The Sage Advice Compendium has this to say on falling damage and monsters with immunity to damage from non-magical weapons:
A monster is immune to damage from nonmagical bludgeoning weapons. Does it still take damage from falling?
Yes, that monster is still going to feel the hurt of a fall, because a fall is not a weapon.
However, since this advice refers to "non-magical weapons" it must have been written before the MM errata:
Global
Damage Resistances/Immunities. Throughout the book, in-stances of “nonmagical weapons” in Damage Resistances/Immu-nities entries have been replaced with “nonmagical attacks.”
Since there are no longer any monsters with immunity to non-magical weapons, either this advice no longer applies, or it also needs to be changed to state "because a fall is not an attack."
The errata covers a sizable loophole. Before, a monk's nonmagical unarmed strike would bypass the immunity. Now, it doesn't. And since fall damage isn't a weapon or an attack, that aspect remains unchanged.
I mean that more like.... Do we really need one of the designers of the game to come out and say "A fall is not an attack" - this game is built around common sense, this doesn't feel like a case of "no people won't understand this and we need to very clearly spell out this thing that is very simple."
Then why does it have an SA at all? You could say that about every single SA entry including this one. But if you're going to have an SA entry, it should at least be consistent with the errata.
Then why does it have an SA at all? You could say that about every single SA entry including this one.
I dunno, man. You brought it up.
The game defines pretty specifically what is an attack. Step 3 under Making an Attack is: Resolve the attack.You make the attack roll. When you fall, there is no attack roll. Therefore, aside from the aforementioned common sense argument, the rules provide for a definition of an attack that does not include what happens when you fall....or more specifically, when you land after a fall.
Then why does it have an SA at all? You could say that about every single SA entry including this one. But if you're going to have an SA entry, it should at least be consistent with the errata.
Because, as I already stated, unarmed strikes aren't weapon attacks. Some playable races come with natural weapons which can be used to make unarmed strikes. This was done to make them compatible with a monk's Martial Arts. But for most playable races, unarmed strikes are not weapon attacks. You can't use a paladin's Divine Smite with an unarmed strike, for example.
The SA and errata were necessary to get around the obvious problem that a punch or kick could get past such DR/I, but not a stronger weapon attack.
D&D isn’t a physics simulation. Even if the forces are the same, getting hit by a giant’s boulder isn’t the same as falling on the boulder. “Game balance” and all that rot.
If you want more physics in your game and it makes playing fun, go for it! But there’s little point in arguing rules on the interwebs - the rules don’t/can’t/will never match real-world physics.
Even if the forces are the same, getting hit by a giant’s boulder isn’t the same as falling on the boulder.
It is exactly the same thing.
Come on guys, don't pretend that you can't see where the OP is coming from. It makes sense that a Werewolf falls 10 ft and takes 1d6 damage yet, can get hit with an 8d10 cast iron cannonball and laugh it off? Because the cannonball is an attack and a fall isn't?
Maybe we are just knuckleheads but, if a Werewolf falls off a cliff and goes splat into a bloody, broken mess. You look down again and he's gone. He can't be killed by non-magical bludgeoning damage, you silly goose. Just like the movies. You can unload assault rifle rounds into the Werewolf and see them rip into his flesh, doesn't matter, immune to non-magical piercing damage(note, I say damage, not attacks).
Don't cling to RAW and SA to the point of absurdity. It's one thing to say "that's what the rules are" for quick, simple rulings and another altogether to go out of your way to defend the logic of said rule(s).
Even if the forces are the same, getting hit by a giant’s boulder isn’t the same as falling on the boulder.
It is exactly the same thing.
Come on guys, don't pretend that you can't see where the OP is coming from. It makes sense that a Werewolf falls 10 ft and takes 1d6 damage yet, can get hit with an 8d10 cast iron cannonball and laugh it off? Because the cannonball is an attack and a fall isn't?
Maybe we are just knuckleheads but, if a Werewolf falls off a cliff and goes splat into a bloody, broken mess. You look down again and he's gone. He can't be killed by non-magical bludgeoning damage, you silly goose. Just like the movies. You can unload assault rifle rounds into the Werewolf and see them rip into his flesh, doesn't matter, immune to non-magical piercing damage(note, I say damage, not attacks).
