No. There is literally no difference. If so, please explain to me why someone who can jump 20 feet still takes damage from stepping of a 10 feet cliff. The rules doesn't say anything about "uncontrolled landing".
Nor do they say anything about "controlled descent", but you've tried to use that as a counterargument to examples that would count as falls following your chosen definition. Either control and context matter, or they don't.
That said, a character who can jump 20 feet doesn't necessarily take damage from "stepping off" a 10 foot cliff, because that isn't necessarily a fall (feel free to point to the rule that says otherwise); as we keep trying to get you to acknowledge there is a difference between falling from something and moving vertically downwards in a safe (or at least potentially safe) way.
If a character is choosing to jump down from something then it is unreasonable to simply declare that it is a fall as the rules don't tell you to, and it's not how a player would describe it in natural language, nor how most others would either, you would describe them as "jumping down" or choosing to "drop down" etc. Now whether that jump is safe, risky or always dangerous is another matter; again, this is precisely why we have skill checks. The Athletics skill even lists "acrobatic stunts" as an example. And this is a markedly different case to an actual fall such as being pushed off the cliff in which case you have little or no control over how you land, so any check to land safely (if one is even allowed) will be difficult. This is why we have difficulties in checks, and a DM to decide what those will be.
Again, this is supported by plenty of definitions of the word "fall" that are actually useful in practice, which effectively amount to "uncontrolled descent"; for example, the Cambridge English Dictionary defines "fall" as:
to suddenly go down onto the ground or towards the ground without intending to or by accident
Now clearly "intending to" has its limits, as "intending to" land safely when jumping from a 1,000 cliff, and actually succeeding is another another matter entirely; again, this is why we have a DM to decide whether this is definitely a fall, or if a check is warranted (probably not for a 1,000 feet, but there is a judgement to be made on height), whether that check can allow the damage to be mitigated and/or avoided entirely, etc. But this is the kind of definition that is actually useful to us in the game; the much more vague definitions like "to move from a higher to a lower level" are so vague that they can apply to situations that you'll find very few people describing as falling, as I have tried to illustrate several times already.
D&D is a DM led game and there are plenty of rules areas where the DM's judgement is required; given that neither the rules for jumping or falling provide any guidance or rules on when a jump becomes a fall (if at all), this is a very clear example of one such case, which should not be a controversial thing to point out. Sometimes the correct answer to a rules-as-written question is "ask your DM", because that's just the nature of the game.
There''s no difference between falling on your butt and landing on your feet? Really?
Nice strawman. But are you saying that every time you fall in D&D you automatically land on your butt? Citation, please.
As another user pleasantly pointed out, if you take damage from a fall, you land prone.
If so, please explain to me why someone who can jump 20 feet still takes damage from stepping of a 10 feet cliff.
Ah, that is the problem though, isn't it. This is your entire supposition, and you're just asserting it. No evidence, just statement.
No, it's a question. That no-one has been able to answer as of yet.
Because they jumped. There. It is 100% answered.
The rules doesn't say anything about "uncontrolled landing".
No, the rules talk about jumping and about falling... separately. And the rules say that when you do fall (and take damage), you land prone. Are you suggesting that every high jump of more than 10' ends in the jumper landing on their keister?
I don't, the rules does. Again, when you are jumping upwards and you stop moving upwards, what are you doing then? That's right, you are falling.
If you haven't landed, an average English speaker might say you're still jumping. If I started flying and didn't land yet, that same speaker might say I was still flying.
One would imagine that the jumping rules would tell you something that important.
I honestly don't think that the authors thought they would have to explain basic physics in a game.
Physics? We’re talking about game rules here, not physics.
You might simply consider that if a jump was the same as a fall, we'd not need separate rules for them, and if those rules were meant to interact, they would tell you about that.
And as for the laws of physics, again, there is a difference between a controlled/planned landing from a jump vs the the usually uncontrolled landing from a freefall.
No. There is literally no difference. If so, please explain to me why someone who can jump 20 feet still takes damage from stepping of a 10 feet cliff. The rules doesn't say anything about "uncontrolled landing".
Because the rules do not say that landing from a jump is falling. The rules do not define falling at all.
The rules doesn't define walking either. Does that mean that characters who put one foot in front of the other repeatedly isn't walking? Of course not.
So your argument is that we have to use definitions from outside the game for undefined terms? Yet you refuse to conceed that the definition of jumping is distinct from the definition of falling? If that is where we are, then your argument is so obviously flawed that there is no further need to continue engaging with it.
