Hi all,

While falling is an uncommon occurrence in-game, the mechanics come into question quite a bit. I figure having a single thread discussing your House Rules on this would be nice.

RAW. 1d6 Hit Points of damage per 10 feet fallen to a maximum of 20d6. You also land prone unless you somehow avoid taking damage from the fall.

Addendum (via Xanathar's). You fall 500 feet per round.

My Ideology Concerning House Rules.

1. A good House Rule should not increase complexity by more than a single die roll/computation. 
2. A good House Rule should not reduce reality and, in contrast, should strive to increase reality.
3. A good House Rule should be fun. That is, it should not be instituted to punish players.

My Complaints About the Current Falling Mechanics and Why I Started This Thread. Since the inception of D&D, the designers have continuously and emphatically stated that Hit Points are an abstraction and the loss of Hit Points during combat should not always represent actual wounds. That is, you strike an opponent who has 100 Hit Points and you do 12 points of damage. Most DMs would give some narrative of stabbing, slicing, bludgeoning, etc., but the reality intended by the designers is that the "damage" done is more about exhausting your opponent's resources. Perhaps a better narrative by the DM would be, "Your blade nearly takes off his ear, but the creature manages awkwardly duck out of the way. He grunts in pain." 

Anyhow, the issue is that the RAW for Hit Point damage from a fall stands in stark contrast to the designers' abstraction of what Hit Points represent. My buddy has been fighting "sword and board" for two decades - I would consider him well-above 5th level in terms of D&D fighters, yet if he and I both jumped off a twenty-foot rooftop, we would both have the same chance of survival. It's not about fighter prowess or how much training I have had in a university - falling is a great equalizer.

The Design of My House Rule. There are two aspects to my House Rule for falling and it can be used with one or both aspects if you like. The first is determining how much of the fall can be absorbed by using a character's Dexterity (Acrobatics) skill. The second is determining what happens with the remainder of the fall.

Absorbing the Fall. I think many of us who use House Rules and who have thought about falling damage have incorporated a character's Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to one degree or another in an effort to offset a certain amount of falling damage or allow for landing without being prone or both. Let's focus on not landing prone.

If 20 commoners (me and you, as long as you have not had any gymnastics or acrobatics training) jump off a 10-foot roof, I think it's fairly safe to say that the vast majority of them would land prone; however, you might have one or two who end up rolling with it. Being kind, we could say a DC 15 is required to "stick the landing." This is being very nice. Now, bump up the height of that roof to 20 feet and we have got a problem, right? Again, being generous, I would say that is DC 20.

Using this framework, I think it has some semblance of reality (still on the nice side of fantasy) to say that a player who makes a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check can write off 10' of falling if their check is 15 or above plus an additional 10' for every 5 that their check is above 15. That is, a final check from 15 to 19 writes off 10', 20 to 24 writes off 20', 25 to 29 writes off 30', and so on. This could be summarized easily as, "When computing the damage from a fall, reduce the number of feet fallen (for damage purposes) by 10' for every 5 points your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check exceeds 10. Thus, a check of 16 exceeds 10 by at least one set of 5 points (but not two), and so you can reduce the number of feet fallen by 10' (for damage purposes). If this reduction is at or greater than the true height of the fall, you land without becoming prone."

I could be wrong, but this should "play well" with other features of the game (e.g., monk's slow fall).

The Remaining Distance. If there is distance to the fall remaining that they can't write off, then the character will land prone, at the least; however, what do we do with that remaining distance? Apply damage? Use core rules? Create something new? You can do any of those, but I dislike the RAW when it comes to falling damage, so I will mention my idea here.

If I am not going to directly "steal away" Hit Points (what I, as well as the designers, consider to be a measure of endurance for extended strenuous activities and combat) for a fall, then is there a mechanic in place that I can use instead? Yes! How about levels of exhaustion? Each level of exhaustion has a great narrative for the result of a fall! Okay... I like it... so, how do we determine the level of exhaustion applied for various fall heights?

