Ruling questions

[Phhase]

Firstly: how do you rule plunging attacks? So to speak, attacks made from above, dropping down upon your enemy?

Secondly: For the purposes of The Way of Shadows monastic tradition and its Shadow Step ability: Does magical darkness count as a teleportable shadow? And (this is a rather silly sub-question), if yes, and the darkness is attached to a moveable object, will you inherit the object's movement upon teleporting to the darkness?

And finally: Do illusions cast shadows? I imagine not, but I just want to be sure.

EDIT: 5e, sorry.

[Khedrac]

Firstly, which game system? I would recommend asking a moderator to move this to the correct sub-forum.

[Kane0]

You'll want to summon a mod to move this to the 5e forum my friend.

take your falling damage, apply it to both yourself and your enemy (before you reduce it from monk slow fall). Falling speed is important here, if you're feather falling no extra damage.
If that's too much for your game (eg if you have a leaping barbarian or slow falling monk that's going to use this a lot), half falling damage to the enemy struck.

Yes, magical darkness is darkness. Preservation of momentum is up to the DM (some really like 'thinking with Portals' and the shenanigans you can get up to, some don't want to bother with the logistics especially when trying to stay consistent with other teleportation options)

Not by default, but you can make an illusion of a shadow.

[JackPhoenix]

Plunging attacks: Never came up.

Shadow monkery: For the first part, yes, potentially. However, you must be able to see the destination, and magical darkness blocks darkvision, so unless you use one of the few ways to see through it (shadow sorcerer, Devil's Sight), you can't see, and thus shadow step, inside its area. I'm honestly not sure what are you asking in the second part.

Illusions: depends on the illusion in question, in any case, ask your GM.

[Man_Over_Game]

Firstly: how do you rule plunging attacks? So to speak, attacks made from above, dropping down upon your enemy?

Secondly: For the purposes of The Way of Shadows monastic tradition and its Shadow Step ability: Does magical darkness count as a teleportable shadow? And (this is a rather silly sub-question), if yes, and the darkness is attached to a moveable object, will you inherit the object's movement upon teleporting to the darkness?

And finally: Do illusions cast shadows? I imagine not, but I just want to be sure.

EDIT: 5e, sorry.

For falling attacks like that, I rule that you deal damage equal to your falling damage, up to the amount that would kill you. You have to hit, though (although I'll often grant you Advantage). In the case of the Monk, this damage is not reduced by Slowfall (so you can deal the plunging damage first, then Slowfall to reduce your own).

Magical Darkness does count, but you can't actually teleport where you can't see. And there are very few ways of seeing through magical darkness.

As for momentum, 5e doesn't use momentum in any degree. Everything is instantaneous, unless you happen to be falling a great distance (because there are optional rules that space out how far you fall if you fall from a height greater than 500 feet). So if you cast Darkness on your dagger, throw your dagger, and then teleport to it, the dagger would have already reached its destination by the time your teleport starts. I can dual-wield lances, while standing still on a horse, and jiggle them really fast to kill you. So momentum doesn't mean anything.

Illusions are pretty controversial, but I rule that Darkness and other "dark" illusions block light, but most other illusions do not. Rather, the shadow can be implemented as part of the illusion, so it's not a real "shadow" but a picture of one. Making illusions mechanically weaker means I can feel more comfortable allowing more leeway in how they're used creatively. I might not let you block out the sun, but I would let you form a box around you to hide in (Solid Snake Style).

[ad_hoc]

Firstly: how do you rule plunging attacks? So to speak, attacks made from above, dropping down upon your enemy?


If you think it will give you an Advantage over the enemy then you get Advantage to your attack. If you think it will make you clumsy or have difficulty timing the attack then you get Disadvantage.

It's as simple as that.

I don't understand the shadow questions.

[Coffee_Dragon]

so you can deal the plunging damage first, then Slowfall to reduce your own

This part makes it seem like you view Slow Fall not as falling slowly or landing softly, but falling the same as everyone else and then arbitrarily shaking off the resulting impact damage.

[Man_Over_Game]

This part makes it seem like you view Slow Fall not as falling slowly or landing softly, but falling the same as everyone else and then arbitrarily shaking off the resulting impact damage.

I envision it that the Monk is simply talented enough to land gracefully, combined with his supernatural physique. I mean, they can do a bunch of other unnatural things (Open Hand Monk can push a Tarrasque 5 feet with a strength of 6), so taking less fall damage doesn't really seem all that weird.

