Falling damage rules?

[Scarey Nerd]

I've been looking through the PHB and DMG, and there are references to falling damage when talking about pit traps and Feather Fall, but I can't actually find anything about how much falling damage a player would take from X depth. Am I looking in the wrong place, or just missing something?

[Bubzors]

I don't have my book on me but the damage is nothing for anything under 10ft and 1d6 per 10 ft after that up to a max of 200 ft. So falling 30 ft would be 3d6

[Madbox]

Bubzors is correct.

Falling
A fall from a great height is one of the most common hazards facing an adventurer. At the end of a fall, a creature takes 1d6 bludgeoning damage for every 10 feet it fell, to a maximum of 20d6. The creature lands prone, unless it avoids taking damage from the fall.

[Sir cryosin]

But be carful because a martial character can survive that it 120 for max and 20 for min. That best thing if they fall from so high tell them you broke a couple of bones your movement speed is reduce 0. Because I seen a play jump from 500ft knowing he was only going to take 20b6 and he had a lot of hp.

[Koningkrush]

Falling damage should continue to increase up to 1500 feet (450 Meters) because if my math is correct that's when you reach terminal velocity if you were tumbling like a ball through the air.

A turn in 6 seconds, which in meters rounds up to about 700 feet.

By a second turn, you reach terminal velocity at 1500 feet.

After some conversion to joules to calculate the exponential increase in energy due to velocity, these should be your realistic falling damage dice:

Second 1: 10 Meters. – 3500 Joules = 3.5 = 1d6
Second 2: 30 Meters. – 14000 Joules = 14 = 4d6
Second 3: 60 Meters. – 31500 Joules = 31.5 = 9d6
Second 4: 100 Meters. – 56000 Joules = 56 = 16d6
Second 5: 150 Meters. – 87500 Joules = 87.5 = 25d6
Second 6: 210 Meters. – 126000 Joules = 126 = 36d6
Second 7: 280 Meters. – 171500 Joules = 171.5 = 49d6
Second 8: 360 Meters. – 224000 Joules = 224 = 64d6
Second 9: 450 Meters. – 283500 Joules = 283.5 = 81d6

If you want to be hardcore with realism and don't like fighters jumping off mountains, use these values ^^^^

[Cuddlebot5000]

Falling damage should continue to increase up to 1500 feet (450 Meters) because if my math is correct that's when you reach terminal velocity if you were tumbling like a ball through the air.

A turn in 6 seconds, which in meters rounds up to about 700 feet.

By a second turn, you reach terminal velocity at 1500 feet.

After some conversion to joules to calculate the exponential increase in energy due to velocity, these should be your realistic falling damage dice:

Second 1: 10 Meters. – 3500 Joules = 3.5 = 1d6
Second 2: 30 Meters. – 14000 Joules = 14 = 4d6
Second 3: 60 Meters. – 31500 Joules = 31.5 = 9d6
Second 4: 100 Meters. – 56000 Joules = 56 = 16d6
Second 5: 150 Meters. – 87500 Joules = 87.5 = 25d6
Second 6: 210 Meters. – 126000 Joules = 126 = 36d6
Second 7: 280 Meters. – 171500 Joules = 171.5 = 49d6
Second 8: 360 Meters. – 224000 Joules = 224 = 64d6
Second 9: 450 Meters. – 283500 Joules = 283.5 = 81d6

If you want to be hardcore with realism and don't like fighters jumping off mountains, use these values ^^^^

This is great! I hate the fact that RAW any character with a decent con sore can fall from any distance after level 11 or so and most likely not die. Adopting this mothodology. Though there may be an issue with the math you have done... 1d6 is from 10ft of falling, not 10 meters.

[Doug Lampert]

Falling damage should continue to increase up to 1500 feet (450 Meters) because if my math is correct that's when you reach terminal velocity if you were tumbling like a ball through the air.

A turn in 6 seconds, which in meters rounds up to about 700 feet.

By a second turn, you reach terminal velocity at 1500 feet.

After some conversion to joules to calculate the exponential increase in energy due to velocity, these should be your realistic falling damage dice:

Second 1: 10 Meters. – 3500 Joules = 3.5 = 1d6
Second 2: 30 Meters. – 14000 Joules = 14 = 4d6
Second 3: 60 Meters. – 31500 Joules = 31.5 = 9d6
Second 4: 100 Meters. – 56000 Joules = 56 = 16d6
Second 5: 150 Meters. – 87500 Joules = 87.5 = 25d6
Second 6: 210 Meters. – 126000 Joules = 126 = 36d6
Second 7: 280 Meters. – 171500 Joules = 171.5 = 49d6
Second 8: 360 Meters. – 224000 Joules = 224 = 64d6
Second 9: 450 Meters. – 283500 Joules = 283.5 = 81d6

If you want to be hardcore with realism and don't like fighters jumping off mountains, use these values ^^^^
You're doing something wrong. Seriously wrong.

(A) 1 second gives you 5 meters. Not 10, it's 1/2 a t^2. It looks like you're taking the FINAL velocity of each second using a 10m/s^2 approximation and then applying that to the entire second. Physics doesn't work that way.

(B) Air resistance applies all the way, not just magically turning on at terminal velocity, you start losing noticeable energy long before you go terminal.

(C) You're giving a terminal velocity of 90m/s, which is FAR FAR faster than is accurate, 56 m/s is what you'll get off a web search and matches with lots and lots of observation. Are you assuming the person is doing a swan dive into the ground?

(D) What the crap are the energy units for? You haven't specified a weight, so you can't convert speed to energy, but if you insist on doing so, then energy from a fall (or any linear acceleration in your direction of travel) is mass*acceleration*distance, since you're using a constant mass and a constant acceleration this is exactly proportional to distance. Your difference from that is due to your distances being off due to mistake (A).

The D&D approximation is an approximation, but it's VASTLY better than yours. Linear with distance till noticeable air resistance, then flat. Simple and it works. And while 200 ft is probably too little, in a world where most people have few HP, 1d6/10' is probably too much (lots of people walk away from 10' falls without any injury at all).

500 feet is about right for it to top off.

Note: AFAICT at least FIVE people have lived through being ejected from an aircraft at high altitude without a chute. Just how many people do you think actually GET ejected from planes at high altitude over land (a fair number actually, but thousands not millions)? 81d6 of damage is appropriate for something that probably has a 1/1000 or so survival rate for normal people in the real world?

[Madbox]

It's funny how RAW, a decent level fighter could get launched high enough that they would need to bust out the rules for holding breath, and not take any fall damage on landing. Heck, it might be a good attack if you could find a way to consistently get that high!

[YCombinator]

Note: AFAICT at least FIVE people have lived through being ejected from an aircraft at high altitude without a chute. Just how many people do you think actually GET ejected from planes at high altitude over land (a fair number actually, but thousands not millions)? 81d6 of damage is appropriate for something that probably has a 1/1000 or so survival rate for normal people in the real world?

It's also worth putting it explicitly that those 5 or so people are all commoners to use the monster's manual term. They have a 10(+0) constitution, no levels, and 4 (1d8) HP. 4HP and they survived.

[Rhaegar]

If you want to look at realism, there would also be a huge difference in damage taken based on what type of surface you landed on. All of the people I've heard of who survived falling from aircraft landed on soft soil to the best of my knowledge. Landing on a hard surface compared to a soft surface could be the difference of anywhere from a 2x to 10x damage modifier, but for simplicity sake, d&d ignores surface hardness.

A DM however could put in a surface modifier if he wanted to. You could say that due to landing on a very soft surface you take 1/3 damage of normal, that maximum distance falling instead of 20d6 becomes 7d6, minimum damage being 7, the commoner with 4 hp wouldn't outright die, just fall unconscious with massive damage. You could also say that landing on jagged rocks takes 2x damage if you wanted and that 20d6 turns into 40d6, and all of a sudden your high HP warrior may think twice about jumping off of a cliff onto the jagged rocks below.

[Doug Lampert]

If you want to look at realism, there would also be a huge difference in damage taken based on what type of surface you landed on. All of the people I've heard of who survived falling from aircraft landed on soft soil to the best of my knowledge. Landing on a hard surface compared to a soft surface could be the difference of anywhere from a 2x to 10x damage modifier, but for simplicity sake, d&d ignores surface hardness.

A DM however could put in a surface modifier if he wanted to. You could say that due to landing on a very soft surface you take 1/3 damage of normal, that maximum distance falling instead of 20d6 becomes 7d6, minimum damage being 7, the commoner with 4 hp wouldn't outright die, just fall unconscious with massive damage. You could also say that landing on jagged rocks takes 2x damage if you wanted and that 20d6 turns into 40d6, and all of a sudden your high HP warrior may think twice about jumping off of a cliff onto the jagged rocks below.

Actually, I have heard of a guy surviving who hit hard-packed dirt when his chute failed, but he was trained and probably wouldn't have survived without major medical help. I didn't count him, he had a chute, and "complete chute failure" (what was described) might still have some stuff trailing him to give extra drag. He also had training in how to land.

For most other cases the key seems to be hitting forest canopy. You can slow down a lot while breaking branches on your way to the ground. Your body is tougher than most smaller branches, so the damage can be fairly minimal.

[Note: the only part of this that's in reply to Rhaegar is above, the remainder is a general comment on falling and "realism".]

But in a realistic game/world these very very long falls have enough mixed terrain under you that you can justify a chance of hitting almost anything, heck, there could be a random flumph down there somewhere. Or maybe you're falling into a pit or down a cliff where there's a side to break against, it's mostly a matter of luck whether you survive. If only the game had something which (among other things) represents how much luck helps you to survive. Some number that represented just how hard you are to kill and how much absurd damage your character can take and live... If only there were a number, maybe one that went up with increasing level to represent the fact that we want experienced characters to be harder to kill.

