So lets make this short and easy, sorcerer on top of 300 foot cliff with 5 hit points left from battle jumps off of cliff after Cleric at bottom uses sending to tell him he can use spare the dying to save him and then heal. I try to be nice, roll 2 d6 and pick the lower one (2) and use the fall damage (1d6 for every 10 feet). Grand total 60 points of damage, Cleric tries to spare the dying I say "Nope" The way I see it 55 over is insta death. The Cleric and Mage argue that he is at 0 hit points, I explain that 55 is WAY over. I even explain that any damage over your con total is insta death. Meaning he would have had to have only taken 14 over to have survived. Basically after 3 minutes I finally call DM final and we need to move on.
That being said this is me asking the GMs of the forums did I make the right call or did I make a mistake based on the rules.
Sounds reasonable that they would die, although you have the RAW instant death rule wrong (unless you’re using home brew).
“Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.”
So if their maximum is less than 55 they would have died.
I would have rolled the dice and applied the damage and if it came up overkill, then dead. If by some chance the damage wasn't enough, it wasn't enough. They got lucky, there was a tree in the way, they broke some of the fall on the side of the cliff, or some such.
You could consider a sustained injury - broken XX that requires extra time to heal even at full hp.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Yes, the character should be dead (time to go find someone with raise dead or ressurection!)
after Cleric at bottom uses sending to tell him he can use spare the dying to save him and then heal
The players may have been upset because their expectation of the rules was different from yours. If you heard the above as the DM, did you take a moment to say something like, "That's a good idea, but remember that massive damage can still lead to death." From a player's perspective, they had a creative idea and a plan and probably felt penalized instead of rewarded because they thought the risk level was different than it was.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
The answer depends on how many hit points the sorcerer has at maximum.
Massive damage can cause instant death if the total damage taken exceeds the negative value of the characters normal total hit points.
For example, if a character has 20 max hit points normally then any damage that would take them to -20 damage would kill them instantly.
Jumping off a 300' cliff with no way to mitigate the fall damage will normally do 20d6 of damage. You calculated this as 60 hit points of falling damage. The sorcerer has 5 hit points remaining. The 60 damage would bring them to -55 hit points. If -55 is greater than the negative value of their normal hit point maximum (i.e. the character's normal hit point maximum is 55 hit points or less) then they will be killed instantly by the falling damage. Otherwise they will just be at zero hit points.
If the falling damage doesn't kill them instantly then spare the dying will stabilize them.
I can see how logically that fall would insta-kill someone, so as a DM judgement call I'd say it makes sense. If you're looking for a RAW answer though, it would really depend on the sorcerer's hit point max. RAW insta-death is negative HP max.
Too late to help you with this occasion, but I think it's the perfect time for the indirect DM reminder like: "Remember, spare the dying stops you from dying if you have zero hitpoints. If you're chopped to pieces, burned to a crisp, or disintegrated, it doesn't bring you back from something like that." They can then do the math and realize that a 300ft fall doesn't leave you with a broken leg, it pulps you.
I agree with the people who have said the DM should remind players of things like how massive damage works, in case they don't know. I don't like seeing players hit by rules they didn't know or understand, especially if it leads to character death.
Now, that said, in this specific case I would take a very dim view of this entire thing, because it sounds like the players are "gaming the system," as it were, just to avoid the need to RP something inconvenient like having to climb slowly down the cliff-face. I would be sorely tempted in this case to just shut up and let the Sorcerer kill himself because of how metagamey they're being -- though I probably would still warn. But a part of me would feel, deep down, like the player deserves it for trying to exploit the rules.
And no, it is not "in character." No one would ever encourage a friend, in character, to take a 300 foot drop to inevitable death on the hopes that a spell would "spare" them. IC, this would not happen. It is a 100% OOC call.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree with the people who have said the DM should remind players of things like how massive damage works, in case they don't know. I don't like seeing players hit by rules they didn't know or understand, especially if it leads to character death.
Now, that said, in this specific case I would take a very dim view of this entire thing, because it sounds like the players are "gaming the system," as it were, just to avoid the need to RP something inconvenient like having to climb slowly down the cliff-face. I would be sorely tempted in this case to just shut up and let the Sorcerer kill himself because of how metagamey they're being -- though I probably would still warn. But a part of me would feel, deep down, like the player deserves it for trying to exploit the rules.
