Your ruling for: Dropping attacks

[Sindal]

Hi gang

Do yall have some personal rulings on how you handle a potential attack from someone falling onto their target?

I see there's no official ruling for it. Probably because they didn't want people to just be fall all over the place.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Fall damage for both.
Fall damage for the target if the attack hit and half to the attacker, if didn't hit attacker her full fall damage.
Fall damage for both, both get dex save for half.

I have seen all of the three in work, they worked fine.
Features like slow fall will reduce damage for both targets.

[MrStabby]

So I use the PHB rules for falling damage to the person falling and then apply the same to the target fallen upon.

I also scale for squares on a grid so if you are large and fall on a medium creature you will do X damage to the medium creature but take 4x damage. Depending on size I might also give anyone being fallen upon the chance to make a save to move out the way or take half damage. As for an attack following it, I might give advantage, depending on circumstances - which might be useful for negating the disadvantage of being prone.

A big factor is if the person underneath is aware of/can see the person falling.

[da newt]

Plenty of room for interpretation here as there are no stated rules. Do what makes sense to you, and be consistent.

I prefer to split it into two parts - the landing on the target and the attack on the target (assuming the intent is to fall on the target from above and attack them too - jump off the wall, smash with hammer from above, and then land on them with your body).

The attack is resolved normally, a dex save to move out of the way of the falling body (unless surprised etc), full fall damage to the faller and the fallen upon.

For bigger creatures, it means the area they fall on is bigger. Faller gets full fall damage, as does everyone same size or smaller who is fallen upon. My logic being a med creature might weigh 200 lbs and fall on one med target, but a large creature could weigh 800 lbs and fall on 4 med targets. If the target fallen upon is bigger, they get a % of damage based on size.

Also, both are knocked prone (unless there is a good reason not to be).

[Mr Adventurer]

So I use the PHB rules for falling damage to the person falling and then apply the same to the target fallen upon.

I also scale for squares on a grid so if you are large and fall on a medium creature you will do X damage to the medium creature but take 4x damage. Depending on size I might also give anyone being fallen upon the chance to make a save to move out the way or take half damage. As for an attack following it, I might give advantage, depending on circumstances - which might be useful for negating the disadvantage of being prone.

A big factor is if the person underneath is aware of/can see the person falling.

So a huge creature (like a giant) that falls 10 feet onto the ground takes 9d6 damage?

[J-H]

Make an acrobatics check and an attack roll, both against the target's AC.
If both hit, the target takes damage from the attack, and half the falling damage.
If the acrobatics check hits but the attack roll doesn't, they split falling damage but the attack misses.
If the acrobatics check misses but the attack roll hits, the attacker takes the falling damage but manages to stab(slash/bludgeon) his opponent right before hitting the ground.

[MrStabby]

So a huge creature (like a giant) that falls 10 feet onto the ground takes 9d6 damage?

I think you would need 20ft for that, but yeah.

If you turn into a sperm whale and plummet towards the earth from a high altitude you are going to go splat.


However hard you hit the ground isexactly how hard the ground hits you back. If whatever damage you do is spread over 9 squares then the sum of that damage is what is done back to you - of course you don't bother tracking damage to unocupied earth most of the time.

[Mr Adventurer]

I think you would need 20ft for that, but yeah.

If you turn into a sperm whale and plummet towards the earth from a high altitude you are going to go splat.


However hard you hit the ground isexactly how hard the ground hits you back. If whatever damage you do is spread over 9 squares then the sum of that damage is what is done back to you - of course you don't bother tracking damage to unocupied earth most of the time.

The rule is for every ten feet, not every ten feet after the first.

I don't agree with your other logic at all. But you are, apparently, describing how you are (quite radically, it seems) house ruling, so I won't argue the point.

Presumably in your games you've done away with hit points since "if you get hit with a sword you are going to bleed to death and die", etc.

[Man_Over_Game]

Something like that should be strong because it's highly circumstantial and difficult to pull off.

Roll fall damage for both. Target gets the higher of the two values. Both are allowed an Athletics or Acrobatics Check to halve the fall damage (equal to the fall damage), but the target gets Disadvantage on their roll. A creature that fails this Acrobatics/Athletics check is Prone.

[MrStabby]

The rule is for every ten feet, not every ten feet after the first.

I don't agree with your other logic at all. But you are, apparently, describing how you are (quite radically, it seems) house ruling, so I won't argue the point.

Presumably in your games you've done away with hit points since "if you get hit with a sword you are going to bleed to death and die", etc.

Oh absolutely its a house rule. This whole thread is about house rules - how do you adjudicate someone throwing themselves off a hight then attacking someone.

So it is a big difference when it matters, but it matter quite rarely. You need to be either big, or fighting something big. That thing needs to be earthbound. It needs to fail whatever save or check is needed to make it fall. Still, if you want to throw a Rhinoceros off a cliff you would want a large splat.

I am certainly not saying the logic is perfect and D&D isn't supposed to be a physics simulator but the "bigger creature falling takes more damage" effect seems to work out well in practice.

[Democratus]

Presumably in your games you've done away with hit points since "if you get hit with a sword you are going to bleed to death and die", etc.

Only if you consider hit points "meat"; rather than luck, energy, morale, etc.

[Man_Over_Game]

Only if you consider hit points "meat"; rather than luck, energy, morale, etc.

I am actually kinda disappointed DnD doesn't invest in that concept. I would have really liked it if characters could sacrifice their own "luck" to ruin somebody else's, yet the idea of "taking more damage" is something I think is only ever considered in very niche things (Berserker Exhaustion, Reckless Attack, Life Transference, Evocation capstone).

[Mr Adventurer]

Only if you consider hit points "meat"; rather than luck, energy, morale, etc.

Yes. "Larger creatures take more damage from falling" does that.

[Democratus]

Yes. "Larger creatures take more damage from falling" does that.

Not at all.

HP is a narrative construct. Even the PHB states that HP includes mental durability, the will to live, and luck. (PH p.196)

[Azuresun]

Whatever you come up with, just bear in mind Druids changing from a bird to a bear or earth elemental.

[Tvtyrant]

Hi gang

Do yall have some personal rulings on how you handle a potential attack from someone falling onto their target?

I see there's no official ruling for it. Probably because they didn't want people to just be fall all over the place.

Athletics check to add fall damage to attack while mitigating it.

[Mr Adventurer]

Not at all.

HP is a narrative construct. Even the PHB states that HP includes mental durability, the will to live, and luck. (PH p.196)

What's "not at all"?

I agree HP is a narrative construct. Did you perhaps miss that I am replying to another poster and describing the implications of their house rules?

"Larger creatures take more fall damage" logically means that HP are being treated as meat points, with the rationale for it that was actually given.

I suppose there is an alternative which is that "larger creatures take more fall damage" means that larger creatures are less lucky, have less will to live, and/or less mental durability. However I think that is even less logical.

[No brains]

Something like that should be strong because it's highly circumstantial and difficult to pull off.

Roll fall damage for both. Target gets the higher of the two values. Both are allowed an Athletics or Acrobatics Check to halve the fall damage (equal to the fall damage), but the target gets Disadvantage on their roll. A creature that fails this Acrobatics/Athletics check is Prone.

Alternately, this same rule could work if a wizard needs to jump down from a place and the fighter offers to catch them. :smalltongue:

[MrStabby]

What's "not at all"?

I agree HP is a narrative construct. Did you perhaps miss that I am replying to another poster and describing the implications of their house rules?

"Larger creatures take more fall damage" logically means that HP are being treated as meat points, with the rationale for it that was actually given.

I suppose there is an alternative which is that "larger creatures take more fall damage" means that larger creatures are less lucky, have less will to live, and/or less mental durability. However I think that is even less logical.

So HP being reflected by being meat is one thing. Saying HP are nothing but meat is another.

I mean you can also phase it in terms of luck. How lucky does a cat need to be to survive a fall from the 2nd story of a building? How lucky does aperson need to be? How lucky does an elephant need to be?

[Man_Over_Game]

Alternately, this same rule could work if a wizard needs to jump down from a place and the fighter offers to catch them. :smalltongue:

I think that could actually work. Just halve the fall damage if it's not a malevolent drop. So if the Wizard would take 30 damage, he instead takes 7, or 15 if he fails his check.

This has the unique benefit of making it more beneficial than just dropping on an enemy to reduce your fall damage, and encourages teamwork.

[Falconcry]

Whatever you come up with, just bear in mind Druids changing from a bird to a bear or earth elemental.
You mean like Mercer had to when Keyleth the earth elemental became the Keyteor?

[BullyWog]

I see the logic of larger creature takes more damage and I know D&D is not an exercise in physics, but it seems to me the smaller creature should splat at least as much. As an example, wizard with fly moves directly over enemy or enemies and casts polymorph on themself. It seems those under a a falling tyrannosaur or brontosaurus should splat too.

[MaxWilson]

Hi gang

Do yall have some personal rulings on how you handle a potential attack from someone falling onto their target?

I see there's no official ruling for it. Probably because they didn't want people to just be fall all over the place.

My rule: attack roll vs. Dex save to hit. On hit, split normal falling damage between attacker and target, proportionate to body mass (lighter target takes the most damage, because when you hit the planet the planet takes no damage and you take a bunch).

[Azuresun]

You mean like Mercer had to when Keyleth the earth elemental became the Keyteor?

Yes. The sort of thing that's cool once, but which That Guy will try to hold you to, and make it into a mainstay of their combat tactics to instagib dragons.

[MrStabby]

Whatever you come up with, just bear in mind Druids changing from a bird to a bear or earth elemental.

Yeah, I think this is a common problem - you need a solution that lets these abilities be fun for the player but not so strong they outshine anyone else at the table.

Still, the DMG has a gudance for how much damage rocks falling on someone does and most creatures are less hard than rocks. Even a big creature will tend to weigh less than a significant rockfall.

[Chronos]

Situation that actually came up in the adventure I was just DMing:

Me: The grell that was carrying you is now dead. You're now falling from 60' up.
Player: The other grell is below me, right? Can I try to land on that?
Me: Roll an Acrobatics check (I don't remember what DC I set for it)
<player succeeds>
Me: OK, you're still falling off of the second grell, but that was only 20' up. And it takes 1d4 from the improvised weapon attack.

That said, a grell is a rather soft creature, not much more massive than the PCs, and was itself flying. That's pretty close to optimal, for breaking a fall. Were the situation less optimal, I would probably still have included some falling damage for the first part of the fall as well.

Aside: Grells are really nasty, if you meet them out in the open, with the party divided.

[Tanarii]

You automatically miss and take falling damage, ending up prone at their feet.

[da newt]

You mean like Mercer had to when Keyleth the earth elemental became the Keyteor?

Or do you mean like Mercer had to when Keyleth the gold fish jumped off a 1000' high cliff?

[Davo]

I would have really liked it if characters could sacrifice their own "luck" to ruin somebody else's...

Like taking the help action in combat to give advantage to someone else's attack instead of making your own attack?

[Man_Over_Game]

Like taking the help action in combat to give advantage to someone else's attack instead of making your own attack?

Not quite. That's just effort, not all that much different than attacking someone (instead of trying to hit you, make you easier to hit).

What I mean are effects that make you take in a universal weakness, one that most enemies can capitalize on, for a bigger gain.

Reckless Attack makes you easier to hit, at the benefit of making better attacks.
Overchannel makes you sacrifice your HP for more damage.
Life Transference makes you spend your health to increase someone else's.

The benefit of having a universal health currency, like "Luck" or "Endurance" instead of "Meat", is that you have the option of using it in ways that aren't defined by physics. Why do you have to lose HP by enemy attacks? Why can't we use it to fuel attacks? We have the option to. It's a design space that 5e really hasn't taken advantage of, despite it being a major benefit of a "meatless" tabletop game.

[heavyfuel]

Haven't had this come up in a 5e game yet, but I'd rule that it depends on the result of the attack:

Miss: Attacker takes full falling damage;
Hit: Split falling damage half and half between attacker and target;
Crit: Target takes full falling damage

I wouldn't give Advantage or Disdavantage from the drop attack

[Man_Over_Game]

Haven't had this come up in a 5e game yet, but I'd rule that it depends on the result of the attack:

Miss: Attacker takes full falling damage;
Hit: Split falling damage half and half between attacker and target;
Crit: Target takes full falling damage

Why? Wouldn't that mostly just give the player incentive to be boring and attack the target normally?