Here's where a little reality comes in. The LD50 for mortality from falls occurs at 48 feet. Let's round this up to 50 feet. Therefore, whatever mechanic I choose, I want to make sure that it is 50% lethal at 50 feet.

How about 1d6 levels of exhaustion plus 1 extra level per 20' fallen? This is still kinder than reality because it takes a 60-foot fall for the range of possible exhaustion levels to go from 4 to 7 (yes, I understand there is no 7th level of exhaustion... we will discuss that in a moment). That's a 50% chance of instant death via exhaustion. Any result greater than or equal to 6 is just 6 levels of exhaustion.

Not only does this mechanic allow for realistic variability for short falls (<= 10') with 4 possible levels of exhaustion, but it presents the same mechanic whether you are 1st level or 20th. Also, it mimics the survivability for low levels pretty nicely (especially if you consider some of my suggestions below).

I can already hear it from the fantasy-lovers who want to imagine that falling 300' is totally doable by their 10th-level uber fighter and, by the RAW, on average your 10th-level fighter can survive (without even reaching 0 Hit Points) a fall from any height. If that's the game you like, then play that... it's just not for me.

The coolness of this mechanic (which I have admittedly not tried) is that you can adjust it in many ways to suit your style. For example, you could judge that the 6th level of exhaustion here is only instant death at a specific fall height. Otherwise, it is instant coma/unconsciousness. As another example, you could tell your player, "Let's see, your character is falling from 100', roll d6 and add (100/20) 5 to the result. This is the number of levels of exhaustion you take, but you may subtract your Constitution modifier [or your proficiency bonus]."

My House Rule Summary. Falling no longer does Hit Point damage. Instead, it has the potential of causing levels of Exhaustion.

First, make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. For every 5 points that this check exceeds 5, reduce the potential fall height by 10 feet for damage purposes. If this reduction is at or greater than the true height of the fall, you land without becoming prone.

Example. Thus, if the total check was 10 - 14, negate 10' from the fall. If the total check was 15 - 19, negate 20'. If the total check was 20 - 24, negate 30'. And so on.

If you still have distance that was not reduced by your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, roll 1d6 and add 1 for each 20' segment of fall remaining. You may subtract from this your proficiency bonus. You suffer this many levels of exhaustion (with a minimum of one level of exhaustion).

Example. If there is still 30' of falling unaccounted for and if your proficiency bonus is +4, then roll 1d6, add 1, and subtract 4. Hence, if you roll 5, you would suffer 5 + 1 - 4 = 2 levels of exhaustion.

 Edited the Acrobatics check.

This isn't bad at all. Has the benefits of more realistic chances for death from actually lethal heights.

My only complaint is just that exhaustion doesn't get used a lot IME. But maybe it does for other groups. And maybe it would if it was the way we handled falling damage :)

HP aren't a measure of bodily meat, but they aren't just a measure of combat exhaustion either, are they? Traps do HP damage, right? A trap that dropped a log on your head would do HP damage, not exhaustion. If that log knocked down HP, why not a fall? HP is a measure of a combination of energy/tiredness and meat/blood. I suppose you could handle all out-of-combat 'damage' with exhaustion, but the log hitting you isn't actually very different then when the dwarf's hammer actually does hit you, and that is HP :)

None of that is to say your method won't work at all--it's a ton better than the current falling damage. I have been using the d6/10' cumulative method for so long that I'm pretty happy with it. But the exhaustion method has legs. Do you have some data--what happens to various people who fall various distances using exhaustion? 

I will look into the data today (I already have a spreadsheet for a previous version of this).

As far as traps, I could easily see the issue, and I don't think "growing" this to work with all out-of-combat damage would be wise (too many mechanics would get affected). But... as I was typing this, I realized the following.

