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.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
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.
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.
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.
The deadly drop bear attack works.
Look!
Up in the sky, it's a bird!
It's a plane!
No, it's raining Monks (Slow Fall), Barbarians (Rage), Warlocks (Tomb of Levistus ).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
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
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
1. When a fall occurs I roll up the damage for the fall.
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.
2. A new rule from Tasha's changes who might take this falling damage, the falling creature might take it all or split it evenly with a 2nd 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.
3. The monk or barbarian or warlock or whatever reduces/resists/negates/lessens the falling damage is some way. In this case it's the monk.
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.
Also remember that the drop bear attack is real and happening as anyone can dive off something and pancake someone for half damage now. If you don't have a feat or ability that allows you to stand up for 5 feet of movement then use half your movement. You still have the rest of your movement, your action, your bonus action, your reaction, and your free action to unleash fury on a Prone target.
What I hope people take away from this is that the drop bear attack is fun, wacky, and off-beat. And that the monk, barbarian, and warlock can escape some of the falling damage they take.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
The deadly drop bear attack works.
Look!
Up in the sky, it's a bird!
It's a plane!
No, it's raining Monks (Slow Fall), Barbarians (Rage), Warlocks (Tomb of Levistus ).
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]
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.
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.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Each DM will run games how they see fit.
1. When a fall occurs I roll up the damage for the fall.
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.
2. A new rule from Tasha's changes who might take this falling damage, the falling creature might take it all or split it evenly with a 2nd 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.
3. The monk or barbarian or warlock or whatever reduces/resists/negates/lessens the falling damage is some way. In this case it's the monk.
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.
Also remember that the drop bear attack is real and happening as anyone can dive off something and pancake someone for half damage now. If you don't have a feat or ability that allows you to stand up for 5 feet of movement then use half your movement. You still have the rest of your movement, your action, your bonus action, your reaction, and your free action to unleash fury on a Prone target.
What I hope people take away from this is that the drop bear attack is fun, wacky, and off-beat. And that the monk, barbarian, and warlock can escape some of the falling damage they take.
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.