And no, it is not "in character." No one would ever encourage a friend, in character, to take a 300 foot drop to inevitable death on the hopes that a spell would "spare" them. IC, this would not happen. It is a 100% OOC call.
However, in D&D, a 300' fall is not instant death for a higher level character.
Example: I have a 17th level character with 18 con and 157 hit points. RAW, it is impossible to kill them with a 300' fall since it can't possibly do 157 hit points of damage so even if the character started at zero hit points and was thrown off a cliff, the worst that happens is a failed death save.
Let's take a d8 class with 16 con taking average hit points. They have 8 + (L-1) * 5 + L * 3 hit points ... average damage from 20d6 is 70. A 10th level character with 83 hit points can never be killed outright by falling 300' and if they start at full hit points, most of them will be walking away after they hit the ground. In fact, most 10th level characters even with 5 hit points will survive the 300' fall though they will be unconscious.
Finally, lets look at the sorcerer in this case. Assuming 16 con and average hit points a (non-dragon) sorcerer is 6 + (L-1)*4 + L*3 ... when is this greater than 55? 8th level is 58 hit points. So an 8th level sorcerer with 5 hit points diving off a 300' cliff in the current example in which 60 damage is taken would not be killed by the fall. If they were a dragon sorcerer .. which gets a bonus +1 hit point/level .. they would only need to be level 7.
Falling can do a lot of damage but there is no guarantee that it would be sufficient to kill a somewhat higher level character.
However, in the current situation, I am guessing that the players may newer with lower level characters and did not understand the role of spare the dying. The problem here is that the DM should have paused the action for a moment and ensured that the players understood the rules (by explaining them) since the characters themselves would certainly know the capability of the magic they are using. The players should have also understood the dangers of a 300' fall since their characters would also likely know what happens if you fall 300'. Saying "Nope" after the fact isn't very useful especially with a character's life on the line.
On the other hand, the cleric cast a sending spell. This is third level meaning the character is at least 5th level. It also means that the cleric could have the revivfy spell at hand ... which would also have solved the problem (assuming the cleric has the required material component). "Dive off the cliff and I will bring you back after you go splat!" :). Also, depending on how many hit points the sorcerer had, the cleric might even be able to time upcasting of healing word as the sorcerer falls to restore sufficient hit points so the fall doesn't kill them. A life cleric might even be able to use a channel divinity to restore enough hit points on the sorcerer so that again the fall doesn't kill them. So there may have been several possibility or options available to the players that would have saved the falling sorcerer.
Yes, the character should be dead (time to go find someone with raise dead or ressurection!)
after Cleric at bottom uses sending to tell him he can use spare the dying to save him and then heal
The players may have been upset because their expectation of the rules was different from yours. If you heard the above as the DM, did you take a moment to say something like, "That's a good idea, but remember that massive damage can still lead to death." From a player's perspective, they had a creative idea and a plan and probably felt penalized instead of rewarded because they thought the risk level was different than it was.
The problem was it was more then half a second between him sending it and him jumping. I had less time to process what he said. Also, maybe I was being a little irritated with this cleric and the use of his spare the dying. Like there was a quest where they had to bring a witness in alive who got scared and ran, so they used lethal damage to stop her and then spared the dying. It wasn't creative and at this point I felt like they were meta gaming a situation no one would do
He should definitely be dead in this case. Personally, I discourage behaviour like this at my table because it doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone jump down a massive drop, breaking every bone in their body and sustaining immense pain just because the game mechanics allow their friend to "stablise" them at the bottom? This is just gaming the system because the player knows this is a game and it takes away from the immersion in my opinion.
He should definitely be dead in this case. Personally, I discourage behaviour like this at my table because it doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone jump down a massive drop, breaking every bone in their body and sustaining immense pain just because the game mechanics allow their friend to "stablise" them at the bottom? This is just gaming the system because the player knows this is a game and it takes away from the immersion in my opinion.
I've seen things like this happen in cases of certain death vs probable death. If staying at the top of the cliff means that they will die for sure. Trying to climb down means they will get caught and die for sure then why not jump? They might get lucky on the roll and the cleric might be able to spare the dying if they are below zero.