Sadly, with the ultra-high detailed D&D combat system and it's attempt to realistically model all physical trauma down to the cellular level, we can't have a single value that we can adjust to make people harder to kill and let high powered action heroes survive things actual normal people can survive. Sad really.

I hear some guys named Gygax and Arneson once considered a fairly simple abstraction of damage called "Hit Points", I think if we adopted that and limited falling damage to something survivable by a guy with a lot of HP then we'd be pretty good.

[pwykersotz]

Sadly, with the ultra-high detailed D&D combat system and it's attempt to realistically model all physical trauma down to the cellular level, we can't have a single value that we can adjust to make people harder to kill and let high powered action heroes survive things actual normal people can survive. Sad really.

I hear some guys named Gygax and Arneson once considered a fairly simple abstraction of damage called "Hit Points", I think if we adopted that and limited falling damage to something survivable by a guy with a lot of HP then we'd be pretty good.

This. This made me chuckle. :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

What I find more interesting than a high-level fighter is the fact that in 5E, a first-level fighter could theoretically survive a fall from orbit. With good Con he might have 12 HP. Then you just have to hope the DM rolls freakishly low on his 20d6. 20-23 means you're not insta-killed and you can rely on death saves to save your life about 60% of the time, dying the other 40% of the time. About 20% of the time you not only survive, you actually regain 1 HP and are back on your feet.

[Talamare]

What I find more interesting than a high-level fighter is the fact that in 5E, a first-level fighter could theoretically survive a fall from orbit. With good Con he might have 12 HP. Then you just have to hope the DM rolls freakishly low on his 20d6. 20-23 means you're not insta-killed and you can rely on death saves to save your life about 60% of the time, dying the other 40% of the time. About 20% of the time you not only survive, you actually regain 1 HP and are back on your feet.

A level 1 Half Orc can survive a fall from orbit

Otherwise, 20d6 = only 120 damage max
Any class at level 20 with 20 Con and Tough would survive it, since that gives 140 HP

Once you add in Class Averages, you can start scaling back the values

A Level 20 Dwarven Barbarian with Tough could have a max of 440 HP
He could be dropped from Orbit 3x and still be fine

A Level 1 Dwarven Barbarian with 16 Con could have 16 HP, giving him a larger margin for error

[Rhaegar]

Of course if you have someone falling from orbit than you bring in the suffocation rules for lack of oxygen, and extreme cold rules. But D&D rules aren't really meant for those kind of extremes. And if a player at my table somehow magically ported themselves into orbit, they would not survive a 100 mile fall to earth, regardless of what any rules said. Well unless they can convince me that they can somehow magically create themselves a heat and oxygen bubble and slow fall down. Who knows certain casters might just be able to do that.

[Mellack]

I want to suggest that perhaps the standard D&D world has a lower gravity. Look at the jumping distances. A 6' character with max strength can make a running jump and reach a something 17 feet high, without a check. Giants are not crushed by their own weight. Dragons and aarakocra can fly. With a lower force of gravity, terminal velocity would be reached at a lower speed. This could account for the max of 20d6.

[MaxWilson]

A level 1 Half Orc can survive a fall from orbit

Not usually. Half-orcs only survive damage that does not kill them instantly. If you take 70 HP of damage at level one, splat! You're dead, even if you're a half-orc.

[McNinja]

I want to suggest that perhaps the standard D&D world has a lower gravity. Look at the jumping distances. A 6' character with max strength can make a running jump and reach a something 17 feet high, without a check. Giants are not crushed by their own weight. Dragons and aarakocra can fly. With a lower force of gravity, terminal velocity would be reached at a lower speed. This could account for the max of 20d6.To be fair, people can jump pretty far when they train for it. World record long jump is over 29 feet, and people who train the high jump can jump up 6 feet or more. I personally could jump my own shoulder height (about 5' 3") when I was doing that sort of thing regularly, and I'm not a world class sprinter or jumper.

[Mellack]

The record at the NFL combine was broken last year at 47". That is just under four feet, what a character with a strength of 12 can do. You might be thinking about high jumping, but their center of mass is well below the bar they jump over.

[Malifice]

What I find more interesting than a high-level fighter is the fact that in 5E, a first-level fighter could theoretically survive a fall from orbit. With good Con he might have 12 HP. Then you just have to hope the DM rolls freakishly low on his 20d6. 20-23 means you're not insta-killed and you can rely on death saves to save your life about 60% of the time, dying the other 40% of the time. About 20% of the time you not only survive, you actually regain 1 HP and are back on your feet.

Or you play by the rules and use the 'luck' element of what 'hit points' are, and narrate some lucky contrivance that saved his life.

[Doug Lampert]

Or you play by the rules and use the 'luck' element of what 'hit points' are, and narrate some lucky contrivance that saved his life.Yep, baring cold, suffocation, and low pressure during the fall; the fall from outer space is survivable by a level 1 commoner. Because real people survive falls at terminal velocity.

The chances of 20d6 coming up less than 32 is one in 43,728,871. Does anyone seriously think 43 million+ people have fallen out of planes over land, or that those who have were high con fighters or barbarians? If someone rolls something that is literally much less than 1 in a million and their ridiculously durable character barely survives something that real people have WALKED AWAY FROM under their own power. I have no problem with that.

If you can't narrate that, then your problem isn't with D&D, it's with reality.

There are many possible problems with the HP system, but falling damage is if anything far to HIGH! It's not survivable ENOUGH!

[ClearlyTough69]

You're doing something wrong. Seriously wrong.

(A) 1 second gives you 5 meters. Not 10, it's 1/2 a t^2. It looks like you're taking the FINAL velocity of each second using a 10m/s^2 approximation and then applying that to the entire second. Physics doesn't work that way.

(B) Air resistance applies all the way, not just magically turning on at terminal velocity, you start losing noticeable energy long before you go terminal.

(C) You're giving a terminal velocity of 90m/s, which is FAR FAR faster than is accurate, 56 m/s is what you'll get off a web search and matches with lots and lots of observation. Are you assuming the person is doing a swan dive into the ground?

(D) What the crap are the energy units for? You haven't specified a weight, so you can't convert speed to energy, but if you insist on doing so, then energy from a fall (or any linear acceleration in your direction of travel) is mass*acceleration*distance, since you're using a constant mass and a constant acceleration this is exactly proportional to distance. Your difference from that is due to your distances being off due to mistake (A).

The D&D approximation is an approximation, but it's VASTLY better than yours. Linear with distance till noticeable air resistance, then flat. Simple and it works. And while 200 ft is probably too little, in a world where most people have few HP, 1d6/10' is probably too much (lots of people walk away from 10' falls without any injury at all).

500 feet is about right for it to top off.

Note: AFAICT at least FIVE people have lived through being ejected from an aircraft at high altitude without a chute. Just how many people do you think actually GET ejected from planes at high altitude over land (a fair number actually, but thousands not millions)? 81d6 of damage is appropriate for something that probably has a 1/1000 or so survival rate for normal people in the real world?

How about, 'You're going in the right direction, but you might want to think about...'

or, 'I don't really see how you arrived at those figures.'

...rather than going on about getting it seriously wrong. Because *you* are getting it wrong, and behaving like a conceited contemptuous windbag while you do.

You are right that terminal velocity will kick in at about 500 feet, but that is for a medium creature. It will be greater for larger creatures owing to their smaller surface area to volume ratio. You are decidedly wrong to change the laws of physics when working out the energy of a moving body: kinetic energy = 1/2 mv^2. So the energy and hence the damage increases arithmetically not linearly as you say. The approach taken in D&D is linear and so not as realistic as this one.

As to your point A, all the data are calculated for the end of each second. At the end of each second, we know how far the creature has fallen, we can work out its speed (the distance fallen in the last second), and we know its energy (which as you see increases in proportion to the square of the speed). Your idea of working out the speed half way through the first second just chooses a different reference point, and a less convenient one at that.

The energy units are merely notional, but they can be used to work out the correct scaling of damage to distance fallen.

Please don't be so quick to tell people they're wrong.

[Chilly Polly]

1d6 per 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6 at 200 feet is actually a reasonably realistic estimate of the relative amount of damage a particular man-sized falling person will take at various stages of the fall. In other words, if you start with the assumption that it is realistic for Fred to take 1d6 damage for falling 10 feet, the rest reasonably follows ... at least for Fred.

Problems with the system are:
(1) It is applied in the context of a system where a 20th level character has maybe 30 times the hit points of a commoner, which is not "realistic". In other words, some 180 pound humans really can sustain 30 time the damage of other 180 pound humans, as if literally made of mithril or adamantite. Either survival will be unrealistically deadly for low level characters, or unrealistically easy for high-level characters.

(2) In the system as it is, larger creatures will have an easier time surviving falling damage than small creatures simply because they tend to have more hit points. In reality it really is true that the bigger you are the harder you fall. When you hit the ground, gravity uses your own weight against you. Small creatures will tend to survive for 2 reasons: (a) they have greater structural strength relative to their weight; and (b) they will max out on their terminal velocity much sooner. So a domestic cat (with 2 hp per the MM) should probably take maximum damage at about 50 or 60 feet; but of course that will not be enough to save it from 5d6 damage. 1d6 per 10 feet is way too much for a falling cat, which actually has a fairly decent chance to survive such a 50' (or 100' or 200') fall, unlike a human being (no matter how skilled). An elephant would not stand a chance even from shorter falls; elephants don't jump for a reason. But in the game his 70-odd hit points give him an excellent chance of surviving even a 200 foot fall.

Any "realistic" solution would not base odds of survival on hit points totals.

[sir_argo]

Not saying this is right or wrong, but my DM does not cap falling damage. If you fall from 1000 feet, he says you'll take 100d6.

