I'm still surprised that Tabaxi have no falling damage mitigation, despite the cat's grace (dex buff) use of the Enhance Ability spell makes 20' or less falls safe (although does not mitigate longer falls at all.... ).
Many rules in game feel more than a little arbitrary.
I was also surprised that cats in D&D (and by extension panthers) also have no fall damage mitigation. Then I looked at "Boar" in the PHB and there's no Perception bonus for keen sense of smell there. So it makes sense in a let's-get-this-done-in-a-hurry sort of way. .
I too am of the camp that a character who intentionally "jumps down" from a height (instead of accidentally falling from it) should be be able to calculate their max jump height and safely "jump down" within that thresshold. If you're over that thresshold (say you can jump 24 feet due to shennangians, but are trying to jump down a total of 30 feet), I personally would subtract the "safe jump" distance from the total distance to give a "fall" distance of 6 feet... but that's straying more into personal preference, I could just as easily see a DM rule that if you're a single foot over your jump distance, you've "fallen" the entire distance.
Under the strictest interpretation, I'd say that a default 10 strength person will be able to safely "jump" down off of a 3 foot height, but 4-9 feet they're probably "falling" for no damage and landing prone, or falling prone with damage for over 10 feet. They could probably cheat ~3-7 more feet (depending on character height) by lowering themselves over the edge first and hanging before they drop. Someone who's really strong might be able to ker-chunk down up to 8 feet without falling prone, while a Monk or Champion Thief or Tiger/Elk Totem Barbarian or someone with magical enhancements might be able to jump down safely even further depending how far they lean into jump optimization.
My preferred take is:
Fall off a 20' ledge? 2d6 damage and prone.
Jump off a 20' ledge, for most un-optimized characters? 20' - (3'-8' of intentional jump) = 17'-12', rounded down to 1d6 damage and prone.
Lower yourself off the ledge and then drop, for most un-optimized characters? 20' - (3'-7' of character height) - (3'-8' of intentional jump) = probably no more than 14' of fall, possibly as little as 5' of fall. Either 1d6 or 0 damage, but prone.
Jump of a 20' ledge as a 12 strength Monk using Step of the Wind while wearing Boots of Striding and Springing? No problemo, 24' of jump height and you're landing with no damage and not prone.
Long Jump. When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing long jump, you can leap only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.
This rule assumes that the height of your jump doesn't matter, such as a jump across a stream or chasm. At your DM's option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump's distance), such as a hedge or low wall. Otherwise, you hit it.
When you land in difficult terrain, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to land on your feet. Otherwise, you land prone.
High Jump. When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing high jump, you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. In some circumstances, your DM might allow you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you normally can.
You can extend your arms half your height above yourself during the jump. Thus, you can reach above you a distance equal to the height of the jump plus 1 1/2 times your height.
To me, a long-jump is a horizontal jump and in this case, the player jumped off the bridge down to lower 'level' floor 20 feet below. I'm not disagreeing with your point I'm just trying to see the correlations of a horizontal jump rule to the vertical drop the player made. In this case, falling damage would never really be applied if they succeed in the check which counters the fall rule. Again, not disagreeing but just talking/typing my thought out.
One presumes that the rule for landing in difficult terrain applies to both long jumps and high jumps. It would make no sense for them not to. They most likely saw no need to reprint the exact same rule a second time a mere 5 sentences later.
And the PC wasn’t “falling,” they were “jumping.” The rules for a high jump make no mention of falling damage when landing at all.
And that is where I feel I see my problem. I considered “jumping” over a rail as still “falling” because that is what the PC is doing. It’s the semantics of the two words that I’m lumping together as the same rule.
As I see it, jumping/falling rules leave some things unaddressed which are big pains in the butt to leave unspoken:
What happens when you jump your max height up, but have no more jump distance and/or movement points to come down?
Is "jumping down" off a ledge "jumping" or "falling"? Assuming "jumping down" off a ledge is "jumping," but the ledge is taller than your jump distance and/or movement points, are you "falling" the total distance or just the distance left after subtracting your jump distance?
If I do a high jump, but am dragging a grappled non-consenting creature, at the end of the jump have I "jumped" but the enemy "fallen"?