Don't cling to RAW and SA to the point of absurdity. It's one thing to say "that's what the rules are" for quick, simple rulings and another altogether to go out of your way to defend the logic of said rule(s).
If you want to argue against what the RAW says that's your business. Your table at home can follow your own interpretation of the rules. That's your right as a DM. But that doesn't mean it lines up with the RAW or RAI. The designers deliberately chose to only allow attacks to affect them. So, instead of insisting on something else, ask yourself the all-important question: why?
And getting hit by a giant's boulder is not the same as falling onto it, or being thrown into the boulder. Do not make me break out my notes on impulse. I already had this discussion years ago on a supers forum about cars and physics.
I don't think you can use common sense to resolve the nature of a magical curse. Curses are often, in the literature, very dependent on wording. Take, for example, the case of Macbeth that "none of woman born shall harm him," he was killed by a man who was delivered by caesarian section; or the King of the Nazgûl, "not by the hand of man will he fall," was killed by a woman; and so on.
In the folklore, there isn't a consistent vision about werewolves other than their vulnerability to silver and changing with a full moon. So we really only have the published D&D rules and guidelines to go on. And as I said, the published SA isn't up to date with the errata.
Before the errata, Jeremy Crawford wrote that the intent was to "leave it open to damage from falling, being crushed, etc." He also clarified, "A lycanthrope's immunity is a supernatural resilience against the attacks of regular mortals. It's not about the damage types." The effect he wanted to achieve was a creature that couldn't be handled by a gang of farmers with pitchforks.
One interesting titbit I found looking into the folklore: if you kill a werewolf or it commits suicide, it returns as a vampire.
Perhaps, depending on what kind of folklore you're following, but this is the first I've heard of it. That said, I'm familiar with suicide by itself being a cause of vampirism. Two of the supposed origins are Lilith (Adam's first wife) and Judas Iscariot, who hung himself. The 30 pieces of silver are supposed to explain the vampire's weakness to silver, but I think that's a reach. Silver can be found pure in nature.
I don't think there is much of a difference between falling & a blow of equal strength to said fall. The main difference is that most people think of falling as damage to your foot, while hitting is less that. 100N of force on your head from falling is presumably very similar to 100N of force from being hit on the exact same spot. There really isn't much difference there.
I agree it does make more interesting situations for dealing with werewolves, and thus is worth keeping in. Realistically I don't quite see it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Throw a dozen spears into a werewolf... nothing. Throw a werewolf onto a dozen spears... ?
Zero damage in both cases. The werewolf doesn't hit the ground because the dozen spears stop it. However, I would say it is Restrained in the second case.
I remember hearing that werewolf is immunity to those damages because it just heals back up as if nothing happens. In other words, those weapons can hurt him but won't damage him. A dozen spears into a werewolf should hinder its movement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Sage Advice Compendium has this to say on falling damage and monsters with immunity to damage from non-magical weapons:
However, since this advice refers to "non-magical weapons" it must have been written before the MM errata:
Since there are no longer any monsters with immunity to non-magical weapons, either this advice no longer applies, or it also needs to be changed to state "because a fall is not an attack."
I mean.... does it need to really be said that a fall is not an attack?
The errata covers a sizable loophole. Before, a monk's nonmagical unarmed strike would bypass the immunity. Now, it doesn't. And since fall damage isn't a weapon or an attack, that aspect remains unchanged.
So, what would you have it changed to?
I mean that more like.... Do we really need one of the designers of the game to come out and say "A fall is not an attack" - this game is built around common sense, this doesn't feel like a case of "no people won't understand this and we need to very clearly spell out this thing that is very simple."
Then why does it have an SA at all? You could say that about every single SA entry including this one. But if you're going to have an SA entry, it should at least be consistent with the errata.
I dunno, man. You brought it up.
The game defines pretty specifically what is an attack. Step 3 under Making an Attack is: Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. When you fall, there is no attack roll. Therefore, aside from the aforementioned common sense argument, the rules provide for a definition of an attack that does not include what happens when you fall....or more specifically, when you land after a fall.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Because, as I already stated, unarmed strikes aren't weapon attacks. Some playable races come with natural weapons which can be used to make unarmed strikes. This was done to make them compatible with a monk's Martial Arts. But for most playable races, unarmed strikes are not weapon attacks. You can't use a paladin's Divine Smite with an unarmed strike, for example.