[Beelzebubba]

AD&D had 1d6 per 10' fallen per 10' fallen.

10' = 1d6
20' = 1d6 + 2d6
30' = 1d6 + 2d6 + 3d6
40' = 1d6 + 2d6 + 3d6 + 4d6 and so on.

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.se/2014/04/on-falling-damage.html

[Foxymew]

There's also the thought to remember that you're basically becoming heroes of old. I read someone basically compared level 10-12 to being Heracles level of power. Let alone what you attain at 20. You're not normal people by far. And it's not a normal world, but both fantastical.
I mean, would you think twice about Heracles surviving a jump down a mountain?
Of course, not everyone views it that way, but it's something to think about, at the least.

[Chilly Polly]

That's all very well for Hercules, Foxymew. But you still have not explained why my poor cat Fluffy has no chance of whatsoever of surviving a 50 foot fall.

It does not really make sense for survival to be based on hit points. Maybe Hercules can make strength saves and/or dex saves and/or con saves to help him survive enormous falls.

Not that I recall Hercules doing any falling in the myths. As I recall, some evil babe killed him with an itchy shirt, or something.

[Chilly Polly]

AD&D had 1d6 per 10' fallen per 10' fallen.

10' = 1d6
20' = 1d6 + 2d6
30' = 1d6 + 2d6 + 3d6
40' = 1d6 + 2d6 + 3d6 + 4d6 and so on.


Damage in the AD&D published rulebooks was 1d6 per 10' fallen. Gygax did try to update it to the above system in a Dragon Magazine article (claiming he had always personally used such a system), but it never caught on, in part because of those who pointed out that this was actually less realistic in terms of physics than the former system. A 50 foot fall does not cause 15 times the damage of a 10 foot fall. 5 times the damage is far closer to being accurate (and that's bad enough, when a 10 foot fall can often kill).

If you think this an improvement, please consider the poor cat, with her 2 hit points, who in the real world often really can survive 50-foot falls. Now she must roll 15d6 in damage.

It's an improvement when you want to challenge those 20 level fighters who are blithely leaping off cliffs, and shrugging it off after a short rest. But as a balanced global solution, applicable in a wide variety of characters, creatures, and contexts, it is not very good.

Sometimes you want to challenge high level characters, but it does not necessarily follow that you want low level characters to suffer instant death with no save.

[Chilly Polly]

Yep, baring cold, suffocation, and low pressure during the fall; the fall from outer space is survivable by a level 1 commoner. Because real people survive falls at terminal velocity.



Actually, they don't. Not really. Something has to occur to slow or absorb your fall, or you will die when you strike a flat unyielding surface at terminal velocity.

But circumstances can slow your fall. For instance, I could open my parachute, and my terminal velocity will become much lower.

Failing that, well, pray that OTHER circumstances conspire in your favor. Pray that you are attached to a piece of airplane debris, whose aerodynamic properties give it a lesser terminal velocity than normal. Then pray that your initial impact is to crash through a thick jungle canopy, which slows your fall without skewering you on branches or otherwise doing too much damage. Then pray that you land on something else that gradually absorbs your fall, like a steep slope composed of soft spongy turf.

Or, you can hope you first smash through a glass ceiling, land on a couch below, which in turn causes the rotten floorboards (rather than your bones) to give way, dumping you safely to the floor below.

[Beelzebubba]

Damage in AD&D was 1d6 per 10' fallen. Gygax did try to update it to the above system in a Dragon Magazine article, but it never caught on...

I stand corrected, thanks!


Sometimes you want to challenge high level characters, but it does not necessarily follow that you want low level characters to suffer instant death with no save.

Where did that come from? Any inference of 'wanting' here is all on you.

[Chilly Polly]

Where did that come from? Any inference of 'wanting' here is all on you.

Ok. Sometimes I want to challenge high level characters.

But I don't see the problem of speaking generally. I'm sure I'm not the only one whose just a little bit bothered by the barbarian who leaps off a 200 foot cliff onto the rocks below, secure in the knowledge that the fall cannot possibly kill him, because he has more than 120 hit points.

The question is, how to fix it.

[Beelzebubba]

Ok. Sometimes I want to challenge high level characters.

OK, I was a bit defensive and took some umbrage about the 'killing low level characters with no save' thing. I thought that was a 'hostile DM' accusation. Sorry.


But I don't see the problem of speaking generally. I'm sure I'm not the only one whose just a little bit bothered by the barbarian who leaps off a 200 foot cliff onto the rocks below, secure in the knowledge that the fall cannot possibly kill him, because he has more than 120 hit points.

The question is, how to fix it.

Yeah, it is a toughie.

I do think there is a time and a place for things that are incredibly dangerous, as 'final set piece battles', or hazards that force characters to act differently. I tire of a D&D that is always *just* this side or that of level appropriate. But it's not about killing people for the sake of it.

[TrinculoLives]

It's an improvement when you want to challenge those 20 level fighters who are blithely leaping off cliffs, and shrugging it off after a short rest. But as a balanced global solution, applicable in a wide variety of characters, creatures, and contexts, it is not very good.

Sometimes you want to challenge high level characters, but it does not necessarily follow that you want low level characters to suffer instant death with no save.
Arrogant player: "Ha, Durb the Fighter leaps off the 800 foot cliff. It's a shortcut!"

DM: "Ohhh... bad luck for Durb, Beshaba the goddess of misfortune frowns at your disregard and you land in quick-sand."

Problem solved!

[Chilly Polly]

Arrogant player: "Ha, Durb the Fighter leaps off the 800 foot cliff. It's a shortcut!"

DM: "Ohhh... bad luck for Durb, Beshaba the goddess of misfortune frowns at your disregard and you land in quick-sand."

Problem solved!

Wouldn't it be simpler just to have him go "splat"?

"Oops, the goddess of fortune that usually grants miracles to 20th level fighters took a day off today, as she is annoyed by your hubris. No miraculous updraft protects you. No hollow sinkhole collapses at your landing spot, cushioning your fall. You go splatt! You die."

[Sabeta]

Note: AFAICT at least FIVE people have lived through being ejected from an aircraft at high altitude without a chute. Just how many people do you think actually GET ejected from planes at high altitude over land (a fair number actually, but thousands not millions)? 81d6 of damage is appropriate for something that probably has a 1/1000 or so survival rate for normal people in the real world?

There was also a case where a guy was knocked unconscious before being sucked into a Tornado, and was ejected out over a mile. He survived with only minor scrapes and bruises. Apparently, being unconscious meant his muscles couldn't tense against the force of the landing, which is how most of the damage from a fall is done.

[Zalabim]

Or, you can hope you first smash through a glass ceiling, land on a couch below, which in turn causes the rotten floorboards (rather than your bones) to give way, dumping you safely to the floor below.
Oh no, not a couch. Van Helsing tells me that landing on a soft couch is instant death.

[Chilly Polly]

There was also a case where a guy was knocked unconscious before being sucked into a Tornado, and was ejected out over a mile. He survived with only minor scrapes and bruises. Apparently, being unconscious meant his muscles couldn't tense against the force of the landing, which is how most of the damage from a fall is done.

Being unconscious will not protect you from going "splat" when you hit hard ground at 122 plus miles per hour. If anything, it will cause you to hit the ground faster, at a higher terminal velocity, as you cannot adopt a skydivers' pose.

In this case, a more plausible explanation is available. The wind was powerful enough to lift him off the ground. Presumably, it was also powerful enough to slow his descent.

[McNinja]

Being unconscious will not protect you from going "splat" when you hit hard ground at 122 plus miles per hour. If anything, it will cause you to hit the ground faster, at a higher terminal velocity, as you cannot adopt a skydivers' pose.

In this case, a more plausible explanation is available. The wind was powerful enough to lift him off the ground. Presumably, it was also powerful enough to slow his descent. Actually, no, it is entirely plausible. There was an entire show about it in the science channel a few years ago. Bones bend up to an inch and that allowed the survivor to escape with minor wounds. Same with the flight attendant who fell 30,000 feet.

[Sabeta]

Actually, no, it is entirely plausible. There was an entire show about it in the science channel a few years ago. Bones bend up to an inch and that allowed the survivor to escape with minor wounds. Same with the flight attendant who fell 30,000 feet.

Yeah pretty much. That might be what I'm thinking of actually. The bones are extremely durable, the biggest reason they break is because you muscles hold the bone still while force is applied to them. The unconcious man was completely relaxed, so his bones weren't being constricted by muscles. At least, that's how I remember it in High School Anatomy, which was like 8 years ago.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

My 2 CP:

Ask your players what would they prefer. If they want a more "realistic" world, either don't cap the damage or (considering terminal velocity is a thing), keep it the same, but if the uncapped damage would hit 40d6, they just die, no save.

Also keep in mind, according to some friends on the Enworld site, a PC should fall 1000 ft in 6 seconds, if you need a rate of fall.

[Lombra]

Please think of the monk: you would hinder his slow fall which is one of the reasons he can be so mobile.

[Saiga]

Ok. Sometimes I want to challenge high level characters.

But I don't see the problem of speaking generally. I'm sure I'm not the only one whose just a little bit bothered by the barbarian who leaps off a 200 foot cliff onto the rocks below, secure in the knowledge that the fall cannot possibly kill him, because he has more than 120 hit points.

The question is, how to fix it.

Chunky Salsa rule: (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChunkySalsaRule) "Any situation that would reduce a character's head to the consistency of chunky salsa dip is fatal, regardless of other rules."

You could also use the System Shock rules from the 5E DMG, and modify it to be more deadly.

[McNinja]

Just scale falling damage as the book says, and do it multiple times if you have to. There's nothing wrong with having a creature take 21d6 damage for falling 210 feet.

If you're looking to penalize a player for being gamist and jumping off a 200 foot cliff at 20th level because they know that either way they'll survive, you can do one of the following:
1- Just double the damage.
2 - Make them take a level or three of exhaustion. Barring them having some epic boon that negates that.
3 - Have the damage they take reduce their max health by that much until they either receive enough healing to cover the fall damage (so if a fighter with 300 hp took 150 fall damage, they'd have to get 150pts of healing done before their max health goes back up to 300 - it doesn't go up as healing is done, just when enough healing covers the gap) or take a long rest.

[Unoriginal]

Ok. Sometimes I want to challenge high level characters.

But I don't see the problem of speaking generally. I'm sure I'm not the only one whose just a little bit bothered by the barbarian who leaps off a 200 foot cliff onto the rocks below, secure in the knowledge that the fall cannot possibly kill him, because he has more than 120 hit points.

The question is, how to fix it.


High level characters are exactly the kind of beings that can survive that kind of things.

A top-level Barbarian is super-humanly tough, why would they not be allowed to survive that?



Wouldn't it be simpler just to have him go "splat"?

"Oops, the goddess of fortune that usually grants miracles to 20th level fighters took a day off today, as she is annoyed by your hubris. No miraculous updraft protects you. No hollow sinkhole collapses at your landing spot, cushioning your fall. You go splatt! You die."

"Sorry, player, I f***ing hate that your character is powerful. Now create an arbitrarily weak character, or I'll have to do it again."


Do you also object to level 20 Fighters having enough HP to survive a Meteor Swarm?

[Laurefindel]

200ft falls and 20th level characters are both extremes; they work well together.

I'm more concerned about a more 'common' 30ft fall situation, which is easily survivable by all characters except perhaps level 1 or 2, and becomes a negligible amount of damage for mid-level martials.

Most people would hesitate jumping down 15ft, let alone 30ft. I have no problem with 3d6 as a damage value within a hit point system paradigm, but characters casually jumping down 30ft without even a second thought make me cringe...

[Foxymew]

That's all very well for Hercules, Foxymew. But you still have not explained why my poor cat Fluffy has no chance of whatsoever of surviving a 50 foot fall.

It does not really make sense for survival to be based on hit points. Maybe Hercules can make strength saves and/or dex saves and/or con saves to help him survive enormous falls.

Not that I recall Hercules doing any falling in the myths. As I recall, some evil babe killed him with an itchy shirt, or something.

Unless I've missed something here, Fluffy is not a level 10 fighter, is he? What I've explained is how high level PCs can survive stuff. They're supernatural, in the end.
And unless you've got a really skilled cat, I don't see how it applies to my scenario here. Though cats have been known to survive some pretty harsh falls.
There are more heroes of ancient lore than Heracles. He was just an example, because everyone knows about him.
You can't really take real life logic into everything of D&D, I mean, if you want to take that approach, put platemail on your wizzard. It's not that heavy. Like, the heaviest armors were bit over half what modern soldiers carry in gear. You literally need no training to use it and it doesn't actually slow you down or reduce your agility much at all... In real life. As a HEMA fan, you don't see me complaining that dual wielding is dumb, and bows should use strength and not dexterity. That studded leather is only useful as a fashion statement. Other than now, of course, but that hardly counts.
In the end, the creators took liberties in certain places, and I guess some people don't like the liberties because it doesn't mesh with their own vision of things. But hey, good thing that 5e is very much suited for DM fiat and whatnot, so one can change what one wishes to fit with one's own vision of the world.

Hell, I've heard plenty campaigns in different roleplaying games (including D&D, I believe) were, at the end levels, you literally overthrow gods and replace them.

[Chilly Polly]

Do you also object to level 20 Fighters having enough HP to survive a Meteor Swarm?

It is relatively easy to imagine that a meteor swarm only delivers a glancing blow, due to a combination of luck and skill in dodging the impact. It is relatively hard to imagine that the hard ground beneath you delivers a glancing blow.

[Chilly Polly]

Unless I've missed something here, Fluffy is not a level 10 fighter, is he?

Exactly. In D&D, Fluffy cannot survive harsh falls, because he is not a 10th level fighter. In the real world, he often does survive harsh falls, because he is a cat. He has advantages, such as smaller size, and lower terminal velocity (aided by skin flaps) that allow him to survive where an elephant or a human could not.

And while Fluffy MIGHT die from a long fall, an even smaller animal, like a spider, is virtually guaranteed to survive.

Problem is that in D&D survival from falls depends on number of hit points, and number of hit points, in turn, have nothing to do with the factors that in the real world enable survival from harsh falls. In fact, D&D often gives more hit points for precisely those reasons (such as large size) that makes survival from falls more difficult.

[Chilly Polly]

There are more heroes of ancient lore than Heracles. He was just an example, because everyone knows about him.

Well, there's also Icarus ....

But I'm sure that somewhere there is an example that supports your position.

[Lombra]

Exactly. In D&D, Fluffy cannot survive harsh falls, because he is not a 10th level fighter. In the real world, he often does survive harsh falls, because he is a cat. He has advantages, such as smaller size, and lower terminal velocity (aided by skin flaps) that allow him to survive where an elephant or a human could not.

And while Fluffy MIGHT die from a long fall, an even smaller animal, like a spider, is virtually guaranteed to survive.

Problem is that in D&D survival from falls depends on number of hit points, and number of hit points, in turn, have nothing to do with the factors that in the real world enable survival from harsh falls. In fact, D&D often gives more hit points for precisely those reasons (such as large size) that makes survival from falls more difficult.

You know if something shouldn't die because of a fall, it shouldn't die, period. HPs are an abstraction made primarly for combat, so if an ant falls from the highest mountain in the realm to the deepest cave in the Underdark it shouldn't die because of the fall and that's a DM's call, same applies to many tiny beings such as mice and lizards. Falling damage is basically designed to force people prone after jumping 10 or more feet to gain tactical advantage during fights so that there's a risk vs reward when utilizing 3D movement to enhance combat depth, the added damage is just a rider to remind that what you did hurt and during fights 1-2 d6 can easily make a difference, specially at low levels. An high level PC shouldn't fear huge leaps because he has transcended normal resiliency, normal people would die after being bit by a giant crocodile, but sufficiently high level PCs can shrug it off easily, is that different in any ways from falling damage?

[Luvia]

Ok. Sometimes I want to challenge high level characters.

But I don't see the problem of speaking generally. I'm sure I'm not the only one whose just a little bit bothered by the barbarian who leaps off a 200 foot cliff onto the rocks below, secure in the knowledge that the fall cannot possibly kill him, because he has more than 120 hit points.

The question is, how to fix it.

Or in theory he only needs 61 hp if hes raging

[Chilly Polly]

You know if something shouldn't die because of a fall, it shouldn't die, period.


Okay. In many ways that's better than the current system.



HPs are an abstraction made primarly for combat, ...


Right. So they are not particularly helpful in falling damage situations. Precisely my point.



... so if an ant falls from the highest mountain in the realm to the deepest cave in the Underdark it shouldn't die because of the fall and that's a DM's call, same applies to many tiny beings such as mice and lizards.


Why not apply it to humans? So if a 20th level barbarian jumps off a 200-foot cliff onto the rocks below, he dies, unless he just happens to land instead on the back of a giant eagle who was passing by, or an air elemental picks him up and deposits him safely on the ground. DM's call.



Falling damage is basically designed to force people prone after jumping 10 or more feet to gain tactical advantage during fights so that there's a risk vs reward when utilizing 3D movement to enhance combat depth, the added damage is just a rider to remind that what you did hurt and during fights 1-2 d6 can easily make a difference, specially at low levels.


Really? I'm pretty sure the classic application of the falling damage system was pit traps opening beneath party members.



An high level PC shouldn't fear huge leaps because he has transcended normal resiliency, ..."


Sure, if that's what the DM wants. Maybe he shouldn't fear anything at all. Why not make him completely invincible?



... normal people would die after being bit by a giant crocodile, but sufficiently high level PCs can shrug it off easily, is that different in any ways from falling damage?

I find nothing incredible about a normal human surviving a bite by a giant crocodile. It depends on circumstances, and it seems to me that it would require considerably less luck than surviving a 200 foot fall onto hard ground. In which case is it more plausible that one might take damage from a glancing blow?

The classic explanation for high level characters regularly surviving such bites is that a combination of skill, luck, etc., allows them avoid a full fatal bite and obtain these glancing blows in most circumstances ... until the end when their luck finally runs out. We were not formerly asked to assume that they were supernatural beings made of adamantite.

[Foxymew]

Well, there's also Icarus ....

But I'm sure that somewhere there is an example that supports your position.

You're taking me way too literally, I feel. I don't recall every single hero of old. Hell, I barely know anything about Greek ones, for starters. That's not my point to point at one specific hero and say "But they did it, so it's ok" it's that if it showed up in one of those kinds of stories, you probably wouldn't have had your disbelief suspended more than you all ready had. It wouldn't be that much more fantastical. Also, Greece isn't the only place that made heroes in their lore. Also, wasn't Icarus just a dumbass who flew too close to the sun so his wings melted? I really don't recall.
You're just taking one section of the rules that don't make as sense in real life, while there's a whole bunch of them, if you really want to. Like what I mentioned before. There's other things I've forgotten at the moment, but I seem to recall having heard some silly stuff.

[Chilly Polly]

You're taking me way too literally, I feel. I don't recall every single hero of old. Hell, I barely know anything about Greek ones, for starters.


They don't seem to have much to do with falling damage. If you agree, let's drop it.



That's not my point to point at one specific hero and say "But they did it, so it's ok" it's that if it showed up in one of those kinds of stories, you probably wouldn't have had your disbelief suspended more than you all ready had. It wouldn't be that much more fantastical.