However, even without either of those, if the cleric below has either gentle repose or revivify prepared then although it will be a painful experience for the plummeting sorcerer, the cleric will be able to bring them back. Gentle repose cast on a character that has just died allows revivify to be used on them any time in the next 10 days ... and you can extend it further by casting gentle repose again. A fifth level cleric (needed to cast sending) can just prepare revivify the next day. I think the idea behind having gentle repose prepared is that in the case where anyone dies you will be able to bring them back the next day by preparing the appropriate spell.
@David, Agreed if it's for escaping a certain death scenario then that's different. OP didn't specify the reason for jumping so maybe I am being too harsh.
I agree with the people who have said the DM should remind players of things like how massive damage works, in case they don't know. I don't like seeing players hit by rules they didn't know or understand, especially if it leads to character death.
Now, that said, in this specific case I would take a very dim view of this entire thing, because it sounds like the players are "gaming the system," as it were, just to avoid the need to RP something inconvenient like having to climb slowly down the cliff-face. I would be sorely tempted in this case to just shut up and let the Sorcerer kill himself because of how metagamey they're being -- though I probably would still warn. But a part of me would feel, deep down, like the player deserves it for trying to exploit the rules.
And no, it is not "in character." No one would ever encourage a friend, in character, to take a 300 foot drop to inevitable death on the hopes that a spell would "spare" them. IC, this would not happen. It is a 100% OOC call.
However, in D&D, a 300' fall is not instant death for a higher level character.
Example: I have a 17th level character with 18 con and 157 hit points. RAW, it is impossible to kill them with a 300' fall since it can't possibly do 157 hit points of damage so even if the character started at zero hit points and was thrown off a cliff, the worst that happens is a failed death save
At my table, I say the max fall damage is capped at 20d6, because anything over 200ft is just death. My table is a little more old school though. What I see in the OP is just nonsense to me. But I grew up with a different type of player. To each their own though.
Yeah, it would be 20d6 fall damage, but 60 damage is less than average damage for that. RAW, you were right to say that he died, if and only if, the 55 extra damage was more than the character's hit point maximum.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The OP has clarified that (as it sounded from the original post), these are low level characters, and that the Sorcerer had 25 hp max (with 5 left after a battle). He took 60 damage, leaving him at -55, which is way below the -25 hp that would indicate insta-death.
But again, when this was suggested, as a DM, I would have paused the action and explained that on average rolls this is instant death, and if you do this, I *will* roll it, and I will roll it in front of you, and if you insta-die, I'm not going to overrule it. If the player still wants to do it, then OK... we start rolling 20 dice...
But as Morgoth said so eloquently, I would discourage this kind of play at the table. It's metagamey. It's having the characters act as if they know they are in a game with rules and boundary conditions. The players may know that, absent doubling their hit points, there are very few "instant death" scenarios in D&D. But the characters absolutely should not know or believe this. They should not, as characters, believe they are operating in a world with the upper and lower boundary conditions of a game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It is unreasonable to expect spare the dying to prevent death from ever being a risk. Whether you said something or not your players aught to have known a suicide fall was just that. Instead they tried to exploit a loophole in the rules, and if a player is meta gaming the rules... the onus is on the player to have actually read the rules.
you are right, the players did not roleplay honestly, but now they know.
So lets make this short and easy, sorcerer on top of 300 foot cliff with 5 hit points left from battle jumps off of cliff after Cleric at bottom uses sending to tell him he can use spare the dying to save him and then heal. I try to be nice, roll 2 d6 and pick the lower one (2) and use the fall damage (1d6 for every 10 feet). Grand total 60 points of damage, Cleric tries to spare the dying I say "Nope" The way I see it 55 over is insta death. The Cleric and Mage argue that he is at 0 hit points, I explain that 55 is WAY over. I even explain that any damage over your con total is insta death. Meaning he would have had to have only taken 14 over to have survived. Basically after 3 minutes I finally call DM final and we need to move on.
That being said this is me asking the GMs of the forums did I make the right call or did I make a mistake based on the rules.
Sounds reasonable that they would die, although you have the RAW instant death rule wrong (unless you’re using home brew).
“Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.”
So if their maximum is less than 55 they would have died.
I would have rolled the dice and applied the damage and if it came up overkill, then dead. If by some chance the damage wasn't enough, it wasn't enough. They got lucky, there was a tree in the way, they broke some of the fall on the side of the cliff, or some such.
You could consider a sustained injury - broken XX that requires extra time to heal even at full hp.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Yes, the Sorcerer is dead. That's why you keep Feather Fall handy.
Yes, the character should be dead (time to go find someone with raise dead or ressurection!)
The players may have been upset because their expectation of the rules was different from yours. If you heard the above as the DM, did you take a moment to say something like, "That's a good idea, but remember that massive damage can still lead to death." From a player's perspective, they had a creative idea and a plan and probably felt penalized instead of rewarded because they thought the risk level was different than it was.
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
The answer depends on how many hit points the sorcerer has at maximum.
Massive damage can cause instant death if the total damage taken exceeds the negative value of the characters normal total hit points.
For example, if a character has 20 max hit points normally then any damage that would take them to -20 damage would kill them instantly.
Jumping off a 300' cliff with no way to mitigate the fall damage will normally do 20d6 of damage. You calculated this as 60 hit points of falling damage. The sorcerer has 5 hit points remaining. The 60 damage would bring them to -55 hit points. If -55 is greater than the negative value of their normal hit point maximum (i.e. the character's normal hit point maximum is 55 hit points or less) then they will be killed instantly by the falling damage. Otherwise they will just be at zero hit points.
If the falling damage doesn't kill them instantly then spare the dying will stabilize them.
I can see how logically that fall would insta-kill someone, so as a DM judgement call I'd say it makes sense. If you're looking for a RAW answer though, it would really depend on the sorcerer's hit point max. RAW insta-death is negative HP max.
Too late to help you with this occasion, but I think it's the perfect time for the indirect DM reminder like: "Remember, spare the dying stops you from dying if you have zero hitpoints. If you're chopped to pieces, burned to a crisp, or disintegrated, it doesn't bring you back from something like that." They can then do the math and realize that a 300ft fall doesn't leave you with a broken leg, it pulps you.
I agree with the people who have said the DM should remind players of things like how massive damage works, in case they don't know. I don't like seeing players hit by rules they didn't know or understand, especially if it leads to character death.
Now, that said, in this specific case I would take a very dim view of this entire thing, because it sounds like the players are "gaming the system," as it were, just to avoid the need to RP something inconvenient like having to climb slowly down the cliff-face. I would be sorely tempted in this case to just shut up and let the Sorcerer kill himself because of how metagamey they're being -- though I probably would still warn. But a part of me would feel, deep down, like the player deserves it for trying to exploit the rules.
And no, it is not "in character." No one would ever encourage a friend, in character, to take a 300 foot drop to inevitable death on the hopes that a spell would "spare" them. IC, this would not happen. It is a 100% OOC call.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
However, in D&D, a 300' fall is not instant death for a higher level character.
Example: I have a 17th level character with 18 con and 157 hit points. RAW, it is impossible to kill them with a 300' fall since it can't possibly do 157 hit points of damage so even if the character started at zero hit points and was thrown off a cliff, the worst that happens is a failed death save.
Let's take a d8 class with 16 con taking average hit points. They have 8 + (L-1) * 5 + L * 3 hit points ... average damage from 20d6 is 70. A 10th level character with 83 hit points can never be killed outright by falling 300' and if they start at full hit points, most of them will be walking away after they hit the ground. In fact, most 10th level characters even with 5 hit points will survive the 300' fall though they will be unconscious.
Finally, lets look at the sorcerer in this case. Assuming 16 con and average hit points a (non-dragon) sorcerer is 6 + (L-1)*4 + L*3 ... when is this greater than 55? 8th level is 58 hit points. So an 8th level sorcerer with 5 hit points diving off a 300' cliff in the current example in which 60 damage is taken would not be killed by the fall. If they were a dragon sorcerer .. which gets a bonus +1 hit point/level .. they would only need to be level 7.
Falling can do a lot of damage but there is no guarantee that it would be sufficient to kill a somewhat higher level character.