What is one single sentence/definition that could be added to resolve all of this? "Falling is vertical downward movement that is not voluntary, or which exceeds your allowed movement in a round." This was (essentially) the understanding of "falling" which was used in 4th edition, which I think a lot of unwritten assumptions in 5E still crib off of:
Falling is uncontrolled downward movement.
With the addition of that (I believe RAI, but possibly just homebrewed) interpretation, these fuzzy-by-RAW scenarios become quite clear:
If you jumped up with the intention to land, no fall damage, no matter how high it was. If you jumped up to grab something to hang on and missed it, possibly fall damage, and you're going to land on your butt!
"Jumping down" off a ledge works as I described in the post above (the part of the drop that was within your jump distance doesn't count, and the part after that is the fall distance).
Jumping while dragging a grappled creature is a fun and effective way to inflict prone, and possibly even fall damage, using your movement speed.
I heartily recommend that "Falling is vertical downward movement that is not voluntary, or which exceeds your allowed movement in a round." But while we're discussing homebrew solutions to issues with jumping/falling, one might instead look at the 3.5 model, which had a "Jump" skill which included:
Jumping Down
If you intentionally jump from a height, you take less damage than you would if you just fell. The DC to jump down from a height is 15. You do not have to get a running start to jump down, so the DC is not doubled if you do not get a running start.
If you succeed on the check, you take falling damage as if you had dropped 10 fewer feet than you actually did.
Would not be hard at all to treat Athletics or even Acrobatics as having this ability within it. Pass a check, reduce the distance, easy as that. 4th Edition had a version of this too (reduce fall damage by 1/2 of your acrobatics check), but IMHO it doesn't really translate as well to 5E as the 3.5 "jumping down" skill check being added to Athletics or Acrobatics does.
Long Jump. When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing long jump, you can leap only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.
This rule assumes that the height of your jump doesn't matter, such as a jump across a stream or chasm. At your DM's option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump's distance), such as a hedge or low wall. Otherwise, you hit it.
When you land in difficult terrain, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to land on your feet. Otherwise, you land prone.
High Jump. When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing high jump, you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. In some circumstances, your DM might allow you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you normally can.
You can extend your arms half your height above yourself during the jump. Thus, you can reach above you a distance equal to the height of the jump plus 1 1/2 times your height.
To me, a long-jump is a horizontal jump and in this case, the player jumped off the bridge down to lower 'level' floor 20 feet below. I'm not disagreeing with your point I'm just trying to see the correlations of a horizontal jump rule to the vertical drop the player made. In this case, falling damage would never really be applied if they succeed in the check which counters the fall rule. Again, not disagreeing but just talking/typing my thought out.
One presumes that the rule for landing in difficult terrain applies to both long jumps and high jumps. It would make no sense for them not to. They most likely saw no need to reprint the exact same rule a second time a mere 5 sentences later.
And the PC wasn’t “falling,” they were “jumping.” The rules for a high jump make no mention of falling damage when landing at all.
And that is where I feel I see my problem. I considered “jumping” over a rail as still “falling” because that is what the PC is doing. It’s the semantics of the two words that I’m lumping together as the same rule.
Technically speaking, IRL, walking is just continuously falling forward and catching yourself repeatedly.
I would personally not lump those semantics together because the game designers obviously didn’t.
I think the consensus seems to be that falling triggers fall damage, but athletic skill could mitigate the damage (at least by around 10', or 1d6 less damage than the fall would normally cause).
Ok. Doesn’t that feel like a pretty special rule to have with falling.
I'm overweight, clumsy, never played sports, have spinal problems and yet I've jumped down from a 12 feet tall ledge without any issues. My brother is more athletic playing sports and is physically fit but even without any training in "break falls" techniques or anything of that sort has jumped down 20 feet - he very mildly scraped a knee in an awkward landing, but was otherwise perfectly fine. As kids we've jumped from the top of garages and trees 8 to 10 feet tall and it was easy - it was a game.
There's a massive difference between falling 10 to 20 feet and jumping down from a 10 to 20 ft height. With jumping down, your mind and body is prepared - it knows what to expect, it can instinctually do what it needs to mitigate the impact and balance itself. When you fall it is not expected, there's no balance and so you are more likely to land incorrectly and get hurt.