I don't accept that there is an all or nothing rule when it comes to suspension of disbelief in fantastic fiction.



Also, Greece isn't the only place that made heroes in their lore.


Sure. But you still can't point to a relevant example.



Also, wasn't Icarus just a dumbass who flew too close to the sun so his wings melted?


Yeah. Rather like the dumbass barbarian who leaps from a 200 foot cliff, he was guilty of hubris.



You're just taking one section of the rules that don't make as sense in real life, while there's a whole bunch of them, if you really want to.


Yes, and there are a lot of threads on this forum. Should I check the thread title to make sure I'm in the right place?

[Chilly Polly]

Actually, no, it is entirely plausible. There was an entire show about it in the science channel a few years ago. Bones bend up to an inch and that allowed the survivor to escape with minor wounds. Same with the flight attendant who fell 30,000 feet.

Bones may bend up to an inch? Sure. Probably so. And this can be a factor in situations where you are NOT directly impacting concrete at 122 mph.

But what I told you still goes. If some science show told you otherwise it was mistaken. Other factors are necessary to explain the survival of your flight attendant.

[Chilly Polly]

My 2 CP:

Ask your players what would they prefer.

I think they'd prefer to survive, in most instances. And if I'm feeling nice I can always have a giant eagle catch them.



If they want a more "realistic" world, either don't cap the damage or (considering terminal velocity is a thing), keep it the same, but if the uncapped damage would hit 40d6, they just die, no save.


Doesn't do much to solve the problem of mid-level characters automatically surviving falls that would kill ordinary people.

As far as "realism" goes, I don't mind capping damage at 200 feet. I can always assume lower gravity and thicker atmosphere. The problem arises from their being able to automatically survive such 30 to 200 foot falls to begin with.

If I want a make a pit trap that is scary to high level characters, why should it have to be over 200 feet deep? Seems like overkill, as well as potentially awkward from a dungeon design standpoint.

[Ruslan]

But be carful because a martial character can survive that it 120 for max and 20 for min.A half-Orc can survive any fall if they have 61 hit points (achievable around level 6).

[Chilly Polly]

I'm more concerned about a more 'common' 30ft fall situation, which is easily survivable by all characters except perhaps level 1 or 2, and becomes a negligible amount of damage for mid-level martials.


Yes. This.



Most people would hesitate jumping down 15ft, let alone 30ft.


Even the former is a huge understatement. You don't want to drop 15 feet onto anything except deep water or a soft giant cushion.

[Lombra]

.
Why not apply it to humans? So if a 20th level barbarian jumps off a 200-foot cliff onto the rocks below, he dies, unless he just happens to land instead on the back of a giant eagle who was passing by, or an air elemental picks him up and deposits him safely on the ground. DM's call.

Well what I said covers the exact opposite part of the spectrum that you just described. Anyways if a character falls in some hazardous terrain (such as spikey rocks and the like) then it would suffer the additional damage from the terrain type as usual, or even instant death if the conditions make sense, like falling in an erupting volcano.


Really? I'm pretty sure the classic application of the falling damage system was pit traps opening beneath party members.

Not really. Pitfalls are generally used to inprison the players for a while, and pitfalls designed ti kill generally have creatures or spikes at their bottom.


Sure, if that's what the DM wants. Maybe he shouldn't fear anything at all. Why not make him completely invincible?

Maybe he should fear adeguate challenges? A level 11 PC shouldn't fear to die if he wants to jump off a casle or a building. Any player should play their own PC triyng to avoid any source of HP damage anyways, common sense shouldn't lead you to throw yourself out of the window over using stairs to get to the ground from the top of a tower.


I find nothing incredible about a normal human surviving a bite by a giant crocodile. It depends on circumstances, and it seems to me that it would require considerably less luck than surviving a 200 foot fall onto hard ground. In which case is it more plausible that one might take damage from a glancing blow?

A giant crocodile is a huge beast (15ft×15ft) in the MM which could swallow a normal human being in one bite, I think you were referring to some other giant crocodiles because that thing surely leaves no chances to a commoner.


The classic explanation for high level characters regularly surviving such bites is that a combination of skill, luck, etc., allows them avoid a full fatal bite and obtain these glancing blows in most circumstances ... until the end when their luck finally runs out. We were not formerly asked to assume that they were supernatural beings made of adamantite.

One could see HPs in many ways, surviving a 500 ft fall (which only characters with >70 HPs could (statistically) even attempt to survive, a fairly high value if you ask me) could mean that you glided, that you were sturdy enaugh to withstand the impact, that soft terrain deformed as you hit it so that the fall wouldn't be fatal. White room simulations find no place in D&D, there will always be envirorment around you that you can use to justify heroic actions and luck strikes.

Some good rules are written in the DMG like the system shock ones, which I would apply to falling damage.

P.S: a mere fall is actually a very bad way to kill a mid level PC, a fall in an hazardous terrain with monsters around is a far more adeguate way to kill powerful PCs.

Edit: D&D 5th edition is pretty bad at simulations so why don't we just let it alone and play and have fun with it as intended? What's wrong in an epic character falling from the skies, stompinng on the ground creating a tiny crater to then get up and fight a horde of demons alongside his allies?

[Chilly Polly]

Well what I said covers the exact opposite part of the spectrum that you just described. Anyways if a character falls in some hazardous terrain (such as spikey rocks and the like) then it would suffer the additional damage from the terrain type as usual, or even instant death if the conditions make sense, like falling in an erupting volcano.


I never mentioned spikey rocks. Just rocks. Pretty much the standard dungeon surface. Not that packed earth should make too much difference in such cases.



Not really. Pitfalls are generally used to imprison the players for a while, and pitfalls designed to kill generally have creatures or spikes at their bottom.


Well, I guess it would have to be that way in a universe where a 30-foot pit cannot possibly do the party any serious damage. But it was not always this way. Time was when a 1st, 2nd and 3rd level fighter might have 5, 9, and 13 hp respectively, or perhaps even less. And death occurred at 0 hit points. It's not that hard to roll a 13 on a 3d6. And to seriously threaten 4th level characters you could throw spikes at the bottom of the 30' pit and do 4d6. It wasn't perfect by any means, but, at least for low level characters, it was by no means as silly as it is now.



Maybe he should fear adequate challenges? A level 11 PC shouldn't fear to die if he wants to jump off a castle or a building.


Why not? Conan would have certainly feared to die. Aragorn would have certainly feared to die. It depends on what you're going for. Is it a superhero comic, or something more in the mold of classic fantasy?



A giant crocodile is a huge beast (15ft×15ft) in the MM which could swallow a normal human being in one bite, I think you were referring to some other giant crocodiles because that thing surely leaves no chances to a commoner.


This is self-evidently true, since the commoner has 4 hp and the Giant Crocodile bites for a minimum of 8.

In the real world, the croc's bite is not particularly known for causing instant death, even when the prey is much smaller. The big problem is that once it grabs you, you can't get away.

Of course, part of the issue here is the commoner is ridiculously underpowered compared to everything else in the game. Almost any other medium sized creature would have some chance, however small, of surviving that initial bite. In my campaign, ordinary commoners have 2 hit dice, like almost everyone else their size. Therefore, my commoners potentially could survive a giant croc's bite.



One could see HPs in many ways, surviving a 500 ft fall (which only characters with >70 HPs could (statistically) even attempt to survive, a fairly high value if you ask me) could mean that you glided, that you were sturdy enaugh to withstand the impact, that soft terrain deformed as you hit it so that the fall wouldn't be fatal. White room simulations find no place in D&D, there will always be envirorment around you that you can use to justify heroic actions and luck strikes.


Sure. And like I said, the DM can always find a way to be merciful. But the classic pit trap is pretty close to your "white room simulation". No-one is going to put soft cushions at the bottom of their death traps, or line the sides with tree branches to slow your fall.



Edit: D&D 5th edition is pretty bad at simulations so why don't we just let it alone and play and have fun with it as intended? What's wrong in an epic character falling from the skies, stompinng on the ground creating a tiny crater to then get up and fight a horde of demons alongside his allies?

Nothing. Knock yourself out. Just realize that not everyone has to like it this way.

[MrFahrenheit]

My biggest gripe with falling damage in 5e isn't so much the d6 but that it caps off at all. Fall from 200 feet? 20d6. Fall from 2000 feet? 20d6. One of the few things I liked from 4e were the falling rules. Perhaps I'll houserule them in, mixing the two editions. My idea:
Fall from 10-200 feet: as is.
Fall from 201-250 feet: 20d6+25
251-300: 20d6+50
301-350: 20d6+75
Etc etc...

[MrStabby]

I wonder how sensible it would be to use the falling rules as the basis for damage for running into things?

2d6 corresponds to damage from falling from 20 to 30 ft, which corresponds to a speed of x ft per 6 seconds. Run into something with that speed and you do yourself and the thing you run into 2d6 damage?

Given the speeds PCs can reach with dash actions, bonus actions and speed buffs I would expect to be able to crash into things faster than the minimum falling speed needed to sustain damage. 60Km per hour is certainly attainable.

[Ruslan]

My biggest gripe with falling damage in 5e isn't so much the d6 but that it caps off at all.
Terminal Velocity is a thing in real life too. Falling from 10 km and falling from 500 meters is absolutely identical in terms of velocity (and damage). Although, TBH, to better emulate real world physics, it should probably cap off around 1000', not 200'.

But maybe the air in D&D-universe is a bit denser than we're used to on Earth. In that case, it does make sense for falling damage to cap off at 200'.

[MrStabby]

Terminal Velocity is a thing in real life too. Falling from 10 km and falling from 500 meters is absolutely identical in terms of velocity (and damage). Although, TBH, to better emulate real world physics, it should probably cap off around 1000', not 200'.

But maybe the air in D&D-universe is a bit denser than we're used to on Earth. In that case, it does make sense for falling damage to cap off at 200'.

Hmm. Now it has been a long time since I studied this... NSE and all that. My instinct tells me that if you were to increase both viscosity and density of air by about 15% you would get a pretty big change in the height from which you would hit 90% of terminal velocity.

It would kind of work - not too much difference to a lot of game effects but a big difference to falling damage.

[Ruslan]

Hmm. Now it has been a long time since I studied this... NSE and all that. My instinct tells me that if you were to increase both viscosity and density of air by about 15% you would get a pretty big change in the height from which you would hit 90% of terminal velocity.

It would kind of work - not too much difference to a lot of game effects but a big difference to falling damage.

By the way, a denser air could also explain why dragons can fly.

[Chilly Polly]

I wonder how sensible it would be to use the falling rules as the basis for damage for running into things?


Depends on what is more likely to give way, the thing you run into or your bones. But sure, running into a brick wall is not a good idea, especially as you'll be hitting it with your face rather than your feet. Running into another person is likely to be less damaging, as you will both share the impact more or less equally.



2d6 corresponds to damage from falling from 20 to 30 ft, which corresponds to a speed of x ft per 6 seconds.


After falling 20 feet, you are traveling at 35.77 feet per second or about 25 mph, or about 215 feet for 6 seconds.

Usain Bolt can reach sprint speeds of 25 mph. But I'm sure if he ran at that speed straight into an unyielding brick wall, he's be in serious trouble.

[Laurefindel]

Conan would have certainly feared to die (jumping off a castle). Aragorn would have certainly feared to die. It depends on what you're going for. Is it a superhero comic, or something more in the mold of classic fantasy?

This

Things falling to their death (or fear of falling to one's death) is pretty big staple of fantasy. The bad guy always falls down in the end, only to come back later as everyone though he would be dead. That's why I don't have a problem with falling damage rule per se; the fall damage isn't there to kill you, just to pose as a threat. However, I do have a problem with players metagaming this low damage into something that they know their characters can easily survive (in terms of hp).

For the records, I have the same problem with players allowing the executioner to behead them knowing that 'it will only deal 2d12+5 damage', or blatantly ignoring the five ambushed crossbowmen knowing they can easily survive those attacks.

[MrStabby]

This thread just serves to remind me how much I hate the Imperial measurement system. One day I would like to see D&D published using more civilised units. Kg/S/m would be favourite but at least cubits would be cool.

[Seafarer]

How about, 'You're going in the right direction, but you might want to think about...'

or, 'I don't really see how you arrived at those figures.'

...rather than going on about getting it seriously wrong. Because *you* are getting it wrong, and behaving like a conceited contemptuous windbag while you do.

You are right that terminal velocity will kick in at about 500 feet, but that is for a medium creature. It will be greater for larger creatures owing to their smaller surface area to volume ratio. You are decidedly wrong to change the laws of physics when working out the energy of a moving body: kinetic energy = 1/2 mv^2. So the energy and hence the damage increases arithmetically not linearly as you say. The approach taken in D&D is linear and so not as realistic as this one.

As to your point A, all the data are calculated for the end of each second. At the end of each second, we know how far the creature has fallen, we can work out its speed (the distance fallen in the last second), and we know its energy (which as you see increases in proportion to the square of the speed). Your idea of working out the speed half way through the first second just chooses a different reference point, and a less convenient one at that.

The energy units are merely notional, but they can be used to work out the correct scaling of damage to distance fallen.

Please don't be so quick to tell people they're wrong.

While I appreciate you calling out Doug Lampert's rudeness, I feel like I should correct you on a few points.

The kinetic energy formula you present is of little use in this comparison, because it doesn't connect energy to distance traveled. In this case, Doug Lampert is correct to use the gravitational potential energy formula, E = mgh, where E is energy change and h is distance traveled. From conservation of energy, the change in gravitational potential energy should be equal to the change in kinetic energy, at least until air resistance reaches the point where a significant quantity of the potential energy turns into heat instead.

As far as knowing how far the creature has fallen goes, Doug Lampert is correct that Koningkrush calculated it incorrectly. The formula to calculate this is s = ut + 0.5*a*t^2, where s is displacement, u is initial velocity (0 in this case), and a and t are self-explanatory. Thus, the distance fallen in the first second is indeed 5 metres, not 10. I don't know where you got the 'idea of working out the speed halfway through the first second' from, because that isn't what's happening.

Before you tell somebody that they're wrong, do make sure you know what they were actually saying.

[Chilly Polly]

Being a neanderthal who uses older measurements, the formula I am accustomed to is that (ignoring wind resistance) an object will fall 16t-squared feet per second, and will be traveling at a speed of 32t, where t is the number of seconds elapsed, so

After_______Has Fallen_____And is now traveling
1 second......16 feet...............32 feet per second
2 second......64 feet...............64 feet per second
3 second......144 feet.............96 feet per second

etc. etc. The rule of thumb I have been taught to use for damage (which I understand is commonly applied in the case of car accidents) is that damage equals the speed squared. For instance, double speed creates four times the damage, and triple speed results in nine time the damage. This is because at double speed, your body or your car has half the time to absorb twice the kinetic energy. Breaking this down for every 10 feet results in the following:

After_____Has fallen__Is now traveling__Takes Damage
0.79 secs......10 ft...........25.25 ft./sec.................x
1.12 secs.......20 ft..........35.77 ft./sec.................2x
1.37 secs.......30 ft..........43.82 ft./sec.................3x
1.58 secs.......40 ft..........50.59 ft./sec..................4x

Etc. etc. This formula could be extended indefinitely if there were no wind resistance. I understand wind resistance is not a significant factor at these low levels, but it eventually becomes significant.

Terminal velocity, in the lower atmosphere, for a skydiver seeking to maximize his wind resistance by falling belly to the wind, is about 122 mph or 179 feet per second. In other words, he is going about 7.09 times faster than he was after falling only 10 feet. If we square that figure, we conclude that upon impact, he will sustain about 50 times the damage as he would after a mere 10 foot fall.

[Ruslan]

Terminal velocity, in the lower atmosphere, for a skydiver seeking to maximize his wind resistance by falling belly to the wind, is about 122 mph or 179 feet per second. In other words, he is going about 7.09 times faster than he was after falling only 10 feet. If we square that figure, we conclude that upon impact, he will sustain about 50 times the damage as he would after a mere 10 foot fall.Good calculation, but it only holds if the air density and gravitational pull of the Earth are the same in D&D-verse as in the real world. They don't have to be. Maybe the air in Faerun is denser, maybe the planet is smaller (less gravity) and so on.

[Mellack]

I believe that the standard gravity of the D&D world is less than Earth. That accounts for dragons flying and giants not being crushed by their own weight.

[DKing9114]

My group plans on using an old ruling I found online, particularly after I mentioned that my character could airdrop and stand back up. You can make an Athletics check to reduce or avoid falling damage under 20 feet, but the scale is
10 feet=1d6
20 feet=3d6
30 feet=6d6
40 feet=10d6
etc

[Orion3T]

Being a neanderthal who uses older measurements, the formula I am accustomed to is that (ignoring wind resistance) an object will fall 16t-squared feet per second, and will be traveling at a speed of 32t, where t is the number of seconds elapsed, so

After_______Has Fallen_____And is now traveling
1 second......16 feet...............32 feet per second
2 second......64 feet...............64 feet per second
3 second......144 feet.............96 feet per second

etc. etc. The rule of thumb I have been taught to use for damage (which I understand is commonly applied in the case of car accidents) is that damage equals the speed squared. For instance, double speed creates four times the damage, and triple speed results in nine time the damage. This is because at double speed, your body or your car has half the time to absorb twice the kinetic energy. Breaking this down for every 10 feet results in the following:

After_____Has fallen__Is now traveling__Takes Damage
0.79 secs......10 ft...........25.25 ft./sec.................x
1.12 secs.......20 ft..........35.77 ft./sec.................2x
1.37 secs.......30 ft..........43.82 ft./sec.................3x
1.58 secs.......40 ft..........50.59 ft./sec..................4x

Etc. etc. This formula could be extended indefinitely if there were no wind resistance. I understand wind resistance is not a significant factor at these low levels, but it eventually becomes significant.

Terminal velocity, in the lower atmosphere, for a skydiver seeking to maximize his wind resistance by falling belly to the wind, is about 122 mph or 179 feet per second. In other words, he is going about 7.09 times faster than he was after falling only 10 feet. If we square that figure, we conclude that upon impact, he will sustain about 50 times the damage as he would after a mere 10 foot fall.

In metric:

g = 9.81 ~ 10 ms^-2

Also for displacement of an accelerating body:

s = ut + (at^2)/2 in this case u = 0.

So:

1s -> 5 m -> 10 m/s
2s -> 20 m -> 20 m/s
3s -> 45 m -> 30 m/s

Ek = 1/2 mv^2 = mgh in this case. E = mgh is by far the easiest approach here because we don't really care about the distance of speed - the damage is done because the kinetic energy of the falling body must be absorbed, which means the floor must do work on the body in order to decelerate it. It's the extreme force required to cause this deceleration which causes damage.

W = Fd

Where W is the work done (kinetic energy absorbed in this case), F is the force and d is the distance over which the work is done. Since it's generally the (maximum) force F which we care about, this is best rearranged to:

F = W/d = mgh/d

Where h is the heights fallen, m is the mass, d is the distance over which the impact is absorbed (some combination of the body compressing and the floor 'giving').

This relationship reflects most of what we know about falls from everyday life - higher falls hurt more. Lighter creatures take falls better (Elephants fare worse than Humans who fare worse than cats who fare worse than spiders, which can pretty much fall from any height). And falling on something soft can make a huge difference because it means the difference between absorbing the impact over maybe 6 inches (if you land flat on your back or front) vs 3 feet if you land on a crash mat.

I didn't touch on air resistance because it depends massively on the properties of the falling object and is quite complex since it's a deceleration which increases with speed. I recall modelling it in my 2nd year study, but can't do it off the top of my head.

Good luck ruling that lot!

I think to sum up - for a particular creature, the damage will be approximately linear with height, up to a certain point. So the rule given isn't an unreasonable approximation in a 'high fantasy' environment, which is default for D&D!

[Chilly Polly]

Good calculation, but it only holds if the air density and gravitational pull of the Earth are the same in D&D-verse as in the real world. They don't have to be. Maybe the air in Faerun is denser, maybe the planet is smaller (less gravity) and so on.

Absolutely.

Another reason why I don't much sweat about whether or not to cap damage at 200 feet is because it is not particularly helpful to determining the survival of a human faller. Where x is the amount of damage you take after a 10 foot fall, the difference between 10x, 20x and 50x is academic. In all 3 cases you are DEAD! What is most unrealistic about the D&D falling damage system is not that it caps damage too early, but that this has become relevant at all.

I realize people have survived long falls, but on examination it generally turns out that their survival was for reasons that render the formula irrelevant. For instance, if you are attached to a large piece of airplane debris that provides significant air resistance, you are not going to fall as fast. It is not as nearly as good as being attached to an open parachute, but the principle is the same. The airplane debris then shields you from being skewered by branches as you crash through tree tops, replicating the effect of a 100 foot high giant cushion. The only thing one can say about such situations is that the formula does not apply.

But one area where lower terminal velocity (on an alternate world with lower gravity and/or higher air density) might have a real effect is on falling into water. It is actually possible (however unlikely) to survive a fall into water off the Golden Gate Bridge, which is over 200 feet high. If this speed of such impacts were one's terminal velocity (as might potentially be the case on an alternate world not too different from our own), one could potentially survive a fall into water from ANY height (which in our world is not the case).

[Unoriginal]

It is relatively easy to imagine that a meteor swarm only delivers a glancing blow, due to a combination of luck and skill in dodging the impact. It is relatively hard to imagine that the hard ground beneath you delivers a glancing blow.

What about being super-humanly tough and being able to reception themselves pretty well?

[Chilly Polly]

I believe that the standard gravity of the D&D world is less than Earth. That accounts for dragons flying and giants not being crushed by their own weight.

As an alternative (or supplement) to such an idea, imagine a world where everything is on a half scale. Humans are 3 feet tall, and halflings are 1.5 feet tall. Of course, they don't know this. The humans think of themselves as 6-footers as they measure themselves by their own feet. On such a world, our coyotes would be their wolves and our wolves would be their giant wolves. Our caimans would be their crocodiles and our crocodiles would be their giant crocodiles. Not much different from standard D&D.

Falling damage would be much less deadly. Not only would the greater relative structural strength of their smaller, lighter bodies be much better at resisting the impact of a 10' fall, but they would actually perceive these 10' falls as 20' falls. And what they perceived as a 10' fall would in fact be only 5 feet.

At one time, as small children, we all lived in a very similar world.

[Chilly Polly]

What about being super-humanly tough and being able to reception themselves pretty well?

Then the type of fantasy you are going for is closer to superhero fantasy than classic fantasy. Which is fine, if that is what you are going for. Personally, I don't like it when high-level heroes effectively become an entirely different order of being than lesser mortals.

[Malifice]

It's also worth putting it explicitly that those 5 or so people are all commoners to use the monster's manual term. They have a 10(+0) constitution, no levels, and 4 (1d8) HP. 4HP and they survived.

They could have been guards or thugs or such. 11 HP is all it takes to survive a 10,000' fall.

The DM rolls all 1's on his 20d6. This knocks you to 0 (but doesnt kill you outright). Now all you need to do is make your 3 stabilization checks.

[War Lonk]

If I use water whip (monk elemental) from an elivated position and the target falls, do I get an attack of opportunity?

[nickl_2000]

If I use water whip (monk elemental) from an elevated position and the target falls, do I get an attack of opportunity?

No, as AoOs only happen when moving out of your space in a way that consumes the targets movement points for their turn.

[NNescio]

Ok. Sometimes I want to challenge high level characters.

But I don't see the problem of speaking generally. I'm sure I'm not the only one whose just a little bit bothered by the barbarian who leaps off a 200 foot cliff onto the rocks below, secure in the knowledge that the fall cannot possibly kill him, because he has more than 120 hit points.

The question is, how to fix it.

Said Barbarian can also flex his muscles to stop sword blows (Unarmored Defense keyed to Con). Just suspend your disbelief willingly.

No need to nerf martials even more and make them even more reliant on casters (for Fly and Featherfall). High-level martials should be capable of doing things like jumping on a dragon and riding it bareback while whacking it all the way without fear of instadeath if they get knocked off.

Guy at the Gym, etc. etc. I'm sure Pex can put this far more eloquently.

[Chilly Polly]

They could have been guards or thugs or such. 11 HP is all it takes to survive a 10,000' fall.

The DM rolls all 1's on his 20d6. This knocks you to 0 (but doesnt kill you outright). Now all you need to do is make your 3 stabilization checks.

The odds or rolling all 1s on a 20d6 are infinitissimal.

More reasonably, though, a commoner can survive a long fall if someone casts "feather fall" on him and the spell gives out only 30 feet above the surface. This would be more closely analogous to real life survival stories, since in almost all cases, it appears upon closer examination that something slowed the person's fall, such as a malfunctioning (but still partially-functioning) parachute, or a large piece of airplane debris to which the person was attached.

In those very small number of cases where an adult person survived true free fall, and actually achieved terminal velocity, the answer seems to be extreme cushioning, such as the giant flexible net (on 160-foot poles) that caught Luke Aikins in a planned stunt. Basically, you need to be decelerated over a sufficient distance to avoid extreme damage. When this has occurred by accident, the explanation seems to involve sliding down very steep snow-covered slopes and/or crashing through a series of snow-covered pine tree branches into deep snow. Or to put it another way, a commoner can survive free fall if the DM arranges for a giant to catch him evenly, beginning the catch high and stopping it low.

For that commoner who falls 100 feet or more onto hard dungeon floors, without any such fortunate interventions, it is perfectly reasonable that he die 100.00% of the time.

[Laurefindel]

Said Barbarian can also flex his muscles to stop sword blows (Unarmored Defense keyed to Con). Just suspend your disbelief willingly.

That would be the "superhero" way of interpreting it, which as said above, is a perfectly valid way of playing the game, but those who have issue with the falling damage rules will probably not interpret the barbarian's CON bonus to AC as such.

Suspension of disbelief has different limits for different people and for different play styles. Most D&D rules can be interpreted differently depending how you describe it. Falling damage is one of the rules that is harder to described in a more 'realistic' or 'down to earth' way.

[Chilly Polly]

Said Barbarian can also flex his muscles to stop sword blows (Unarmored Defense keyed to Con). Just suspend your disbelief willingly.


No difficulty. Stopping sword blows with your muscles is called parrying, etc. Just imagine that barbarians are particularly good at it, like Conan, and the problem is solved.



No need to nerf martials even more and make them even more reliant on casters (for Fly and Featherfall). High-level martials should be capable of doing things like jumping on a dragon and riding it bareback while whacking it all the way without fear of instadeath if they get knocked off.


That's hardly self evident. Just as its not self-evident that martials ought to be able to fly like Superman. Just as it's not self-evident that modern war heroes ought to be able to fly in airplanes without worrying about parachutes in case something goes wrong. But if that's how you feel, a perfectly viable option is to let him obtain a suit of +3 armor (or whatever) that has Feather Fall as one if its built-in defenses.

[Lombra]

Chilly, in my opinion the rules are fine, because they promote much more heroic actions, as I see it PCs transcend normal capabilities, otherwise they wouldn't be heroes. But if you prefer a much more realistc approach to damage caused by phisical phenomena like gravity, it's very easy to houserule more damage taken by falling, or more damage dealt by falling objects, D&D isn't good at simulations, so you should consider just tweaking numbers without worrying about what would it phisically mean if we were in the real world. For the falling damage, if you want to keep it significant, consider the following options that I'd like to propose to you:
- simply double it, it will become significant for example at 30ft for 6d6. Although as I pointed out earlier in the thread, the monk's slow fall would get hurt if falling damage increases, and slow fall is a big thing for monk, trust me. If you decide to double the damage, consider doubling slow fall's damage mitigation too.
-add together the former two damage/distance to the damage that you should calculate, for example: if you fall 30ft with this method, you would suffer 6d6 damage ((1 + 2 + 3 )d6), if you fall from 40ft, you take 9d6 damage ((2+3+4)d6). This doesn't grow exponentially fast, but it should give the same feel to the players. This becomes complicated for the monk to balance, doubling the mitigation only helps of a couple tens of feet, maybe making it scale with proficiency could help.
-squaring the damages will go out of hand quickly, we should remember that HPs aren't just phisical damage, but a mix of what keeps you alive both phisically and psicologically. Having 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 91, 100... d6 of damage so early excessively hinders 3D movement in my opinion. It would be realistical, but not very coherent with the rest of the game, I mean a level 10 wizard without means to stop the falling could be reduced to 0HP if not killed outright for a 50 ft leap, and while it's true that's a lot, because it's a little less than a three stories building, the character is level 10, wat beyond the common conceptions of survivability.

PS: maybe to balance the monk you could make so that he follows the normal rules for falling damage for 10ft × monk level, so that he'll have a comfort zone, out of which he'll get massive damage, until he gets at level 20 where he actually can't die because of fallimg damage ever (in normal conditions)

[Chilly Polly]

The falling system I am developing is something more in the following lines:

Falling Damage.