But mostly, I did that because fall damage/height is never made relevant. Step of the Wind massively increases your jump distance, yet how often has that ever been made relevant?

[Coffee_Dragon]

I envision it that the Monk is simply talented enough to land gracefully, combined with his supernatural physique. I mean, they can do a bunch of other unnatural things (Open Hand Monk can push a Tarrasque 5 feet with a strength of 6), so taking less fall damage doesn't really seem all that weird.

But you're saying the "target" is taking full damage from the same impact. If the damage is asymmetric then it can't be that the monk's ability modified the fall itself.

[Hytheter]

I envision it that the Monk is simply talented enough to land gracefully

Yeah, that seems obvious to me. That's why they called the feature "Graceful Landing" instead of something misleading like "Slow Fall."

;)

[Man_Over_Game]

But you're saying the "target" is taking full damage from the same impact. If the damage is asymmetric then it can't be that the monk's ability modified the fall itself.

The Barbarian can take twice as much weapon damage as anyone else, can even be crushed by something like Bones of the Earth, but it's just as vulnerable to Fire or Thunder damage as anyone else.

The game isn't always about making science. Sometimes it's just about making fun.


Yeah, that seems obvious to me. That's why they called the feature "Graceful Landing" instead of something misleading like "Slow Fall."

;)

Does how much the Monk weighs or is carrying adjust the fall damage?

If Person A is being held by a Barbarian, and Person B is being held by a Monk, which one should take more fall damage between Persons A and B?

Slowfall doesn't say that it reduces the speed at which you fall, and it COULD (See: Featherfall). So, to me, it doesn't do that.

Monks in my world just take less fall damage, when they are able to account for it. Slowfall still counts as a Reaction, and it's not much different than a Monk using their Action to remove certain spell effects. They don't float, or Slowfall would have represented as a passive benefit.

[Laserlight]

Firstly: how do you rule plunging attacks? So to speak, attacks made from above, dropping down upon your enemy?

Secondly: For the purposes of The Way of Shadows monastic tradition and its Shadow Step ability: Does magical darkness count as a teleportable shadow? And (this is a rather silly sub-question), if yes, and the darkness is attached to a moveable object, will you inherit the object's movement upon teleporting to the darkness?

And finally: Do illusions cast shadows? I imagine not, but I just want to be sure.


Assuming you hit (you probably don't have proficiency, because how often do you practice "falling out of an airship onto someone"?, but you may well have advantage because people tend not to look up), you do to the target whatever damage you take. If you mitigate the damage through your monkly shenanigans, you also do less damage to the target, unless you can convince me there's a reason to do it differently. (I'm sure someone in my campaign would invent a pogo-lance if this became a regular thing)

Darkness counts as shadow. You have, as others have said, to see into it. If it's moving, you merely port to the point where it is when you port; you do not gain extra velocity.

And I'd say illusions don't cast shadows.

[JackPhoenix]

Illusions are pretty controversial, but I rule that Darkness and other "dark" illusions block light, but most other illusions do not.

Darkness isn't an illusion, it's evocation.

[ad_hoc]

Why are people applying falling damage to an attack?

I don't get it.

Do you do this with all weapons too? This is certainly not a default 5e rule but it seems like a lot of people in here are accepting it as the norm.

[Man_Over_Game]

But you're saying the "target" is taking full damage from the same impact. If the damage is asymmetric then it can't be that the monk's ability modified the fall itself.


Why are people applying falling damage to an attack?

I don't get it.

Do you do this with all weapons too? This is certainly not a default 5e rule but it seems like a lot of people in here are accepting it as the norm.

Because it's cool. Because otherwise people wouldn't do it.

I don't add damage to ranged attacks, but I do add range. Distance shooting upwards is reduced by 5 feet every foot up, but shooting downwards has no such penalty. This does cause a bit of a buff to fliers, but it also draws a difference between ranged weapon attackers and spells.

Ever tried shooting a dragon in the air in Skyrim? It's friggin' hard, right? Same kind of idea.

[ad_hoc]

Because it's cool. Because otherwise people wouldn't do it.

Just give them Advantage. That's what it is there for.

Otherwise all large thrown objects should do 100 or so damage.

[Phhase]

Why are people applying falling damage to an attack?

I don't get it.

Do you do this with all weapons too? This is certainly not a default 5e rule but it seems like a lot of people in here are accepting it as the norm.