[SpikeFightwicky]

Storm King's Thunder actually has this as an optional attack for a hill giant.


Fluff:
Some adult hill giants like to hurl themselves bodily at smaller foes and crush them beneath their bulk. This ability is represented by the following action option.
(crunchy numbers that I don't know if I can post, but it's a STR based attack that can target a medium or smaller creature, and deals 6d6+5 damage), the giant lands prone in the target's space, and the target is grappled (escape DC 15). Until this grapple ends, the target is prone. The grapple ends early if the giant stands up.


I don't know if I can post the whole entry, but I can get a page reference if you'd like. That's the closest I've seen to someone jumping on someone else at ground level.

[MrStabby]

Why? Wouldn't that mostly just give the player incentive to be boring and attack the target normally?

I think it speaks to a problem in the game whendoing what your character is designed to do,what the rules enable you to do is boring. You probably want a different character.

Not at all saying that mixing it up from time to time isn't fun or that being able to improvise new things isn't an improvement; it is. But if you suffer so much that a character is boring for doing its thing it is a big problem.

I think that the right solution has to be that doing it sometimes is tactically sound. Doing it at other times is stupid. Maybe you take falling damage but gain advantage due to surprise unless the victim makes a perception check? Maybe the DC gets easier with how unexpected it is?

[Man_Over_Game]

I think it speaks to a problem in the game whendoing what your character is designed to do,what the rules enable you to do is boring. You probably want a different character.

Not at all saying that mixing it up from time to time isn't fun or that being able to improvise new things isn't an improvement; it is. But if you suffer so much that a character is boring for doing its thing it is a big problem.

I think that the right solution has to be that doing it sometimes is tactically sound. Doing it at other times is stupid. Maybe you take falling damage but gain advantage due to surprise unless the victim makes a perception check? Maybe the DC gets easier with how unexpected it is?

It's not about necessarily what is or isn't boring, it's about moving away from the default.

The Attack Action was something decided before the session began. It was decided before the BBEG was known, and something decided before the player knew there would be a cliff that provided a vantage point. It is the worst-case scenario, because it's always available. It is boring, because it makes virtually all other influences irrelevant.

"You see the lever for the catapult on your left, the princess tangling from the siege weapon on your right, and your Dying Wizard about to eat the blade of the BBEG. What do you do?"

"I attack!"

That's why it's boring.
We can only expect a player to take the most efficient path to their goals, and if we want them to interact with stuff and make plans and friends and jump off cliffs to save people's lives, we have to make it more efficient to do them than they were going to do otherwise.

[heavyfuel]

Why? Wouldn't that mostly just give the player incentive to be boring and attack the target normally?

Perhaps. I do think it's hard to strike a balance though. Make it stronger and now every one is always trying to drop attack all the time.

[Man_Over_Game]

Perhaps. I do think it's hard to strike a balance though. Make it stronger and now every one is always trying to drop attack all the time.

So...like using Surprise?

Surprise is a great power boost, basically incapacitating your enemies in the most important round of combat. So why is it so uncommon?

[Tvtyrant]

Perhaps. I do think it's hard to strike a balance though. Make it stronger and now every one is always trying to drop attack all the time.

Yeah but... You shouldn't have to, because any plan is better then "walk up and slap something with a metal bit while they are aware of it." The party should have lots of permissions and bonuses for doing things that aren't Diablo style room clearing.

[heavyfuel]

So...like using Surprise?

Surprise is a great power boost, basically incapacitating your enemies in the most important round of combat. So why is it so uncommon?

I disagree that these are the same thing. Falling is dangerous and risky (or at least it should be) whereas surprise attacking is a tactically sound decision most of the time.

Plus, I think every melee character being reduced to a noob playing Kirby on Super Smash Brothers Melee, trying to drop attack at every single opportunity, is silly.