Save DC = 10 + ½ Falling Distance in Feet:
10' fall = DC15
20' fall = DC20
30' fall = DC25
40' fall = DC30
50' fall = DC35
60' fall = DC40
70' fall = DC45
80' fall = DC50
90' fall = DC55
etc., etc.

DC stops increasing when terminal velocity is reached. This occurs at 50 feet for tiny creatures, 100 feet for small creatures, and 200 feet for medium creatures. Possibly, during the fall, the DM may make allow you a separate Wisdom (survival) save to slow or direct your fall by hitting ledges and objects, or direct your fall toward a soft landing (snow-covered fir tree) with a success lowering the final DC by an appropriate amount (depending on circumstances).

Finally, make a d20 save, adding your Constitution, Dexterity + Proficiency Modifiers.

Modifiers to Your Roll
Magical AC Bonus:. . . +1 each (or more?).
Small/Tiny Size:. . . . . +5/+10.
Large/Huge Size:. . . . .–5 /–10.
Jagged Surface:. . . . . .–10 (wooden spikes)
Soft Surface:. . . . . . . .+5 (earth/grass) to
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+15 (deep snow) to
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . +40 (deep water).
Variable Surface:. . . . .+1d10, –1d10, etc.
Deep Snow+Slope:. . . +1d10x10 (+10 to +100)
Snow-covered Fir:. . . . +1d10x10 (+10 to +100).

Save Result. . . . .Result
success. . . . . . . Take no damage
fail by 1-5. . . . . .Take 1d10 damage. If reduced to 0 hp,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . you instead have 1 hp.
fail by 6-10. . . . .Take 2d10 damage. If reduced to 0 hp.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . you are automatically alive and stable.
fail by 11-15. . . .Take 3d10 damage. You cannot die
. . . . . . . . . . . . . outright.
fail by 16-20. . . .Take 4d10 damage.
fail by 21-25. . . .Take 5d10 damage, then lose any
. . . . . . . . . . . . . remaining hit points.
fail by 26-30. . . .Take 6d10 damage, lose any remaining
. . . . . . . . . . . . . hit points, and get 1 failed death save.
fail by 31-35. . . .Take 7d10 damage, lose any remaining
. . . . . . . . . . . . . hit points, and get 2 failed death saves
fail by 36+. . . . . You Die!

[Chilly Polly]

- simply double it ...


Not an option for me for reasons I already gave earlier in the thread.



.... the monk's slow fall would get hurt if falling damage increases, and slow fall is a big thing for monk, trust me.


I'm not currently running any monks in my campaign, so I'm not really worried about them. I have no strong opinions as to what their mystical powers ought to be.



... I mean a level 10 wizard without means to stop the falling could be reduced to 0HP if not killed outright for a 50 ft leap, ...


I simply don't see a problem here. Sorry.

I don't agree with your idea that high-level characters should always be super-mobile. If anything, hi-level mobility is a problem that increases the problem of adventure design. The main reason it is easier to design a classic dungeon than an outdoor adventure is that the dungeon limits mobility. I've seen plenty of old-school hi-level adventures, where the designer saw fit to put the adventurers in an environment where fly-spells, etc., did not work due to some magical or extraplanar influence. Probably, the reason for this is the game has no structure when players can do whatever they like.

So, why shouldn't a 50' chasm have some small chance of serving as an obstacle? Do you also object to doors that are too tough for a 10th level barbarian's +3 axe to smash through?

Limits are what make things interesting.

[Lombra]

The falling system I am developing is something more in the following lines:

Falling Damage.

Save DC = 10 + ½ Falling Distance in Feet:
10' fall = DC15
20' fall = DC20
30' fall = DC25
40' fall = DC30
50' fall = DC35
60' fall = DC40
70' fall = DC45
80' fall = DC50
90' fall = DC55
etc., etc.

DC stops increasing when terminal velocity is reached. This occurs at 50 feet for tiny creatures, 100 feet for small creatures, and 200 feet for medium creatures. Possibly, during the fall, the DM may make allow you a separate Wisdom (survival) save to slow or direct your fall by hitting ledges and objects, or direct your fall toward a soft landing (snow-covered fir tree) with a success lowering the final DC by an appropriate amount (depending on circumstances).

Finally, make a d20 save, adding your Constitution, Dexterity + Proficiency Modifiers.

Modifiers to Your Roll
Magical AC Bonus:. . . +1 each (or more?).
Small/Tiny Size:. . . . . +5/+10.
Large/Huge Size:. . . . .–5 /–10.
Jagged Surface:. . . . . .–10 (wooden spikes)
Soft Surface:. . . . . . . .+5 (earth/grass) to
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+15 (deep snow) to
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . +40 (deep water).
Variable Surface:. . . . .+1d10, –1d10, etc.
Deep Snow+Slope:. . . +1d10x10 (+10 to +100)
Snow-covered Fir:. . . . +1d10x10 (+10 to +100).

Save Result. . . . .Result
success. . . . . . . Take no damage
fail by 1-5. . . . . .Take 1d10 damage. If reduced to 0 hp,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . you instead have 1 hp.
fail by 6-10. . . . .Take 2d10 damage. If reduced to 0 hp.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . you are automatically alive and stable.
fail by 11-15. . . .Take 3d10 damage. You cannot die
. . . . . . . . . . . . . outright.
fail by 16-20. . . .Take 4d10 damage.
fail by 21-25. . . .Take 5d10 damage, then lose any
. . . . . . . . . . . . . remaining hit points.
fail by 26-30. . . .Take 6d10 damage, lose any remaining
. . . . . . . . . . . . . hit points, and get 1 failed death save.
fail by 31-35. . . .Take 7d10 damage, lose any remaining
. . . . . . . . . . . . . hit points, and get 2 failed death saves
fail by 36+. . . . . You Die!

I like it, it definately feels more realistic, and
gives high relevance to spells such as feather fall (which I would always prepare if I were in a game with this rules). It would need playtest but on paper it looks gritty at the right point.

Also still water feels as hard as concrete from certain heights, so if you really want high realism you should find a way to factor it in.

[artan6966]

Here is a question.
My PC is able to fly at 30 feet per round. She is 60 feet in the air and drops a dagger or dart at someone that is on the ground. She rolls ot that and makes the attack roll. a dagger does 1d4 damage. Here is the question. Would I add 1d6 per 10 feet that the dagger drops in distance or 1d4 per 10 feet? Seeing that the velocity of the dagger/dart wouldincrease as it dropped.

[BalforeDelFuego]

I don't have my book on me but the damage is nothing for anything under 10ft and 1d6 per 10 ft after that up to a max of 200 ft. So falling 30 ft would be 3d6

Wouldn't this be 2d6 for 30ft, since you don't count the fist 10ft?

[Lombra]

Wouldn't this be 2d6 for 30ft, since you don't count the fist 10ft?

You take 1d6 for every 10ft, if you fall less than 10ft you don't take damage, that's what he intended.

[ValleyLad]

I use a table inspired by the AD&D rules mentioned by Beelz above.

(BTW the math concept for this is called a "triangle number", you can find it on Wikipedia)

Fall | d6's | dmg
10 0 0
20 1 3
30 3 10
40 6 21
50 10 35
60 15 52
70 21 73
80 28 98
90 36 126
100 45 157
110 55 192
120 66 231
130 78 273
140 91 318
150 105 367
160 120 420
170 136 476
180 153 535
190 171 598
200 190 665

It means a 20th level Barbarian who got polymorphed into a giant ape can jump off a mountain, raging on the way down, and possibly survive.

[ValleyLad]

Here is a question.
My PC is able to fly at 30 feet per round. She is 60 feet in the air and drops a dagger or dart at someone that is on the ground. She rolls ot that and makes the attack roll. a dagger does 1d4 damage. Here is the question. Would I add 1d6 per 10 feet that the dagger drops in distance or 1d4 per 10 feet? Seeing that the velocity of the dagger/dart wouldincrease as it dropped.

I sympathize with the idea, but acc. to RAW, a dagger does just 1d4 even when thrown hard enough to fly 60 feet.
Your DM would have to house rule in favor of a "simulationist" point of view.

But what I'd be asking the DM about instead, is the range of the dagger. Ordinarily, it's 20/60 because you have to throw it to generate the distance. But by dropping it, gravity takes care of things. Albeit, from 100 feet up it has to be considered more difficult to aim than at 50 feet, but still, you could reasonably ask that the short and long range be doubled, IMO.

As DM I'd increase the range, and then I'd allow higher damage if dropped from higher than 60 feet (say 2d4).

But that's because my approach is to accommodate simulationist tendencies insofar as possible without breaking game balance, FWIW.

[Eric Diaz]

Here a simple idea:

Fall 10 feet, take 10 damage. 20 feet, 20 damage. Etc. Maximum 500 damage.

You get a Dex saving throw. If you succeed, damage is halved. If you roll a natural 20, you get to make another save and potentially halve it again, "ad infinitum".

So, it is both a bit more deadly and leaves some room for the most extreme cases of survival.

OR....

Just roll a d20 (Con save) for every 10 foot fallen, failure means one level of exhaustion.

[Derpaligtr]

But be carful because a martial character can survive that it 120 for max and 20 for min. That best thing if they fall from so high tell them you broke a couple of bones your movement speed is reduce 0. Because I seen a play jump from 500ft knowing he was only going to take 20b6 and he had a lot of hp.

Yup! Got to make sure those pesky martials can't use their class features to their advantage! Not allowed to do something cool like jump off a tower in order to stab a enemy in the face!

Bad player! Using your class features within the confides of the game's rules! Bad!