Because the attack is a plunging attack. You are channeling the force of your fall into the weapon strike. More force, not more accurate (Sneak attack notwithstanding). Though I think the damage type should be of the weapon's. The thing I'm going for here is one, to be able to teleport pretty much anywhere using the Darkness spell/Shadow Monk, and two, to cast Darkness high above the enemy for a plunging sneak attack.

[ad_hoc]

Because the attack is a plunging attack. You are channeling the force of your fall into the weapon strike. More force, not more accurate (Sneak attack notwithstanding). Though I think the damage type should be of the weapon's. The thing I'm going for here is one, to be able to teleport pretty much anywhere using the Darkness spell/Shadow Monk, and two, to cast Darkness high above the enemy for a plunging sneak attack.

Why doesn't a boulder do the same thing then? It's in motion. What if we put an imp on the boulder. Does it deal falling damage now?

If we're talking about applying reasoning to combat then getting hit with a sword should be pretty lethal, plunging or not. But the combat rules are written for cinematic effect. Obliterating someone with a sword because it happens to be held by someone and everything else not being very effective is not.

[Phhase]

Why doesn't a boulder do the same thing then? It's in motion. What if we put an imp on the boulder. Does it deal falling damage now?


But imps can fl

It..does? Should? What do you mean? Do you mean, does the imp's falling damage get added to the damage the boulder deals? I imagine a boulder hitting you Indy-style would deal a bit less damage than one falling from 40ft up. The imp doesn't have much mass and isn't wielding the boulderThe imp...there aren't rules for imps taking falling damage. Perhaps falling damage dice type and dice count max should be calculated by creature size (in some edge cases, expressly mass). Therefore, in my imagination, for falling

Turns out, if you want consistency/verisimilitude more than convenience, the falling rules are very ill-suited. If you like, instead of saying "No, duh." we could instead go with something more like: for each 10ft fallen with a weapon you can wield, add +1d6 or an extra

No, you know what? I'm gonna kludge it from actual physics. Here we go. So, moving forward, we'll assume that 1d6 is the amount of damage an average medium-sized creature takes


Shazbot.

Look, how much damage does the boulder do on it's own? Bottom line, yes, the imp adds damage in my book. Probably a negligible about considering the relative power of the falling boulder. Also, since the imp has less mass than a medium-sized creature, it probably adds less than a medium creature. RAW falling damage is ubiquitous but ehhh...the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Although, to avoid stepping on the square-cube law's toes in a world where it doesn't apply, larger creatures probably can fall farther before starting to take damage (at least, in a controlled fall).

Physics, man. Besides, this isn't really a huge ask realism-wise. It feels intuitive to me. It's not like we need to deal with infections, and bleeding, and anatomy and all that over-crunchy stuff now that we acknowledge that falling from a great height gives an attack extra oomph.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Firstly: how do you rule plunging attacks? So to speak, attacks made from above, dropping down upon your enemy?

Secondly: For the purposes of The Way of Shadows monastic tradition and its Shadow Step ability: Does magical darkness count as a teleportable shadow? And (this is a rather silly sub-question), if yes, and the darkness is attached to a moveable object, will you inherit the object's movement upon teleporting to the darkness?

And finally: Do illusions cast shadows? I imagine not, but I just want to be sure.

EDIT: 5e, sorry.

Plunging attacks: I'm very upfront to my players that if there is significant risk and/or investment to doing something I'll reward it. As an example if my Raging barbarian takes 2 full turns of combat to climb a tower in order to jump off and try to behead a dragon. Then I look at it and say okay you could have spent those turns attacking and defending your allies so we have a bunch of opportunity lost and significant risk if you miss. The barbarian has a d12 weapon, 2 attacks per turn and GWM so he would probably have done 80ish damage, now he's falling from 100 feet, I'll probably let him do a solid hundred damage but that's his entire turn. If he misses then he takes 9d10 damage. If there isn't a risk and isn't an investment I probably won't be super lenient.

For magical darkness sure, if you can see it. With that being said all darkness creates shadows on the opposite side so there's always somewhere to teleport.
part 2: not as a rule but maybe as an exception.

No, no they do not.

[Phhase]

For magical darkness sure, if you can see it. With that being said all darkness creates shadows on the opposite side so there's always somewhere to teleport.


Wait, are you suggesting the the sphere created by the Darkness spell casts a shadow ITSELF?