So, yes, I'm on the player's side here. The idea that an experienced adventurer must get hurt by jumping down a distance that ordinary, untrained, people in the real world can jump down without getting hurt - is disappointing, unrealistic and completely breaks the immersion.
Personally, I would have taken a look at the Jumping rules, and considered the High Jump. I'd consider it a high jump without needing the 10 ft run up (since they don't need the momentum, it's just about bracing) so that's 13 + strength score distance without damage, without rolls. It still uses up their movement, of course, but I'd consider a jump down just like any other jump. Perhaps an Acrobatics check, DC 10, if over 10 ft, to avoid landing prone.
Technically a houserule but I'd prefer that over pissing off my players just because the designers didn't think about this properly.
Edit: IAmSposta posted while I was typing (I'm a slow typer), with the rules and highlighted what I missed about the acrobatics check - so really, what I thought was a houserule, actually wouldn't be. So, yeah, the Player was perfectly right to have been unhappy - he was jumping not falling, and you used falling rules instead of jumping rules.
I knew guys in the army who had screwed up their backs and knees pretty badly jumping out of helicopters with full kit, being trained and air-assault qualified from lower than 20 ft. armor, weapons pack...sounds about the same to be as to what an air-assault trooper would be carrying when exiting a helo with a quickness.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Jumping, however, is somewhat different from falling. I would allow Athletics / Acrobatics check, or maybe a CON save for half damage. Or i can use complex one-time table for homeruling - including PC class (monk or rogue - with advantage), armor type (chain is bad for acrobatics, plate is terrible, but plate can mitigate some damage), surface condition (sharp rocks can be fatal) and everything else.
For speed and fun i prefer simple rules, with situational mods: saves / checks / percentile damage (for high levels and heights).
I have had almost the same thing happen in a game I ran. The player was jumping from a 20 foot (I reasoned) tall mill house onto an enemy below (think Assassin's Creed). I opted to house rule that the damage was split between him and the target, with an acrobatics check for fall accuracy.
Long Jump. When you make a long jump, you cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing long jump, you can leap only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.
This rule assumes that the height of your jump doesn't matter, such as a jump across a stream or chasm. At your DM's option, you must succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check to clear a low obstacle (no taller than a quarter of the jump's distance), such as a hedge or low wall. Otherwise, you hit it.
When you land in difficult terrain, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to land on your feet. Otherwise, you land prone.
High Jump. When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing high jump, you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. In some circumstances, your DM might allow you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you normally can.
You can extend your arms half your height above yourself during the jump. Thus, you can reach above you a distance equal to the height of the jump plus 1 1/2 times your height.
To me, a long-jump is a horizontal jump and in this case, the player jumped off the bridge down to lower 'level' floor 20 feet below. I'm not disagreeing with your point I'm just trying to see the correlations of a horizontal jump rule to the vertical drop the player made. In this case, falling damage would never really be applied if they succeed in the check which counters the fall rule. Again, not disagreeing but just talking/typing my thought out.
One presumes that the rule for landing in difficult terrain applies to both long jumps and high jumps. It would make no sense for them not to. They most likely saw no need to reprint the exact same rule a second time a mere 5 sentences later.
And the PC wasn’t “falling,” they were “jumping.” The rules for a high jump make no mention of falling damage when landing at all.
The long jump difficult terrain landing rules are completely irrelevant to both falling and high jumping. That is why they didn't put it under high jump rules. In a high jump, you have low horizontal momentum and the trip risk from terrain is minimal.
The rules for high jump probably don't mention fall damage because high jumps are intended for reaching higher elevations. You aren't supposed to fall down as far as you jumped up. But if you do have a strength greater than 24 and manage to fall 10 feet or more, there are rules for that: falling.
Free fall acceleration for greater than 10 feet downward before contacting a solid surface triggers fall damage.
The fall damage rules aren't very real world physics friendly. A house rule I could see going with is having the first 3+STR feet not count toward the fall when it is a planned jump.