[heavyfuel]

Yeah but... You shouldn't have to, because any plan is better then "walk up and slap something with a metal bit while they are aware of it." The party should have lots of permissions and bonuses for doing things that aren't Diablo style room clearing.

"Any plan"? Really? I can think of dozens of plans worse than that.

Not every idea should be rewarded. Stupid ideas should be punished.

If instead of slapping monsters with a metal bit I decided to dress up my 40 year old veteran as a baby and crawl at the enemies while making baby noises, I shouldn't expect success from this plan.

[Man_Over_Game]

I disagree that these are the same thing. Falling is dangerous and risky (or at least it should be) whereas surprise attacking is a tactically sound decision most of the time.

It wasn't about them being the same, but having the same basic game design formula:

Worth = (Effort + Risk) * Reward

Surprise has a high Reward, takes too much Effort/Risk. Generally not worth it, which is why most DMs never seen players pull off an ambush.

Same thing with falling attacks. I think you may be underestimating exactly how much work it takes to pull off something like that, especially when your concern is the player doing it consistently. But at the very, very least, it needs to be slightly worthwhile. Because doing that isn't a basic Attack takes more effort/risk than just Attacking.

[MrStabby]

It's not about necessarily what is or isn't boring, it's about moving away from the default.

The Attack Action was something decided before the session began. It was decided before the BBEG was known, and something decided before the player knew there would be a cliff that provided a vantage point. It is the worst-case scenario, because it's always available. It is boring, because it makes virtually all other influences irrelevant.

"You see the lever for the catapult on your left, the princess tangling from the siege weapon on your right, and your Dying Wizard about to eat the blade of the BBEG. What do you do?"

"I attack!"

That's why it's boring.
We can only expect a player to take the most efficient path to their goals, and if we want them to interact with stuff and make plans and friends and jump off cliffs to save people's lives, we have to make it more efficient to do them than they were going to do otherwise.

Well I think we are agreeing. We don't want an action to be the default and therefore boring. So if you character is on the top of a building overlooking the street below we don't want jumping down to attack to be sufficiently strong as to become the new default. To avoid something becoming the default it must be as comparatively strong as other options rather than weaker or stronger. If dropping down to make an attack where it is possible becomes better than say, cautiously climbing down or generally not throwing yourself off a high place, then players will still do the most efficient thing and they are still as robbed of choice as they are at any other time when faced with a clearly suboptimal course and an optimal course of action.

What I was suggesting is that the benefits depend on reading the situation and the target. The decision becomes more complex than "I can do it, therefore I will do it".

[Man_Over_Game]

Well I think we are agreeing. We don't want an action to be the default and therefore boring. So if you character is on the top of a building overlooking the street below we don't want jumping down to attack to be sufficiently strong as to become the new default. To avoid something becoming the default it must be as comparatively strong as other options rather than weaker or stronger. If dropping down to make an attack where it is possible becomes better than say, cautiously climbing down or generally not throwing yourself off a high place, then players will still do the most efficient thing and they are still as robbed of choice as they are at any other time when faced with a clearly suboptimal course and an optimal course of action.

What I was suggesting is that the benefits depend on reading the situation and the target. The decision becomes more complex than "I can do it, therefore I will do it".

But your definition of "circumstantial" in "circumstantial beneficial" seemed to be in the math calculation for the fall, not the circumstances it takes to get there or to pick a target. Looking at your suggestion, I would not choose to ever do a fall attack unless there was some really out-there reason to ever do it based on the HP of the target or how much burst damage I was willing to take in order to kill the target.

"Circumstance" is basically "reasons not to do this".

Jumping off a cliff to solve a problem is already circumstantial. The math doesn't have to be. Just adding something like [+1d10 damage, Advantage to Attack, and fall damage on both creatures on-hit] doesn't negate the circumstance of finding the cliff, getting there, hoping the target isn't out of place, and gambling it all on a dice roll (which also includes the risk of taking fall damage adjacent to the target if you missed the first half of your attacks for the turn).

[heavyfuel]

It wasn't about them being the same, but having the same basic game design formula:

Worth = (Effort + Risk) * Reward

I don't agree with your formule for the same reasons I mentioned when answering Tvtyrant. Not every idea should be equally worthy. Just because something is difficult to pull off, it doens't mean there should be a reward for it.

It feels like I'm going crazy for having to point out that not every strategy is a valid strategy.

Note that I'm talking about ideas here. I do agree with you when it comes to class features.


Generally not worth it, which is why most DMs never seen players pull off an ambush.

[Citation needed]

[Tvtyrant]

"Any plan"? Really? I can think of dozens of plans worse than that.

Not every idea should be rewarded. Stupid ideas should be punished.

If instead of slapping monsters with a metal bit I decided to dress up my 40 year old veteran as a baby and crawl at the enemies while making baby noises, I shouldn't expect success from this plan.

Ah, ad absurdium arguments right off the bat. Okay "any realistic tactical scenario not covered by the quite limited rule set." D&D 5E is pretty barebones, the fact that classic tropes like "swing from a chandelier to hit someone as you go by" aren't covered at all either means you can't do that, or you are supposed to make ad hoc rulings. Favor whichever you prefer.

[Man_Over_Game]

[Citation needed]

Really, really sorry about this. You kinda caught me at a bad time:


AssassinateAny hit you score against a surprised creature is a crit (because lets face it you hardly ever get to use something like this without setup and it's nice fluff so it might as well remain)

2nd: Nail down what Surprised is and a repeatable way to use it in a party setting. Auto-Crit is powerful, particularly on a Rogue, but as is it's the crux of the subclass and rarely, if ever, comes into play.

[On Surprise]Second half is reliant on the DM giving you the opportunity to use, may almost never come into play.
[...]
If your DM isn't working to open opportunities for your features, almost all of these can just not happen. I've been playing 5e since it came out, I can count on one hand the number of times I've attacked a Surprised creature.

The most interesting part of the Assassin subclass is that it is based on surprise, but with no way to set it up.
[MOG's Note: The Assassin has more ways than most to Surprise a target, as it's both a Rogue and gets features/proficiencies that allow them to disguise themselves. They have substantial support of getting Surprise compared to most other options, yet has "no way to set it up"]

[On Assassin features that improve your chances of Surprise] Well firstly, both those abilities do it very terribly. Not to mention they don't always guarantee it either..

Keep in mind, these are quotes from players who are working on changing the Assassin, not necessarily a discussion about who or who hasn't gotten a Surprise Encounter. This was information revealed accidentally, and with no mentions from anyone saying Surprise was too frequent.

And on this:

I don't agree with your formule for the same reasons I mentioned when answering Tvtyrant. Not every idea should be equally worthy. Just because something is difficult to pull off, it doens't mean there should be a reward for it.
I disagree. Anything a player puts effort towards is something worth rewarding them for. A system that fails to do so is the fault of the system, not the player.

Or rather, it's a mismatch between the two, and telling the player "don't do that" is basically the same as "play a different game". Sometimes, that's a good thing, as bards trying to seduce dragons can be distracting and obnoxious for the rest of the table. For my games, a Barbarian's Ambush doesn't fall into the same category of "let's set the orphanage on fire".

[heavyfuel]

Ah, ad absurdium arguments right off the bat. Okay "any realistic tactical scenario not covered by the quite limited rule set." D&D 5E is pretty barebones, the fact that classic tropes like "swing from a chandelier to hit someone as you go by" aren't covered at all either means you can't do that, or you are supposed to make ad hoc rulings. Favor whichever you prefer.

Yes, my argument was pretty absurd, but I've seen players do worse (a particular installment of an ever worse idea was back in 3.5 when a lv 6 Fighter decided insulting a Wyrm Blue Dragon was a good idea, and then followed it with a "what you gonna do? kill me?!" Can you guess how that turned out for him?)

My point is, simply, that not every idea is valid. You shouldn't be automatically rewarded just because you had an idea that goes beyond what the rules cover.

[heavyfuel]

Really, really sorry about this. You kinda caught me at a bad time:

I'm also on record saying that the Assassinate feature is extremely unreliable and generally not worth it. But saying that DMs never see ambushes in general being successful is misleading.


I disagree. Anything a player puts effort towards is something worth rewarding them for. A system that fails to do so is the fault of the system, not the player.

I guess it's agree to disagree then. I cannot see myself enjoying a game where something that's clearly a stupid idea being rewarded by the DM just because it was an idea.

[Man_Over_Game]

I guess it's agree to disagree then. I cannot see myself enjoying a game where something that's clearly a stupid idea being rewarded by the DM just because it was an idea.

I think it's fine to shift players' priorities based on nerfing/buffing certain mechanics. That's exactly how and why online games do it so regularly, and any smart DM should consider doing the same.

I guess the problem really comes from the DM being unaware of the impact these decisions have (E.G. nerfing an effect due to realism, in the assumption that realism makes a better game), or if the DM's priorities don't match the table's.



I don't necessarily think that you made the wrong call, I guess I just realized you're the wrong DM for me (and there's nothing wrong with that). I had a hard time differentiating the two up until now, sorry about that.

[MrStabby]

I think that there is little value to a good plan if there no cost to a bad one. Rewarding players is great, but there are so many opportunities to reward them that you dont have to hand out success like a participation award. It isnt really a "reward" nor does it feel rewarding if it would have happened anyway.

There are crazy plans that just might work... then there are crazy plans that are just stupid. Throwing yourself off a high place to inflict falling damage on someone... could be either depending on your DM.

I dont think realism is a bad objective but I dont think a DM should be a slave to it either. I think the main value of realism is consistency. A player has a good sense of the impact of their decision if a fansy setting is consistent and complete. Realistic physics, as far as they can be maintained and dont contradict any other explicit rules or rulings or setting expectations, are a shortcut. Players need to be empowered to make informed choices and to make inferences about what might work.

In a world where jumping down the side of a building to improve the outcome of an attack on someone is a good plan, the players need a lot more guidance on how the world works.

Now I said realism is good as long as it doesnt contradict setting expectations - so if there is a class ability that says something can be done or an ability that implies it, then I would say it's a bit different. So if your barbarian falls from low earth orbit, then they will probably survive, because rules and presestablished setting expectations will win out. But launching an attack as you fall with no purchase to thrust from, no ground to shift balance on, and unable to change the direction of a swing without twisting your body... it's a tough case to make. So maybe a monk with a flying kick? But only due to pre established expectations.

[Tanarii]

Well I think we are agreeing. We don't want an action to be the default and therefore boring. So if you character is on the top of a building overlooking the street below we don't want jumping down to attack to be sufficiently strong as to become the new default. To avoid something becoming the default it must be as comparatively strong as other options rather than weaker or stronger. If dropping down to make an attack where it is possible becomes better than say, cautiously climbing down or generally not throwing yourself off a high place, then players will still do the most efficient thing and they are still as robbed of choice as they are at any other time when faced with a clearly suboptimal course and an optimal course of action."You can either jump down, fall prone and take damage if you fail a DC X Acrobatics check, if you need to stand use your movement as normal, then make your normal attack. Or you can use your movement to go around and make your attack next round."

Sounds like a fair trade of risk vs reward.

IMO anything beyond jumping down distance (however the DM determines that) should be a solid chance of falling past, miss attack, splat ... if a commoner tried it. But these are heroes! Set a high DC* acrobatics check and if they can make their check they can attack as they fall past. Or right before they splat next to it, if their target is on the ground.

*high DC may vary from DM to DM

[AdAstra]

Hmmmm. Just off the top of my head, wanting both some degree of realism, but also wanting some meaningful risk/reward, I would probably say disadvantage on the attack, and if you miss you take fall damage, but if you hit you get to add the fall damage to the attack, to a maximum of twice the normal damage? Also no fall damage if you hit, because it's more fun that way and at least narratively landing on someone else should probably hurt less.

Seems like it would provide a decent enough reward to the risk, while not making it a no-brainer.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Well, here's what I would do:

The falling character takes fall damage according to falling the specified height.
The character fallen upon takes the same damage. Equal and opposite reactions. They may make a DC15 DEX [though maybe DC10. DC15 is what is was in older edition, but saving throws were also higher in older editions, and they're not actually just standing there and watching like a dumbass] saving throw to avoid entirely by stepping aside and letting the falling character go splat and land prone.