The SA and errata were necessary to get around the obvious problem that a punch or kick could get past such DR/I, but not a stronger weapon attack.
D&D isn’t a physics simulation. Even if the forces are the same, getting hit by a giant’s boulder isn’t the same as falling on the boulder. “Game balance” and all that rot.
If you want more physics in your game and it makes playing fun, go for it! But there’s little point in arguing rules on the interwebs - the rules don’t/can’t/will never match real-world physics.
It is exactly the same thing.
Come on guys, don't pretend that you can't see where the OP is coming from. It makes sense that a Werewolf falls 10 ft and takes 1d6 damage yet, can get hit with an 8d10 cast iron cannonball and laugh it off? Because the cannonball is an attack and a fall isn't?
Maybe we are just knuckleheads but, if a Werewolf falls off a cliff and goes splat into a bloody, broken mess. You look down again and he's gone. He can't be killed by non-magical bludgeoning damage, you silly goose. Just like the movies. You can unload assault rifle rounds into the Werewolf and see them rip into his flesh, doesn't matter, immune to non-magical piercing damage(note, I say damage, not attacks).
Don't cling to RAW and SA to the point of absurdity. It's one thing to say "that's what the rules are" for quick, simple rulings and another altogether to go out of your way to defend the logic of said rule(s).
If you want to argue against what the RAW says that's your business. Your table at home can follow your own interpretation of the rules. That's your right as a DM. But that doesn't mean it lines up with the RAW or RAI. The designers deliberately chose to only allow attacks to affect them. So, instead of insisting on something else, ask yourself the all-important question: why?
And getting hit by a giant's boulder is not the same as falling onto it, or being thrown into the boulder. Do not make me break out my notes on impulse. I already had this discussion years ago on a supers forum about cars and physics.
I don't think you can use common sense to resolve the nature of a magical curse. Curses are often, in the literature, very dependent on wording. Take, for example, the case of Macbeth that "none of woman born shall harm him," he was killed by a man who was delivered by caesarian section; or the King of the Nazgûl, "not by the hand of man will he fall," was killed by a woman; and so on.
In the folklore, there isn't a consistent vision about werewolves other than their vulnerability to silver and changing with a full moon. So we really only have the published D&D rules and guidelines to go on. And as I said, the published SA isn't up to date with the errata.
Before the errata, Jeremy Crawford wrote that the intent was to "leave it open to damage from falling, being crushed, etc." He also clarified, "A lycanthrope's immunity is a supernatural resilience against the attacks of regular mortals. It's not about the damage types." The effect he wanted to achieve was a creature that couldn't be handled by a gang of farmers with pitchforks.
I see this as an opportunity for clever plans.
Hitting the werewolf with a rock is pointless (sorry...).
However, shoving it over the edge of a cliff is good. Tricking it to run off the edge is better.
Depends on where you hit ‘im.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So, what you are saying is, "Wolfman has nards" :D
One interesting titbit I found looking into the folklore: if you kill a werewolf or it commits suicide, it returns as a vampire.
Perhaps, depending on what kind of folklore you're following, but this is the first I've heard of it. That said, I'm familiar with suicide by itself being a cause of vampirism. Two of the supposed origins are Lilith (Adam's first wife) and Judas Iscariot, who hung himself. The 30 pieces of silver are supposed to explain the vampire's weakness to silver, but I think that's a reach. Silver can be found pure in nature.
Wow, we're really off-topic.
Wolfman totally has nards.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don't think there is much of a difference between falling & a blow of equal strength to said fall. The main difference is that most people think of falling as damage to your foot, while hitting is less that. 100N of force on your head from falling is presumably very similar to 100N of force from being hit on the exact same spot. There really isn't much difference there.
I agree it does make more interesting situations for dealing with werewolves, and thus is worth keeping in. Realistically I don't quite see it.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Throw a dozen spears into a werewolf... nothing. Throw a werewolf onto a dozen spears... ?
Zero damage in both cases. The werewolf doesn't hit the ground because the dozen spears stop it. However, I would say it is Restrained in the second case.
I remember hearing that werewolf is immunity to those damages because it just heals back up as if nothing happens. In other words, those weapons can hurt him but won't damage him. A dozen spears into a werewolf should hinder its movement.