Honestly, I think the depth to which some people have explored in this conversation is a pretty good explanation for why Wizards kept the falling rules so simple :)
Lol the fact that no one precisely agrees but everyone wants a fix is exactly why there SHOULD be a more robust rule. The definition of “fall” clearly was not so straightforward as the writers assumed.
I wish there was a way to get a 'Sage Advice' opinion on this. While I understand what I did wrong and understand some of the thoughts on fall/jumping ruling I feel based on our conversation that it's is still could be viewed as a vague understanding of what the manual intended.
Hit points don't only represent physical health, but also takes into account skill and luck. If you jump off a bridge, and avoid physical harm, you still may have "expended" hit points to perform that parkour roll to avoid breaking your legs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Lol the fact that no one precisely agrees but everyone wants a fix is exactly why there SHOULD be a more robust rule. The definition of “fall” clearly was not so straightforward as the writers assumed.
I'm actually fine with it. Just commenting to represent those people. :)
As far as I'm concerned, the RAW is that you take 2d6 damage when you fall - and all the rationalizing of it being some kind of high jump feels skeezy to me. High jump is clearly written to describe a jump upwards.
But it's also RAW that players can rationalize using their skills or equipment or features or anything to attempt to do stuff, and then the DM decides how hard that thing is and how likely they are to succeed.
If being athletic and mobile was a core part of a character, I'd give him a reasonable DC to mitigate falling damage. But if Grog the Dwarf who specializes in drinking ale and swinging his axe wants to do the same thing, his DC is going to be higher even if his Athletics score is the same.
If there were codified rules, it wouldn't feel fair to me to impose this kind of logic on players who had certain expectations of how their characters could handle falls. I still could, but I wouldn't because I don't want yet another houserule to keep track of. This way I can safely and easily remember one rule and improvise off that. I dunno, it works for me.
I was also surprised that cats in D&D (and by extension panthers) also have no fall damage mitigation. Then I looked at "Boar" in the PHB and there's no Perception bonus for keen sense of smell there. So it makes sense in a let's-get-this-done-in-a-hurry sort of way. .
I too am of the camp that a character who intentionally "jumps down" from a height (instead of accidentally falling from it) should be be able to calculate their max jump height and safely "jump down" within that thresshold. If you're over that thresshold (say you can jump 24 feet due to shennangians, but are trying to jump down a total of 30 feet), I personally would subtract the "safe jump" distance from the total distance to give a "fall" distance of 6 feet... but that's straying more into personal preference, I could just as easily see a DM rule that if you're a single foot over your jump distance, you've "fallen" the entire distance.
Under the strictest interpretation, I'd say that a default 10 strength person will be able to safely "jump" down off of a 3 foot height, but 4-9 feet they're probably "falling" for no damage and landing prone, or falling prone with damage for over 10 feet. They could probably cheat ~3-7 more feet (depending on character height) by lowering themselves over the edge first and hanging before they drop. Someone who's really strong might be able to ker-chunk down up to 8 feet without falling prone, while a Monk or
ChampionThief or Tiger/Elk Totem Barbarian or someone with magical enhancements might be able to jump down safely even further depending how far they lean into jump optimization.My preferred take is:
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I like that summary.
And that is where I feel I see my problem. I considered “jumping” over a rail as still “falling” because that is what the PC is doing. It’s the semantics of the two words that I’m lumping together as the same rule.
As I see it, jumping/falling rules leave some things unaddressed which are big pains in the butt to leave unspoken:
What is one single sentence/definition that could be added to resolve all of this? "Falling is
verticaldownward movement that is not voluntary, or which exceeds your allowed movement in a round." This was (essentially) the understanding of "falling" which was used in 4th edition, which I think a lot of unwritten assumptions in 5E still crib off of:With the addition of that (I believe RAI, but possibly just homebrewed) interpretation, these fuzzy-by-RAW scenarios become quite clear:
I heartily recommend that "Falling is
verticaldownward movement that is not voluntary, or which exceeds your allowed movement in a round." But while we're discussing homebrew solutions to issues with jumping/falling, one might instead look at the 3.5 model, which had a "Jump" skill which included:Would not be hard at all to treat Athletics or even Acrobatics as having this ability within it. Pass a check, reduce the distance, easy as that. 4th Edition had a version of this too (reduce fall damage by 1/2 of your acrobatics check), but IMHO it doesn't really translate as well to 5E as the 3.5 "jumping down" skill check being added to Athletics or Acrobatics does.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Technically speaking, IRL, walking is just continuously falling forward and catching yourself repeatedly.