[Tanarii]

Firstly: how do you rule plunging attacks? So to speak, attacks made from above, dropping down upon your enemy?I rule you do the attack's normal damage if it's a controlled descent, which I treat just like a jump, ie your high jump height. A Strength (Athletics) check can extend the jump as usual. One concession I make to jumps down, attack related or not, is to treat it as full height without 10ft of previous movement.

If you want to slam into them in as part of an uncontrolled fall, too bad. You miss and take falling damage.

Edit: also the PHB says one use for Strength (Athletics) checks is to pull of a stunt mid-jump. A DM wouldn't be out of line to request a check just to be able to make a mid-air attack at all during a normal jump, which normally has no check.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Wait, are you suggesting the the sphere created by the Darkness spell casts a shadow ITSELF?

Yes, Light can't pass through it so it should be treated as an obstruction therefore casting a shadow. I've used it as a Drow in between me and the sun to avoid sunlight sensitivity.

Edit: just realized that was probably sarcasm. oh well.

[Tanarii]

Yes, Light can't pass through it so it should be treated as an obstruction therefore casting a shadow.
Unless, of course, it can. Since nothing in the spell says light can't pass through it, only can't illuminate it, a DM doesn't have to rule it's the classic "inky darkness" version most people envision.

Edit: I should note I've never actually heard of a DM ruling it this way. It's just one of those interesting "way the rule is written" things another poster on this forum has pointed out, and it's also stuck in my head now and an interesting side point for the forum whenever the spell is mentioned.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Unless, of course, it can. Since nothing in the spell says light can't pass through it, only can't illuminate it, a DM doesn't have to rule it's the classic "inky darkness" version most people envision.

Edit: I should note I've never actually heard of a DM ruling it this way. It's just one of those interesting "way the rule is written" things another poster on this forum has pointed out, and it's also stuck in my head now and an interesting side point for the forum whenever the spell is mentioned.

I would be super frustrated with that ruling lol.

[Tanarii]

I would be super frustrated with that ruling lol.
I would cause some weirdness. If there's any light on the other side, objects inside the darkness cannot be illuminated, but they can in theory block its path. This means they'll be a silhouette if they get directly in front of a light source, and probably stand out if the background is a particularly light color on the other side of the spell (e.g. a white wall). It's a fun thought experiment on how it would work if ruled that way. :smallamused:

Not that opaque inky blackness doesn't cause it's own forms of weirdness. But most people seem to have less trouble envisioning that. Not the least because that's how the spell worked in all previous editions. But even newer players with no experienced player direction default to envisioning the Darkness spell that way IMX.

[ad_hoc]

Look, how much damage does the boulder do on it's own?

That is my question.

Do thrown/falling objects do weapon damage + falling damage equal to distance travelled?

Because physics?

[Laserlight]

We're getting perilously close to murdering catgirls. Please, think of the catgirls!

[Phhase]

Plunging attacks: if there is significant risk and/or investment to doing something I'll reward it.

Good man :smallbiggrin:.


That is my question.

Do thrown/falling objects do weapon damage + falling damage equal to distance travelled?

Because physics?



Oh. That's easier.

Yes.

They have some sort of base damage, which they have to fall/move a minimum distance to inflict, and a maximum based loosely on mass. If it's a weapon attack (like a boulder flung by a trebuchet), then "falling damage" is assumed to be part of the normal damage calculation (Though this does get into territory about thrown rocks/siege weapons being kinda weak, 3d10 for a hill giant's boulder, must be pretty small IMO). If it's a boulder being pushed off of a cliff, then use this method.


RAW, for a player it's 12d6 at 120ft (although if you want to factor real physics, it would be 150d6 at ~1500ft, which is terminal velocity).

For a boulder weighing, let's say, 5 tons, 1d6 every 5 feet, 24d6 at 120ft perhaps. Bigass boulders hurt.

The boulder itself probably doesn't take that much damage, depending on conditions.


Yes, Light can't pass through it so it should be treated as an obstruction therefore casting a shadow. I've used it as a Drow in between me and the sun to avoid sunlight sensitivity.

Edit: just realized that was probably sarcasm. oh well.
It wasn't, it's just a little odd to wrap the head around. Though now that I think about it, I can't think why it WOULDN'T be that way...magic is weird.


I rule you do the attack's normal damage

BoooOOooOooOOriiiingggg. Nah, is fine :smallbiggrin:.


We're getting perilously close to murdering catgirls. Please, think of the catgirls!

Question mark face?

[Laserlight]

Question mark face?

It is widely known that when you attempt to apply Real World Physics to D&D, God kills a catgirl.