Is it possible for the OP to add a poll to this thread, or maybe we should post a separate one? Because it feels like lostwhilefishing is literally the only person on the entire forum who disagrees with the overwhelming consensus here, and I don't see how it's helpful to keep going in circles on this. As far as I can see there are basically two positions:
Jumping is always falling.
Jumping normally isn't falling.
I'm pretty sure the majority are backing number 2) here, i.e- that jumping within your normal jump range is fine, only jumps beyond that or in unusual circumstances will (or can) become a fall.
This is my position because Rules as Written the rules for jumping and falling are separate, there is no link between them except what a DM chooses to provide (this is why we have a DM). The rules on falling are literally only what to do once a fall has occurred, meaning the determination of when a fall occurs is entirely up to the DM. So RAW the answer appears to be "it's up to your DM".
Nor do they say anything about "controlled descent", but you've tried to use that as a counterargument to examples that would count as falls following your chosen definition. Either control and context matter, or they don't.
That said, a character who can jump 20 feet doesn't necessarily take damage from "stepping off" a 10 foot cliff, because that isn't necessarily a fall (feel free to point to the rule that says otherwise); as we keep trying to get you to acknowledge there is a difference between falling from something and moving vertically downwards in a safe (or at least potentially safe) way.
If a character is choosing to jump down from something then it is unreasonable to simply declare that it is a fall as the rules don't tell you to, and it's not how a player would describe it in natural language, nor how most others would either, you would describe them as "jumping down" or choosing to "drop down" etc. Now whether that jump is safe, risky or always dangerous is another matter; again, this is precisely why we have skill checks. The Athletics skill even lists "acrobatic stunts" as an example. And this is a markedly different case to an actual fall such as being pushed off the cliff in which case you have little or no control over how you land, so any check to land safely (if one is even allowed) will be difficult. This is why we have difficulties in checks, and a DM to decide what those will be.
Again, this is supported by plenty of definitions of the word "fall" that are actually useful in practice, which effectively amount to "uncontrolled descent"; for example, the Cambridge English Dictionary defines "fall" as:
Now clearly "intending to" has its limits, as "intending to" land safely when jumping from a 1,000 cliff, and actually succeeding is another another matter entirely; again, this is why we have a DM to decide whether this is definitely a fall, or if a check is warranted (probably not for a 1,000 feet, but there is a judgement to be made on height), whether that check can allow the damage to be mitigated and/or avoided entirely, etc. But this is the kind of definition that is actually useful to us in the game; the much more vague definitions like "to move from a higher to a lower level" are so vague that they can apply to situations that you'll find very few people describing as falling, as I have tried to illustrate several times already.
D&D is a DM led game and there are plenty of rules areas where the DM's judgement is required; given that neither the rules for jumping or falling provide any guidance or rules on when a jump becomes a fall (if at all), this is a very clear example of one such case, which should not be a controversial thing to point out. Sometimes the correct answer to a rules-as-written question is "ask your DM", because that's just the nature of the game.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
It's prone, which is not strictly on the butt, but pretty close. "The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall."
As another user pleasantly pointed out, if you take damage from a fall, you land prone.
Because they jumped. There. It is 100% answered.
If you haven't landed, an average English speaker might say you're still jumping. If I started flying and didn't land yet, that same speaker might say I was still flying.
Physics? We’re talking about game rules here, not physics.
You might simply consider that if a jump was the same as a fall, we'd not need separate rules for them, and if those rules were meant to interact, they would tell you about that.
So your argument is that we have to use definitions from outside the game for undefined terms? Yet you refuse to conceed that the definition of jumping is distinct from the definition of falling? If that is where we are, then your argument is so obviously flawed that there is no further need to continue engaging with it.
Is it possible for the OP to add a poll to this thread, or maybe we should post a separate one? Because it feels like lostwhilefishing is literally the only person on the entire forum who disagrees with the overwhelming consensus here, and I don't see how it's helpful to keep going in circles on this. As far as I can see there are basically two positions:
I'm pretty sure the majority are backing number 2) here, i.e- that jumping within your normal jump range is fine, only jumps beyond that or in unusual circumstances will (or can) become a fall.
This is my position because Rules as Written the rules for jumping and falling are separate, there is no link between them except what a DM chooses to provide (this is why we have a DM). The rules on falling are literally only what to do once a fall has occurred, meaning the determination of when a fall occurs is entirely up to the DM. So RAW the answer appears to be "it's up to your DM".
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.