In essence, a log hitting you, the ground hitting you, you running into a tree, and a dwarf smashing your face with a hammer all sound like the same damage and the physical effects are the same, but are these Hit Point losses in the sense of D&D? One thing is certain, each of these, if they are Hit Point losses, do not have equivalent effects on characters of different levels. That is, a 1st level character facing each of these is likely in dire straits, but a 10th level character can shrug most of them off.

Moreover, if you are lying unconscious at 20th level and a log hits you, someone drops you off a cliff from 10', a tree falls on you, or a dwarf smashes you in the face, the effects are the same; however, they do not do Hit Point damage by the RAW. Instead, they force a death saving throw failure, or two, or instant death. The difference between this set of situations and the previous is that the playing field is level here. It doesn't matter your level, you suffer the same risk to life (with the exception of the instant death, which is based on your maximum Hit Points).

Damage at 0 Hit Points. If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer two failures instead. If the damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum, you suffer instant death.

Finally, if you are in combat, there is a strong difference between being steamrolled by a log, falling, and running into a tree versus facing the dwarf's hammer. Everything except for the dwarf's hammer are not lengthy processes of cuts, jabs, bobs, and weaves. They are just quick, one-shot circumstances that occur and you do not spend your entire round interacting or trying to avoid these things (yes, you could make an argument that you might prepare to leap over the rolling log, but that is literally a single move to complete). Whereas, the dwarf's hammer is swinging wildly at you over the course of the round and you are parrying, dodging, feinting, taking minor (narrative) shots, and then one final smash to the face.

In that sequence of combat actions is where I see the depletion of Hit Points. The dwarf's hammer definitely hurt (it did 12 out of your 100 Hit Points of damage), but the narrative need not actually be a smash to the face. Instead, it could be a twisted ankle dodging an otherwise deadly smash to the face or a strained back as you duck under a particularly vicious swing that would have taken off your head (or imploded it).

My point is, the out-of-combat "damage" is likely better handled by exhaustion because it truly is not the same beast to which Hit Points were intended; however, I am not brave enough (foolish enough?) to try anything more than applying it to falling damage for the moment.

I'll get that data up asap.

Okay, data done and here is the spreadsheet (you can edit the proficiency bonus and the acrobatics bonus). 

EDIT: I didn't like the probabilities with the d4 rule, so I changed it to a d6. The table below reflects this.

As a quick synopsis:

Keep in mind that the true ramification of falling with this mechanic are the lasting effects. You cannot just quaff a potion or take a breather after a 100-foot fall and continue on without a scratch. 

I agree that a balance must be found between the realities of the physics of falling and the fun of keeping a narrative scene flowing smoothly.

So here's my two cents, for what it's worth:

A character takes 1d6 damage per 10 feet fallen, but may make an acrobatics check, DC 15, to either reduce the damage by 1d6 OR take full damage but land standing. If the character beats the DC by 5 or more they may reduce the damage by an additional 1d6. BUT... this roll may only be attempted if the player is not wearing heavy armor, and must have at least one hand free. 

But that's it. 

And now that I think about it, I think this would be a great opportunity to devise a new homebrew feat that might allow a player to specialize in jumping/falling/etc. 

Quote from TaynOfDarkwood >>

I agree that a balance must be found between the realities of the physics of falling and the fun of keeping a narrative scene flowing smoothly.

So here's my two cents, for what it's worth:

A character takes 1d6 damage per 10 feet fallen, but may make an acrobatics check, DC 15, to either reduce the damage by 1d6 OR take full damage but land standing. If the character beats the DC by 5 or more they may reduce the damage by an additional 1d6. BUT... this roll may only be attempted if the player is not wearing heavy armor, and must have at least one hand free. 

But that's it. 

And now that I think about it, I think this would be a great opportunity to devise a new homebrew feat that might allow a player to specialize in jumping/falling/etc. 

A falling specific skill might be cool. Wrapped up with tumbling or something.

Just to be clear--and play it however you want, of course--but reducing damage from the RAW falling rules is going even further away from the realities of the physics of falling. And ruling that you could land standing would be even further away. Falling 100 feet, taking 40 damage, and landing on your feet? Personally, I'd take the RAW over that. But ymmv :)

Is there a minimum height once you start instituting damage? I understand it's one d6 per 10 feet...but is that even if your PC is falling from 10 feet? Or 20? Taking damage from the former seems very unlikely, especially for an experienced adventurer. Seems like damage should start once the PC is falling from 20+ or 30+ feet. Just my 2c.

Quote from Billtacular >>

Is there a minimum height once you start instituting damage? I understand it's one d6 per 10 feet...but is that even if your PC is falling from 10 feet? Or 20? Taking damage from the former seems very unlikely, especially for an experienced adventurer. Seems like damage should start once the PC is falling from 20+ or 30+ feet. Just my 2c.

Honestly, for as much as I pump up falling damage, I'm also apt to give them a 10 foot fall for free :) It depends on the situation, of course. If you are surprised by a 10' fall into a pit trap, I'll give you some damage. But if you purposefully jump off a 10' ledge, not a big deal. Unless it's uneven/treacherous ground, covered in marbles, etc.

But keep in mind that 40 hit points is nothing to sneeze at. It's enough to kill an average human being six times over. 

And I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that two people could each fall 30 feet with the untrained clod taking massively more damage than a trained and experienced acrobat.

Perhaps the DC for the acrobatics check could be tied to the distance fallen. 

"I'm also apt to give them a 10 foot fall for free" - that's exactly what I suggested. Only I added a requirement of passing an acrobatics check before being given that free 10 feet. 

Quote from TaynOfDarkwood >>

But keep in mind that 40 hit points is nothing to sneeze at. It's enough to kill an average human being six times over. 

And I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that two people could each fall 30 feet with the untrained clod taking massively more damage than a trained and experienced acrobat.

Perhaps the DC for the acrobatics check could be tied to the distance fallen. 

"I'm also apt to give them a 10 foot fall for free" - that's exactly what I suggested. Only I added a requirement of passing an acrobatics check before being given that free 10 feet. 

This thread came from a larger thread, and in there I made the point that no one realistically should be able to fall from 100 feet and walk away. I don't care how good you are at tumbling, if you fall from a 10 story building, you're going to die. Saying someone could fall 10 feet without harm is a far cry from the unrealistic and simplistic scaling of the RAW falling damage--that's the point of this thread.  

Again, use whatever rules you want :) But a linear 1d6/10 is already very unrealistic. If you add the ability to mitigate that damage, you're getting farther from reality. That was my only point in responding to you. 

Some people want more cinematic sort of rules, and that's fine. It's not realistic, but the average old school kung fu movie wasn't realistic either, and those are fun :)

According to my original statement, a 10' fall would require a DC 15 Acrobatics check to "stick the landing." So, I level 1 character with no bonus to Acrobatics (basically, a commoner from an Acrobatics perspective) still has a 30% of "sticking the landing." If you want to further adjust this by saying, "missing by up to 5 means that you are prone, but no damage," then that could work. It just means that more than half of society can jump off a 1-story building and not hurt themselves.

But keep in mind that 40 hit points is nothing to sneeze at. It's enough to kill an average human being six times over. 

And I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that two people could each fall 30 feet with the untrained clod taking massively more damage than a trained and experienced acrobat.

True, but it's all about perspective, which is what I am trying to somewhat remove with this house rule. 40 points of damage (the average damage from a roughly 110' fall according to RAW) is going to kill most people no matter how awesome you are; however, by RAW all PCs survive this fall (they just will have 0 HP) and the average 5th-level fighter with +2 Con bonus will still be awake. I just don't like that mechanic.

The initial Acrobatics check, which is only slightly level-dependent, might erase 20' of that fall, but then roll the d6, add 4 (4 sets of 20' falling remaining) and subtract 3 (proficiency bonus) and you have a real threat... 1d6+1 levels of exhaustion. Even if you say the 6th level is just unconscious in falling cases, it is much more realistic than the RAW. 

It was entertaining during our last session when the polearm master shoved a goblin off a 20' cliff to hear him scream in agony... I rolled poorly and the little guy immediately suffered 5 levels of exhaustion. Rather than immediately dying, he "twisted his ankles" and "wrenched his back" (move was 0). 

Using the exhaustion graph is a great idea to supplement the falling damage. It makes the players consider risk as more than just a single number on a page. It makes risk-taking a multi-dimensional consideration. 

I think that the table simply needs to be renamed, to avoid confusion. Perhaps D&D should call it the "Strain" table or the "Trauma" table. 

"Exhaustion" makes it sound like a very narrow effect - physical exertion.

But "strain" or "trauma" could be caused by extensive physical exertion, periodic denial of food/water/air, falling damage, prolonged exposure to the elements, lack of sleep.... even mental or emotional factors can manifest themselves as physical strain. 

So I think maybe it's a semantic thing. 

Quote from TaynOfDarkwood >>

Using the exhaustion graph is a great idea to supplement the falling damage. It makes the players consider risk as more than just a single number on a page. It makes risk-taking a multi-dimensional consideration. 

I think that the table simply needs to be renamed, to avoid confusion. Perhaps D&D should call it the "Strain" table or the "Trauma" table. 

"Exhaustion" makes it sound like a very narrow effect - physical exertion.

But "strain" or "trauma" could be caused by extensive physical exertion, periodic denial of food/water/air, falling damage, prolonged exposure to the elements, lack of sleep.... even mental or emotional factors can manifest themselves as physical strain. 

So I think maybe it's a semantic thing. 

Trauma Table for a name is a good idea. I think you're right, the idea of falling off of a building and then saying "Man, I'm exhausted!" does sound strange :)

Quote from Brotherbock >>

Quote from TaynOfDarkwood >>

Using the exhaustion graph is a great idea to supplement the falling damage. It makes the players consider risk as more than just a single number on a page. It makes risk-taking a multi-dimensional consideration. 

I think that the table simply needs to be renamed, to avoid confusion. Perhaps D&D should call it the "Strain" table or the "Trauma" table. 

"Exhaustion" makes it sound like a very narrow effect - physical exertion.

But "strain" or "trauma" could be caused by extensive physical exertion, periodic denial of food/water/air, falling damage, prolonged exposure to the elements, lack of sleep.... even mental or emotional factors can manifest themselves as physical strain. 

So I think maybe it's a semantic thing. 

 

Trauma Table for a name is a good idea. I think you're right, the idea of falling off of a building and then saying "Man, I'm exhausted!" does sound strange :)

Yeah, as a player and DM of all previous editions, it has taken about a year for me to realize that condition names are just placeholders for... well, sets of common conditions. For example, I might apply the Frightened condition to a player who is facing a creature exuding a sickening stench. Are they frightened? No, but the list of conditions fits the situation: the stench is so bad that they have disadvantage on Ability Checks and Attack rolls while the source of [the stench] is within [a specific distance] and the creature can’t willingly move closer to the source of [the stench].

Quote from TheDungeonMathster >>

Hi all,

 

While falling is an uncommon occurrence in-game, the mechanics come into question quite a bit. I figure having a single thread discussing your House Rules on this would be nice.

 

RAW. 1d6 Hit Points of damage per 10 feet fallen to a maximum of 20d6. You also land prone unless you somehow avoid taking damage from the fall.

Addendum (via Xanathar's). You fall 500 feet per round.

 

My Ideology Concerning House Rules.

1. A good House Rule should not increase complexity by more than a single die roll/computation. 
2. A good House Rule should not reduce reality and, in contrast, should strive to increase reality.
3. A good House Rule should be fun. That is, it should not be instituted to punish players.

 

My Complaints About the Current Falling Mechanics and Why I Started This Thread. Since the inception of D&D, the designers have continuously and emphatically stated that Hit Points are an abstraction and the loss of Hit Points during combat should not always represent actual wounds. That is, you strike an opponent who has 100 Hit Points and you do 12 points of damage. Most DMs would give some narrative of stabbing, slicing, bludgeoning, etc., but the reality intended by the designers is that the "damage" done is more about exhausting your opponent's resources. Perhaps a better narrative by the DM would be, "Your blade nearly takes off his ear, but the creature manages awkwardly duck out of the way. He grunts in pain." 

Anyhow, the issue is that the RAW for Hit Point damage from a fall stands in stark contrast to the designers' abstraction of what Hit Points represent. My buddy has been fighting "sword and board" for two decades - I would consider him well-above 5th level in terms of D&D fighters, yet if he and I both jumped off a twenty-foot rooftop, we would both have the same chance of survival. It's not about fighter prowess or how much training I have had in a university - falling is a great equalizer.

 

The Design of My House Rule. There are two aspects to my House Rule for falling and it can be used with one or both aspects if you like. The first is determining how much of the fall can be absorbed by using a character's Dexterity (Acrobatics) skill. The second is determining what happens with the remainder of the fall.

Absorbing the Fall. I think many of us who use House Rules and who have thought about falling damage have incorporated a character's Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to one degree or another in an effort to offset a certain amount of falling damage or allow for landing without being prone or both. Let's focus on not landing prone.

If 20 commoners (me and you, as long as you have not had any gymnastics or acrobatics training) jump off a 10-foot roof, I think it's fairly safe to say that the vast majority of them would land prone; however, you might have one or two who end up rolling with it. Being kind, we could say a DC 15 is required to "stick the landing." This is being very nice. Now, bump up the height of that roof to 20 feet and we have got a problem, right? Again, being generous, I would say that is DC 20.

Using this framework, I think it has some semblance of reality (still on the nice side of fantasy) to say that a player who makes a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check can write off 10' of falling if their check is 15 or above plus an additional 10' for every 5 that their check is above 15. That is, a final check from 15 to 19 writes off 10', 20 to 24 writes off 20', 25 to 29 writes off 30', and so on. This could be summarized easily as, "When computing the damage from a fall, reduce the number of feet fallen (for damage purposes) by 10' for every 5 points your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check exceeds 10. Thus, a check of 16 exceeds 10 by at least one set of 5 points (but not two), and so you can reduce the number of feet fallen by 10' (for damage purposes). If this reduction is at or greater than the true height of the fall, you land without becoming prone."

I could be wrong, but this should "play well" with other features of the game (e.g., monk's slow fall).

The Remaining Distance. If there is distance to the fall remaining that they can't write off, then the character will land prone, at the least; however, what do we do with that remaining distance? Apply damage? Use core rules? Create something new? You can do any of those, but I dislike the RAW when it comes to falling damage, so I will mention my idea here.

If I am not going to directly "steal away" Hit Points (what I, as well as the designers, consider to be a measure of endurance for extended strenuous activities and combat) for a fall, then is there a mechanic in place that I can use instead? Yes! How about levels of exhaustion? Each level of exhaustion has a great narrative for the result of a fall! Okay... I like it... so, how do we determine the level of exhaustion applied for various fall heights?

Here's where a little reality comes in. The LD50 for mortality from falls occurs at 48 feet. Let's round this up to 50 feet. Therefore, whatever mechanic I choose, I want to make sure that it is 50% lethal at 50 feet.

How about 1d6 levels of exhaustion plus 1 extra level per 20' fallen? This is still kinder than reality because it takes a 60-foot fall for the range of possible exhaustion levels to go from 4 to 7 (yes, I understand there is no 7th level of exhaustion... we will discuss that in a moment). That's a 50% chance of instant death via exhaustion. Any result greater than or equal to 6 is just 6 levels of exhaustion.

Not only does this mechanic allow for realistic variability for short falls (<= 10') with 4 possible levels of exhaustion, but it presents the same mechanic whether you are 1st level or 20th. Also, it mimics the survivability for low levels pretty nicely (especially if you consider some of my suggestions below).

I can already hear it from the fantasy-lovers who want to imagine that falling 300' is totally doable by their 10th-level uber fighter and, by the RAW, on average your 10th-level fighter can survive (without even reaching 0 Hit Points) a fall from any height. If that's the game you like, then play that... it's just not for me.

The coolness of this mechanic (which I have admittedly not tried) is that you can adjust it in many ways to suit your style. For example, you could judge that the 6th level of exhaustion here is only instant death at a specific fall height. Otherwise, it is instant coma/unconsciousness. As another example, you could tell your player, "Let's see, your character is falling from 100', roll d6 and add (100/20) 5 to the result. This is the number of levels of exhaustion you take, but you may subtract your Constitution modifier [or your proficiency bonus]."

 

My House Rule Summary. Falling no longer does Hit Point damage. Instead, it has the potential of causing levels of Exhaustion.

First, make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. For every 5 points that this check exceeds 5, reduce the potential fall height by 10 feet for damage purposes. If this reduction is at or greater than the true height of the fall, you land without becoming prone.

Example. Thus, if the total check was 10 - 14, negate 10' from the fall. If the total check was 15 - 19, negate 20'. If the total check was 20 - 24, negate 30'. And so on.

If you still have distance that was not reduced by your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, roll 1d6 and add 1 for each 20' segment of fall remaining. You may subtract from this your proficiency bonus. You suffer this many levels of exhaustion (with a minimum of one level of exhaustion).

Example. If there is still 30' of falling unaccounted for and if your proficiency bonus is +4, then roll 1d6, add 1, and subtract 4. Hence, if you roll 5, you would suffer 5 + 1 - 4 = 2 levels of exhaustion.

 

 Edited the Acrobatics check.

 I made this: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/ukbnx0/heros_epic_fall_damage/

It has many or all of the elements you all have been suggesting.

I let players roll an acrobatics check, the DC is half the amount fallen.  If they succeed they take half damage.  Characters that have expertise in acrobatics take no damage on a success. An example would be if the character falls 40 feet, they need to make a DC 20 acrobatics check to only take half damage on the fall if they make the check, if they have expertise in acrobatics, they would take no damage.  This seems to cap out at about 60-70 feet for the person with expertise since the DC on a 70-foot fall would be 35. 

I have found that this lets the characters be a bit more heroic in their falls, jumps, and leaps since even if they fail, there is a chance they won't injure themselves too badly, dice permitting.

Your system is interesting and I can see how it would work, however, I have so much stuff going on, any homebrew rules I add I need to keep as simple as possible.

OK. I guarantee you it is not complex. It is designed for exactly what you are doing. it is just complete.

(Edit: updated in the original post)

On average weight at 40 feet, the DC is about what you are using now, being less for higher falls.

As they are already doing, roll a save using DEX and subtract the result from the DC. Roll the d6 die however many times remains. They can also use STR save but only as a save, not as a check.

On average, the damage will be less than using your system, but a 40 foot fall could potentially be 12 times more damage, with the worst possible rolls, terrain, and no DEX modifier. So there is a risk of taking massive damage.

Of course, you can lower that risk by giving them soft terrain. Like a forest or some bogs.

That is the entire system. You only add more to it, if you want. Slopes and all that jazz.

If you want to ignore weight and terrain, as you are doing now, then I recommend rolling a d20 for every 100 feet past 200, up to a maximum of 13 d20.

If you do want players to feel safe jumping that is one thing.

The philosophy of Hero's Fall Damage is to use the same formula for all heights and weights and make water safe for diving, make it a risk for high level and beefy characters without making it kill everything that falls.

To get all that balanced I had to go with realistic fall damage; there is no "safe" fall height without some kind of magic involved.