However, in the current situation, I am guessing that the players may newer with lower level characters and did not understand the role of spare the dying. The problem here is that the DM should have paused the action for a moment and ensured that the players understood the rules (by explaining them) since the characters themselves would certainly know the capability of the magic they are using. The players should have also understood the dangers of a 300' fall since their characters would also likely know what happens if you fall 300'. Saying "Nope" after the fact isn't very useful especially with a character's life on the line.
On the other hand, the cleric cast a sending spell. This is third level meaning the character is at least 5th level. It also means that the cleric could have the revivfy spell at hand ... which would also have solved the problem (assuming the cleric has the required material component). "Dive off the cliff and I will bring you back after you go splat!" :). Also, depending on how many hit points the sorcerer had, the cleric might even be able to time upcasting of healing word as the sorcerer falls to restore sufficient hit points so the fall doesn't kill them. A life cleric might even be able to use a channel divinity to restore enough hit points on the sorcerer so that again the fall doesn't kill them. So there may have been several possibility or options available to the players that would have saved the falling sorcerer.
His max hit points were 25. He was level 4
The problem was it was more then half a second between him sending it and him jumping. I had less time to process what he said. Also, maybe I was being a little irritated with this cleric and the use of his spare the dying. Like there was a quest where they had to bring a witness in alive who got scared and ran, so they used lethal damage to stop her and then spared the dying. It wasn't creative and at this point I felt like they were meta gaming a situation no one would do
He should definitely be dead in this case. Personally, I discourage behaviour like this at my table because it doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone jump down a massive drop, breaking every bone in their body and sustaining immense pain just because the game mechanics allow their friend to "stablise" them at the bottom? This is just gaming the system because the player knows this is a game and it takes away from the immersion in my opinion.
I've seen things like this happen in cases of certain death vs probable death. If staying at the top of the cliff means that they will die for sure. Trying to climb down means they will get caught and die for sure then why not jump? They might get lucky on the roll and the cleric might be able to spare the dying if they are below zero.
However, even without either of those, if the cleric below has either gentle repose or revivify prepared then although it will be a painful experience for the plummeting sorcerer, the cleric will be able to bring them back. Gentle repose cast on a character that has just died allows revivify to be used on them any time in the next 10 days ... and you can extend it further by casting gentle repose again. A fifth level cleric (needed to cast sending) can just prepare revivify the next day. I think the idea behind having gentle repose prepared is that in the case where anyone dies you will be able to bring them back the next day by preparing the appropriate spell.
@David, Agreed if it's for escaping a certain death scenario then that's different. OP didn't specify the reason for jumping so maybe I am being too harsh.
At my table, I say the max fall damage is capped at 20d6, because anything over 200ft is just death.
My table is a little more old school though.
What I see in the OP is just nonsense to me. But I grew up with a different type of player.
To each their own though.
...cryptographic randomness!
Yeah, it would be 20d6 fall damage, but 60 damage is less than average damage for that. RAW, you were right to say that he died, if and only if, the 55 extra damage was more than the character's hit point maximum.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The OP has clarified that (as it sounded from the original post), these are low level characters, and that the Sorcerer had 25 hp max (with 5 left after a battle). He took 60 damage, leaving him at -55, which is way below the -25 hp that would indicate insta-death.
But again, when this was suggested, as a DM, I would have paused the action and explained that on average rolls this is instant death, and if you do this, I *will* roll it, and I will roll it in front of you, and if you insta-die, I'm not going to overrule it. If the player still wants to do it, then OK... we start rolling 20 dice...
But as Morgoth said so eloquently, I would discourage this kind of play at the table. It's metagamey. It's having the characters act as if they know they are in a game with rules and boundary conditions. The players may know that, absent doubling their hit points, there are very few "instant death" scenarios in D&D. But the characters absolutely should not know or believe this. They should not, as characters, believe they are operating in a world with the upper and lower boundary conditions of a game.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It is unreasonable to expect spare the dying to prevent death from ever being a risk. Whether you said something or not your players aught to have known a suicide fall was just that. Instead they tried to exploit a loophole in the rules, and if a player is meta gaming the rules... the onus is on the player to have actually read the rules.
you are right, the players did not roleplay honestly, but now they know.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
DEAD.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale