing damage with the impacted creature. It's the impacted creature failing to avoid taking half of the monk's damage.
This isn't something the monk can weaponize because it isn't up to the monk. And this back and forth has been going on for, what, a week? Give it a rest already.
Except here's the thing. We're providing you with fact. We've shown you the rules. We've shown you how they don't contradict and we've shown you where they function and why they function in that way. You keep trying to change that by trying to focus on words that don't mean what you keep trying to make them mean. Mention of the monk in it's slow fall ability is just a plain language statement. It is not some magical statement that means it only works for the monk somehow. It means it works for the monk, and anything else it's damage applies to. That includes other targets that might take part of the damage for one reason or another such as the falling rule in Tasha's. The Damage that the other target makes is entirely based upon the damage that the monk takes. Not the damage the Monk Rolls. The Damage the Monk Takes. But in your desperation to weaponize this ability. Your ignoring this fact in favor of a twisted interpretation of a large number of the words involved and assigning arbitrary extra importance or even repeatedly adding in extra words to make them fit the outcome you are argueing for. Your actually starting with an outcome and then trying to make everything fit. That's not how things work. The Outcome does not dictate the importance of various words in the different abilities and rules. The different abilities and Rules Dictate the Outcome. Working backwards is flawed and incorrect because it ignores lots of details that should be taken into account.
For Example. With Slow Fall. Rolling Damage is often moot because the Monk often reduces more damage than the fall could ever actually do. This is because people forgoing the roll are basically following the same procedures as if they had rolled it anyway but saving time because the numbers involved are not going to net any kind of unpredictable answer. This does not change just because the monk is falling on somebody else. You still end up in a situation where you can compare numbers and if the number for the reduction is higher then it is pointless to go any further. This is Because the Damage Reduction Number is effectively a thresh-hold point where there is even any damage to apply. This is because Slow Fall actually activates before Damage even technically happens since it's place in the Order is when the Fall happens.
If you truely need a way to most accurately look at this as a form of mathematical equation. Your math isn't:
Roll falling damage divided by Tasha's Falling rule save fail Divided by/minus resistances and other modifiers minus Slow Fall Equals Damage Taken.
It is actualy Slow Fall Reduction + Rolled damage divided by/minus Resistances and other Modifiers divided By Tasha's falling rule Equals Damage Taken.
You actually start with a Negative Number by pure technicality and then have to add upward to even get a positive number to have damage to do anything else with. But this looks funny to a lot of people that don't do a lot with higher level math because most things in our life don't really work with it. And under most circumstances For the purposes we're applying it to reversing the order of the Slow Fall Reduction and the Rolled Damage doesn't actually matter that much because the totals come out the same. However with Tasha's Falling Rule it does matter because it means a great deal of difference for not just one but potentially 2 targets.
I know a lot of people argue that you can't reduce damage you haven't taken yet. But strictly speaking. That's not exactly true. It happens in variuos places throughout the game and is represented in a variety of ways. One of the Most Common is actually in temporary hitpoints. These are hitpoints above and beyond your maximum without changing your maximum value as we all know. But what these are effectively doing is Reducing Damage from a future source before that source has actually dealt it's damage as long as it is within the time span that the temporary hp remains. The only Difference Between Temporary HP and the Slow Fall Ability of the Monk is when they do what they do. This is based upon the wording of them. Temporary HP Limits itself specifically to the moment that your recording damage on your sheet. Slow Fall on the Other hand says "this pool of damage mitigation applies the moment you use a reaction as you fall."
As I pointed out once Before. Tasha's slow fall uses the same wording that you've tried many times to say that Slow Fall must come last. The Difference Between Slow Fall and the Tasha's rule is that Slow Fall tells us a different time to apply it. Tasha's on the other hand does not.
Stop looking at Slow Fall for your justification when it's the older rule. The newer one is, again, a response to that rule.
"...any damage resulting from the fall is divided evenly..."
The monk reduces the damage they would take, and this result is divided evenly. It's not complicated. If you cannot admit this...we can't help you.
Ignorance is never a valid point of view, but this isn't ignorance. This is you just ignoring what's in front of you for the sake of cheese. You're choosing to keep this charade going.
I really don't want to do this, but here we are.
The default assumption for falling is only the creature falling is taking damage. You don't get to hide behind the language of Slow Fall, taking the default assumption, and twisting that to fit an optional rule written six years later. The newer rule was written with the older rule in mind. It is a response, an addendum, to the rules found in the Player's Handbook.
Slow Fall does not say it only reduces the damage the monk takes because it doesn't need to. It can't slow another creature's descent, and it can't transfer the damage to another falling creature. But what Slow Fall does do is change the result of the damage. And that's the key factor here.
Not only does that not work, because if the monk negates damage completely there's nothing to divide between them, but the ally underneath would still be knocked prone by the impact. And failing a saving throw is, by RAW, only something you can do if a feature says you can. Tasha's also gave us the Telekinetic feat, which includes such a clause.
Okay, see, now this is straight-up hypocritical. You're admitting to the default assumption for falling and saying it doesn't matter. And then you cleave to that rule, rather than actually read and follow the text of the optional rule that you claim allows for this interaction. You cannot have it both ways. You either give the optional rule dominance or you discard it.
The resulting damage is shared. That resulting damage is post-Slow Fall because you do all the calculations before factoring in Damage Resistance or Vulnerability. If there was a rule saying the monk gets to save their Slow Fall for the point of impact, it would say so in Tasha's. You keep looking in the wrong place for your flimsy justification. And I bet you know it's flimsy, which is all the more frustrating.
No, it doesn't. [REDACTED]
Listen Brian, I don't think anyone here has actually agreed to your approach is what the rules are as written... pretty much the entire thread is in response to arguing everything you've stated is fact, and no real common ground...
The good news, none of us are your DM. If you're going to run this rule, persuade your DM to do so, but you're not even coming close to convincing anyone here
I've stepped away from responding to this thread, but for the record not everyone who has responded or read this thread has disagreed with Brian ( I, for example, agree with his interpretation). Its just that the last few pages has been Brain and like two other people who still care enough to keep this volley of comments going who have been talking. Saying the whole thread disagrees is incorrect.
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
It's exploitative, and no sane DM would ever assume such an interaction is intended.
There are plenty of ways that falling onto a creature could be "weaponized." You can impose disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws, or force an auto-failure. You can make the falling creature Large, or bigger, so they can impact more creatures. And the falling creature can have Damage Resistance to lessen the toll.
But this is pure cheese, and not even a good kind. You could allow a character to take to a high altitude and fall, all in one six-second turn, for sizable damage, at no cost. And then the falling character, such as the monk, still has their action to Attack a prone target.
You might think that's fun as a player, but that's the kind of shenanigans players are going to want to try all the time. It isn't RAW, and it's dumb as hell. A smart DM is going to want to shut that down so it doesn't become a habit.
Now, would a moderator please lock this thread? Enough is enough.
Dominance does not mean that Tasha's rule goes first. It means that it has the biggest say. Which means your argument about you take turning Slow Fall into a Monk only effect doesn't work. Because Tasha's rule uses the exact same language. And further supporting language. Which means if it is dominant. slow Fall loses and applies to all Damage because it is all the Monks Damage no matter how many people the end result is split amongst.
But no. That ruins your fun and your constant argueing for rule of cool and your constant attempts to exploit the rules to make cheese that you want to do. Home brew it in your own game as much as you like. It's not how things actually work. Rule of Cool rarely actually matches how the rules actually work. That's why it's left up to individual tables and rule of cool doesn't govern RaW.
I agree with Jounichi. This thread needs locked at this point. It's pointless.