I would personally not lump those semantics together because the game designers obviously didn’t.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is a good conversation. Thanks all.
So what scenario triggers fall damage?
Ok. Doesn’t that feel like a pretty special rule to have with falling.
Forced movement that causes you to drop, or deliberate movement that exceeds your jump height (in both cases, can be zero).
I knew guys in the army who had screwed up their backs and knees pretty badly jumping out of helicopters with full kit, being trained and air-assault qualified from lower than 20 ft. armor, weapons pack...sounds about the same to be as to what an air-assault trooper would be carrying when exiting a helo with a quickness.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Well, Hello All.
Interesting topic.
According to statistics, falling from 20 feet can be very dangerous.
https://www.safeopedia.com/at-what-height-do-falls-become-deadly/7/7503
Jumping, however, is somewhat different from falling. I would allow Athletics / Acrobatics check, or maybe a CON save for half damage. Or i can use complex one-time table for homeruling - including PC class (monk or rogue - with advantage), armor type (chain is bad for acrobatics, plate is terrible, but plate can mitigate some damage), surface condition (sharp rocks can be fatal) and everything else.
For speed and fun i prefer simple rules, with situational mods: saves / checks / percentile damage (for high levels and heights).
I have had almost the same thing happen in a game I ran. The player was jumping from a 20 foot (I reasoned) tall mill house onto an enemy below (think Assassin's Creed). I opted to house rule that the damage was split between him and the target, with an acrobatics check for fall accuracy.
The long jump difficult terrain landing rules are completely irrelevant to both falling and high jumping. That is why they didn't put it under high jump rules. In a high jump, you have low horizontal momentum and the trip risk from terrain is minimal.
The rules for high jump probably don't mention fall damage because high jumps are intended for reaching higher elevations. You aren't supposed to fall down as far as you jumped up. But if you do have a strength greater than 24 and manage to fall 10 feet or more, there are rules for that: falling.
Free fall acceleration for greater than 10 feet downward before contacting a solid surface triggers fall damage.
The fall damage rules aren't very real world physics friendly. A house rule I could see going with is having the first 3+STR feet not count toward the fall when it is a planned jump.
Honestly, I think the depth to which some people have explored in this conversation is a pretty good explanation for why Wizards kept the falling rules so simple :)
Lol the fact that no one precisely agrees but everyone wants a fix is exactly why there SHOULD be a more robust rule. The definition of “fall” clearly was not so straightforward as the writers assumed.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I wish there was a way to get a 'Sage Advice' opinion on this. While I understand what I did wrong and understand some of the thoughts on fall/jumping ruling I feel based on our conversation that it's is still could be viewed as a vague understanding of what the manual intended.
Hit points don't only represent physical health, but also takes into account skill and luck. If you jump off a bridge, and avoid physical harm, you still may have "expended" hit points to perform that parkour roll to avoid breaking your legs.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'm actually fine with it. Just commenting to represent those people. :)
As far as I'm concerned, the RAW is that you take 2d6 damage when you fall - and all the rationalizing of it being some kind of high jump feels skeezy to me. High jump is clearly written to describe a jump upwards.
But it's also RAW that players can rationalize using their skills or equipment or features or anything to attempt to do stuff, and then the DM decides how hard that thing is and how likely they are to succeed.
If being athletic and mobile was a core part of a character, I'd give him a reasonable DC to mitigate falling damage. But if Grog the Dwarf who specializes in drinking ale and swinging his axe wants to do the same thing, his DC is going to be higher even if his Athletics score is the same.
If there were codified rules, it wouldn't feel fair to me to impose this kind of logic on players who had certain expectations of how their characters could handle falls. I still could, but I wouldn't because I don't want yet another houserule to keep track of. This way I can safely and easily remember one rule and improvise off that. I dunno, it works for me.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm