Falling Damage and Resistances

[PrincessOfNight]

So, I'm DMing for this group and a situation came up last night. I have my Werewolf and a Player's barbarian taking a tumble off of a cliff.

The Barbarian was in his rage, and took half damage from the fall. According to their Rage Feature, they have resistance to Bludgeoning Damage while raging.

But as for my Werewolf, because the fall was "not an Attack" my players are arguing that his Immunity doesn't apply.

Am I being Rules Lawyered here, or is this supposed to be how it works?

[Xihirli]

Damage Immunities Bludgeoning, Piercing, And Slashing Damage From Nonmagical Weapons That Aren't Silvered

Nope, nothing there about needing an attack.

[DanyBallon]

I think your player is right. The werewolf damage resistance applies to damage done by non-magical and non-silvered weapon. And I believe the intent was to emulate the tropes that werewolves are almost unaffected by weapons not made from silver.

[StoicLeaf]

you're being rules lawyered. Poorly.

The immunity is versus damage that is slashing, piercing, bludgeoning (not from a magical source).
If the barbarian can have resistance versus faceplanting the floor, then the werewolf can have immunity.


edit:

double checked, it does indeed say weapons, up to you if you want to consider the ground being used as an improvised weapon.
Also entirely up to you to modify the MM stats to your liking.

[willdaBEAST]

This is really up to you as the DM.

For the werewolf stat block in the monster manual it does specifically say "damage immunity: bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons that aren't silvered". So from a RAW standpoint, your players have a point (they shouldn't be reading stat blocks though imo).

I think a fair compromise is providing resistance to falling damage for both the werewolf and the raging barbarian. Total immunity seems both weird and unintended.

[sophontteks]

They are completely right, but your the DM so its still your call.

I think they they pretty intentionally written both descriptions here:
Barbarians raging are resistant to all damage. They intended for barbarians to survive falls and pittraps so they can do incredibly stupid and reckless things without dying.
Werewolves are resistant to weapons only, because they don't want to create no-win situations. Players are rewarded for using the environment to overcome obstacles.

I'd rule it as the werewolf goes splat and the barbarian shrugs it off. Its nice when RAW and the rule of cool can come together to kill such a foul beast.

[Exocist]

Isn’t there a sage advice that states that falling damage can’t be reduced by anything that doesn’t explicitly reduce falling damage, so resistances and immunities don’t apply?

[Kane0]

Isn’t there a sage advice that states that falling damage can’t be reduced by anything that doesn’t explicitly reduce falling damage, so resistances and immunities don’t apply?

I thought it was in Xan's somewhere actually, though could be wrong.

[sophontteks]

Isn’t there a sage advice that states that falling damage can’t be reduced by anything that doesn’t explicitly reduce falling damage, so resistances and immunities don’t apply?
Oooooh. Maybe.
Best I could find was Mike saying it does reduce falling damage, but that hardly means anything.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/20/does-barbarian-rage-reduce-fall-damage/amp/

[Exocist]

Oooooh. Maybe.
Best I could find was Mike saying it does reduce falling damage, but that hardly means anything.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/20/does-barbarian-rage-reduce-fall-damage/amp/

Here's the J Crawford ruling, unfortunately the question asked was about nonmagical bludgeoning weapons. I'll check Xanathar's when I can and update.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/31/immunity-to-bludgeoning-does-take-damage-from-falling/

EDIT: Xanathar's doesn't have anything on this. It only mentions the rate of falling (500ft per round) and optional rules to make getting knocked prone while flying less splattering.

[Malifice]

Damage Immunities Bludgeoning, Piercing, And Slashing Damage From Nonmagical Weapons That Aren't Silvered

Nope, nothing there about needing an attack.

Its immune to bludgeoning damage from weapons unless that damage comes from a non magical sivered weapon, or a magic weapon.

The earth is not a weapon.

The immunity doesnt apply.

Hillariously an unarmed strike is not a weapon either, so you can punch one just fine.

[Quoxis]

Its immune to bludgeoning damage from weapons unless that damage comes from a non magical sivered weapon, or a magic weapon.

The earth is not a weapon.

The immunity doesnt apply.

Hillariously an unarmed strike is not a weapon either, so you can punch one just fine.

Yeah no:
„Damage Resistances/Immunities. Throughout the book, instances of “nonmagical weapons” in Damage Resistances/Immunities entries have been replaced with “nonmagical attacks.” - WotC, Monster Manual Errata

Though i agree that by RAW, dropping something on the ground is not an attack of any sort, so the werewolf doesn’t have any form of immunity/resistance to the damage by RAW.

[Unoriginal]

So, I'm DMing for this group and a situation came up last night. I have my Werewolf and a Player's barbarian taking a tumble off of a cliff.

The Barbarian was in his rage, and took half damage from the fall. According to their Rage Feature, they have resistance to Bludgeoning Damage while raging.

But as for my Werewolf, because the fall was "not an Attack" my players are arguing that his Immunity doesn't apply.

Am I being Rules Lawyered here, or is this supposed to be how it works?

From Tomb of Annihilation, about a Weretiger character:


She is also afraid of heights and will not willingly put herself in a situation in which she's in danger of falling more than 60 feet. [Her] damage immunities do not protect her against damage from falling.


Note that the Barbarian's resistance would not apply either.

[sophontteks]

Note that the Barbarian's resistance would not apply either.

Oh yeah?
Why's that?

[Unoriginal]

Oh yeah?
Why's that?

If immunity does not apply, why would resistance do?

It's like saying that a fire resistance protect more than a fire immunity when you get pushed in lava.

[sophontteks]

Read the text. The barbarian resistance applies to all bludgening damage. The immunity only applies to weapon damage.

[Unoriginal]

Fair enough.

[Angelalex242]

I'd have told the player 'is the ground made of silver? No? F off.'

I always thought werewolves would be immune to falling damage, and could in fact use that to their advantage by intentionally attacking near cliffs, going over the edge by tackling their opponent, take 0 damage from the fall while the enemy takes a lot, and have a big advantage if not win right there.

[Malifice]

Yeah no:
„Damage Resistances/Immunities. Throughout the book, instances of “nonmagical weapons” in Damage Resistances/Immunities entries have been replaced with “nonmagical attacks.” - WotC, Monster Manual Errata

Though i agree that by RAW, dropping something on the ground is not an attack of any sort, so the werewolf doesn’t have any form of immunity/resistance to the damage by RAW.

Ahh the errata. Missed that.

From memory, HAMs DR only applies to 'weapon' attacks. It should probably be changed to 'attacks' as well then.

[Tanarii]

Your player is right. There was an errata. Werewolves are not immune to nonmagical weapons. They are immune to nonmagical attacks.

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.”

https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/MM_Errata.pdf

(Reposting because the posting of this errata up thread was apparently just glossed over.)

[Captain Panda]

He's rules lawyering you. But...

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/31/immunity-to-bludgeoning-does-take-damage-from-falling/

Well that is a pretty direct answer. Wolf takes damage by RAI. I seem to recall a Sage Advice that I can't find at the moment that involved a Rakshasa which described falling damage as perfect, bypassing all immunities/resistances. So if I can dig that up, the barbarian should probably be taking full, too?

[Exocist]

He's rules lawyering you. But...

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/31/immunity-to-bludgeoning-does-take-damage-from-falling/

Well that is a pretty direct answer. Wolf takes damage by RAI. I seem to recall a Sage Advice that I can't find at the moment that involved a Rakshasa which described falling damage as perfect, bypassing all immunities/resistances. So if I can dig that up, the barbarian should probably be taking full, too?

All you get is that and this - https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/05/21/falling-damage-is-weapon-damage/

Along with the Mearls tweet - https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/20/does-barbarian-rage-reduce-fall-damage/

That seems to indicate that OP's players were right in saying the Wolf goes splat and the Barbarian takes half. I do recall there being an advice saying exactly what you said - falling damage is perfect - but I can't seem to find it.

[the secret fire]

Falling damage is so pitiful in 5e that it's hardly worth worrying whether or not any given monster is immune to it.

[Talyn]

I would rule that the werewolf takes full damage from the fall (and, as someone noted previously, unarmed strikes) because part of the werewolf mythos, from pulp stories and the like, is the mighty-thewed hero's weapons being unable to harm the beast, so he strangles it/drowns it/buries it in a rockslide instead.

It's practically a genre staple.

[BurgerBeast]

I also think the players are right, according to RAW.

This originally seemed, to me, however, to be a clear case of a mistake on the part of the writers. I would have thought that werewolves are supposed to be immune to all damage except for damage caused by silver or magical weapons.

But I’ve come back round again... because how far does werewolf immunity really go?

Edit: the following bit was already mentioned by someone else

Are they immune to a thousand-foot fall? A ten-thousand foot fall? Can they not be strangled to death? Suffocated? Drowned?

In the end I think the writers have come up with the best rule. As was pointed out earlier, it also opens the door to clever (not only clever, but consistent and logical) ways to overcome monsters that have immunities.

[Bloodcloud]

So, I'm DMing for this group and a situation came up last night. I have my Werewolf and a Player's barbarian taking a tumble off of a cliff.

The Barbarian was in his rage, and took half damage from the fall. According to their Rage Feature, they have resistance to Bludgeoning Damage while raging.

But as for my Werewolf, because the fall was "not an Attack" my players are arguing that his Immunity doesn't apply.

Am I being Rules Lawyered here, or is this supposed to be how it works?

So, not only is there a decent RAW argument to be made, there seem to be a RAI one as well. Plus, I like the thinking. I'd allow it.

[Malifice]

Falling damage is so pitiful in 5e that it's hardly worth worrying whether or not any given monster is immune to it.

Maybe to commoners.

Not to Achillies or Gandalf however.

You know... PCs.

[youtellatale]

I wouldn't call this rules lawyering, just enforcing the rules. The werewolf wasn't attacked by the ground so not immune. The barbarian gets resistance as falling is specifically called out in the PHB as one example of bludgeoning damage (page 196). All in all this seems right.

[the secret fire]

Maybe to commoners.

Not to Achillies or Gandalf however.

You know... PCs.

Nah...the pitiful damage one takes from falling is most problematic when dealing with PCs, who simply have little reason to ever fear a fall once they reach tier 2. Need to leap 40 feet down onto solid stone to make your escape? No problem, that's just 4d6 damage, my man! By the time PCs reach tier 3, many will be able to reliably survive a fall in which they reach terminal ****ing velocity (i.e. 20d6)!

It's a linear damage curve that is meant to model a phenomenon (acceleration due to gravity) which scales quadratically. It's up there in stupidity with the swimming in armor rules...poor design choices made for no other reason than to make the game less dangerous for everyone's precious PCs.

[Exocist]

Nah...the pitiful damage one takes from falling is most problematic when dealing with PCs, who simply have little reason to ever fear a fall once they reach tier 2. Need to leap 40 feet down onto solid stone to make your escape? No problem, that's just 4d6 damage, my man! By the time PCs reach tier 3, many will be able to reliably survive a fall in which they reach terminal ****ing velocity (i.e. 20d6)!

It's a linear damage curve that is meant to model a phenomenon (acceleration due to gravity) which scales quadratically. It's up there in stupidity with the swimming in armor rules...poor design choices made for no other reason than to make the game less dangerous for everyone's precious PCs.

I mean, you could make it more dangerous (like it was in 2e - where 20d6 damage stood a very high chance of killing anyone but the toughest adventurer or module) but that would mean that in any encounter where you have a monster and a cliff, you have to allow the PCs the same courtesy of being able to throw the monster off the cliff. It gets kind of lame if every time there's a cliff, a flying wyvern attacks you, so you have 5ft to stand on without falling to a gruesome death, but the monsters have no such penalty. It's just a pure terrain disadvantage with no way to leverage it.

You could alternately have the monsters push the PCs off the cliff one-by-one, effectively removing them from combat, then peppering them with arrows/whatever other long range stuff they have that's effective at 200ft - but then you also have to expect your PCs to do the same.

The other problem - a 200+ft drop is actually survivable. By freak occurrence, but it's survivable (i.e. low roll on the damage dice = PC survives).

I would suggest increasing the damage to d20s or something if you wanted to make it more deadly. 200ft drop = 20d20 damage (Average: 210). That should basically instantly kill anyone below 12th level (by which point, falls shouldn't matter that much anymore) and even then it will incapacitate those characters unless they are a very high level d10/d12 class with high CON. d20 damage even works for low falls (such as 10 or 20 feet), you can always land badly which will cause severe injury or even death. If you wanted it to be non-linearly scaling, you can always have the dice size increase as the fall distance does (I.e. 10-40ft: d6, 50-80ft: d8, 90-120ft: d10, 130-160ft: d12, 170+ft: d20).

[opaopajr]

Falling damage is so pitiful in 5e that it's hardly worth worrying whether or not any given monster is immune to it.

The original in D&D was a typographical error due to the confusion of the typist on how to represent summation of a sequence of consecutive integers. Basically the typist couldn't find the sigma on the typewriter before it went off to print back in the 1970s or so... :smallbiggrin:

The original idea was summation of a consecutive sequence of integers as a d6 expression. Thus 10' is 1d6; 20' is (1+2) = 3d6; 30' is (1+2+3) = 6d6; and so on. So 1...10 ∑ is like 55d6, and 1...20 ∑ becomes super-duper lethal! :smalltongue:

Nothing's stopping people from houseruling back to RAI. :smallcool: SPLAT~!

(I for one would love to see a return to dice punch bowls, a la Shadowrun, for falling damage! :smallamused: )

[the secret fire]

The original in D&D was a typographical error due to the confusion of the typist on how to represent summation of a sequence of consecutive integers. Basically the typist couldn't find the sigma on the typewriter before it went off to print back in the 1970s or so... :smallbiggrin:

The original idea was summation of a consecutive sequence of integers as a d6 expression. Thus 10' is 1d6; 20' is (1+2) = 3d6; 30' is (1+2+3) = 6d6; and so on. So 1...10 ∑ is like 55d6, and 1...20 ∑ becomes super-duper lethal! :smalltongue:

Nothing's stopping people from houseruling back to RAI. :smallcool: SPLAT~!

(I for one would love to see a return to dice punch bowls, a la Shadowrun, for falling damage! :smallamused: )

As a matter of fact, this is exactly how I run falling damage, with different dice depending on the surface impacted (d4 for soft surfaces like hay, bushes or swamp; d8 for medium surfaces like grass; d12 for hard surfaces like stone), with an athletics/acrobatics check to avoid damage if falling into deep water (which otherwise does d4).

I feel like this makes long falls onto hard surfaces appropriately lethal (a 50 foot fall onto stone does 15d12 rather than 5d6), while preserving the heroic trope of surviving a long fall by landing on something soft.

[opaopajr]

Before this topic slips into the catacombs, I just wanted to say your Setting Context Determines Die Size is a great addition, the secret fire! :smallcool:

Falls into punji traps and stalagmites shall deal d20 damage in my world! Falls upon the demi-plane of lemon jell-o shall be d2! :smalltongue: (:smalleek: Actually dying by suffocation by lemon jell-o afterwards seems scarier than the falling damage...:smalleek:)