How far of a fall should constitute a lingering injury

[Gwin Thornspear]

So in the last adventure I was a DM in I had a player fall 300 feet of a tower get up brush himself off and walk away relatively unscathed. While it was nice for him, it felt a little cartoony that he walked away from such a fall with relative ease (also he was a fighter so you couldn't even argue that he saved himself with magic).

So I started thinking about how to make fall damage more dangerous for my next game. The obvious thing is to remove the fall damage cap as it is a little ridiculous anyways, but then I started thinking about the physical damage you would take from a fall beyond hit points (broken bones, concussions, etc.). How far do you think you would have to fall before it would be reasonable to incur a critical injury on a player. Keep in mind I am trying to find a balance between realism and playability, I don't want characters falling 300 feet without breaking a bone, but I also don't want players to get a lingering injury every time they fall into a 20 foot pit.

[Unoriginal]

So in the last adventure I was a DM in I had a player fall 300 feet of a tower get up brush himself off and walk away relatively unscathed. While it was nice for him, it felt a little cartoony that he walked away from such a fall with relative ease (also he was a fighter so you couldn't even argue that he saved himself with magic).

So I started thinking about how to make fall damage more dangerous for my next game. The obvious thing is to remove the fall damage cap as it is a little ridiculous anyways, but then I started thinking about the physical damage you would take from a fall beyond hit points (broken bones, concussions, etc.). How far do you think you would have to fall before it would be reasonable to incur a critical injury on a player.

What kind of lingering injuries are you going to apply next time the Wizard gets brought to 0 HP by a club the size of a tree swung by a Giant?

The next time the Cleric catch the full force of a Red Dragon's breath?

The next time the Rogue gets sprayed with acid trying to disable a trap?

The next time the Barbarian is stabbed through the torso with a spear?

There is 0 reason to inflict lingering injuries for a fall but not for the rest.

If this Fighter fell 300ft down a tower and survived, they're a badass who can survive that because they're a badass in a fantasy setting allowing epic feats of physical toughness.



Keep in mind I am trying to find a balance between realism and playability

D&D 5e isn't the game for that, I'm afraid.

Given that lvl 1 PCs destroy realism by being able to shoot fire with their minds and similar deeds.

[Gwin Thornspear]

What kind of lingering injuries are you going to apply next time the Wizard gets brought to 0 HP by a club the size of a tree swung by a Giant?

The next time the Cleric catch the full force of a Red Dragon's breath?

The next time the Rogue gets sprayed with acid trying to disable a trap?

The next time the Barbarian is stabbed through the torso with a spear?

There is 0 reason to inflict lingering injuries for a fall but not for the rest.

If this Fighter fell 300ft down a tower and survived, they're a badass who can survive that because they're a badass in a fantasy setting allowing epic feats of physical toughness.



D&D 5e isn't the game for that, I'm afraid.

Given that lvl 1 PCs destroy realism by being able to shoot fire with their minds and similar deeds.

I am using lingering injuries for critical hits and nat 1 spell saves, so it does apply across the board (sorry I should have specified that).

As for realism in 5th ed D&D I disagree to some degree, I think just because magic exists in a world it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be high fantasy. With base D&D I do agree it can be hard to make it gritty, but with enough house rules it is possible to do so. Thats one of the reasons I am trying to figure out how far to go with this rule, because I don't think falls should be exempt from critical injuries just because you don't make any saves while falling.

[Kane0]

I am using lingering injuries for critical hits and nat 1 spell saves, so it does apply across the board (sorry I should have specified that).


I'd say if its half or more of your max HP from the fall.

[Keltest]

At 50 feet of falling, make a DC 5 dex save. Every additional 50 feet, increase the DC by 5. Failing on the save results in a long term injury as well as the short term damage.

[Skrum]

Even in a punishing, gritty game I'd aim for something generic and easy to remember. Take X% of your HP, make a Con save to avoid a lingering injury. Take 1.5X%, make the DC higher. And then have a little chart of possible injuries. Unless your players are explicit masochists, I would not recommend making the injuries too punishing. Disadv. on particular skills or saves, -5 movement, reduce maximum HP by a small amount, that sort of thing. Even conditions like poisoned are *extremely harsh* if they can't be dealt with, and it really gets old for your character to be slogging though at a fraction of their potential.

Idk, sounds like you have a pretty completed system. But yeah, let tough characters be tough, even if there's an injury system. Don't give them the same injury chance as the wizard - ergo, base it on percent of total HP, not "you both fell from 150' up, so you both have a broken leg now."

[KorvinStarmast]

What kind of lingering injuries are you going to apply next time the Wizard gets brought to 0 HP by a club the size of a tree swung by a Giant?

The next time the Cleric catch the full force of a Red Dragon's breath?

The next time the Rogue gets sprayed with acid trying to disable a trap?

The next time the Barbarian is stabbed through the torso with a spear?

There is 0 reason to inflict lingering injuries for a fall but not for the rest.

If this Fighter fell 300ft down a tower and survived, they're a badass who can survive that because they're a badass in a fantasy setting allowing epic feats of physical toughness.
Good answer but to answer the OP:
Re: How far of a fall should constitute a lingering injury
Any fall that reduces the character to 0 HP. See DMG criteria for lingering injury.

[JackPhoenix]

Somewhere between 0 (people who injure themselves when they slip on ice or something) and 18 000 feet (This man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade)). Or, as noted, when the normal conditions for lingering injuries come into play.

[Psyren]

So in the last adventure I was a DM in I had a player fall 300 feet of a tower get up brush himself off and walk away relatively unscathed. While it was nice for him, it felt a little cartoony that he walked away from such a fall with relative ease (also he was a fighter so you couldn't even argue that he saved himself with magic).

I suggest you use the Improvised Damage rules for extreme falls (DMG 249) rather than the falling damage rules. That lets you still have a cap but it makes long falls much more impactful and to be avoided.

[Rukelnikov]

Someone (was it @Pex?) used to have a sig that talked about this specifically and I always liked it, it went something like:

"In 2e a 20th level fighter could survive a fall from the stratosphere and be fine in a couple of weeks, in 5e a 6th level Wizard can survive the same fall and be fine in an hour. I prefer the former"

Maybe add a save vs lingering injury once damage cap has been reached?

[Rynjin]

Making lingering injuries a common thing is a great way to make sure the only person you're playing with is yourself.

One of the last 5e games I played my Barbarian ended up 3 fingers and a couple toes down before I just said "**** it" and left. Turned out the rest of the party weren't so keen on playing those odds without the main frontliner to soak all the injuries, so they skedaddled too after another sesh.

[Mastikator]

Lingering injury should not be anything that handicaps a player character. A DM tried to introduce these rules into a game to make it gritter, I straight up told him if any permanent or lingering injury has any negative effect on his ability to be an adventurer, I'll retire that character. He will take an arrow to the knee and become a town guard.

So if you want players to do character development, or use player characters backstories as long term plot device, DO NOT USE LINGERING INJURY.

Because this is killer DM territory.

[Zhorn]

Had a game in the past that hard lingering injuries on the regular... the game did not last.

They have their uses, and I'm always willing to be in a game that has them; but they need to be rare and appropriate to be tolerable.

For my current game, they haven't come into play until
1 - Regeneration was within reach of the players;
2 - Their level could justify the amount of damage needed to trigger it (ie: if you go by 50% hp, then you don't apply it when the party is low enough that it's not a challenge to hit)
3 - Their wealth has reached a level where they can afford to pay for the recovery.

Final part, I reserve them for dungeon end bosses, or major events that signal the party is to be heading back to civilization.
They don't happen from random encounters or trash mobs. Has to be someone with a name to be the cause.

The more easily the party are being able to resolve them, THEN they can become regular.
But if they cannot easily access the solution within a session's timeframe, then they become unfun too quickly.

[Rukelnikov]

Lingering injury should not be anything that handicaps a player character. A DM tried to introduce these rules into a game to make it gritter, I straight up told him if any permanent or lingering injury has any negative effect on his ability to be an adventurer, I'll retire that character. He will take an arrow to the knee and become a town guard.

So if you want players to do character development, or use player characters backstories as long term plot device, DO NOT USE LINGERING INJURY.

Because this is killer DM territory.

It wouldn't be acomplishing its job if it didn't.

[Cybren]

Lingering injury should not be anything that handicaps a player character. A DM tried to introduce these rules into a game to make it gritter, I straight up told him if any permanent or lingering injury has any negative effect on his ability to be an adventurer, I'll retire that character. He will take an arrow to the knee and become a town guard.

So if you want players to do character development, or use player characters backstories as long term plot device, DO NOT USE LINGERING INJURY.

Because this is killer DM territory.

I think you would find more success in communication if you used "I statements" more often. "I don't like lingering injuries" or "I don't play D&D for that kind of thing", that way you are more clear in what you mean.

[Sigreid]

I am using lingering injuries for critical hits and nat 1 spell saves, so it does apply across the board (sorry I should have specified that).

As for realism in 5th ed D&D I disagree to some degree, I think just because magic exists in a world it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be high fantasy. With base D&D I do agree it can be hard to make it gritty, but with enough house rules it is possible to do so. Thats one of the reasons I am trying to figure out how far to go with this rule, because I don't think falls should be exempt from critical injuries just because you don't make any saves while falling.

So why not have them make an athletics or acrobatics roll and if they roll a one or below a threshold they get an injury.

Side note, in the real world people occasionally fall unprotected from absurd heights without serious injury.

[Monster Manuel]

It wouldn't be acomplishing its job if it didn't.

I think the key thing here is not that a lingering injury isn't impacting the character, but that it shouldn't be a PERMANENT incapacitation. To Zhorn's point earlier in the thread, they should only come into play when it's appropriate, when it's fun, and when there's a reasonable assumption that they can be corrected.


Final part, I reserve them for dungeon end bosses, or major events that signal the party is to be heading back to civilization.
They don't happen from random encounters or trash mobs. Has to be someone with a name to be the cause.
I think this is key. They should be memorable consequences of significant encounters. A lingering injury to your character's legs after being pushed out a tower window by the King's wicked son is cool. You have a legitimate grudge against a recurring NPC villain. The same injury after rolling a nat1 on the save when falling in a random pit trap in a side-quest dungeon; less fun.

Tying the injury to an athletics roll or a save is fair, and makes sense. But DMs should feel free to apply it intelligently, when it makes sense and is plot-appropriate to do so.

[Kane0]

I think if the table likes it then its all good.

[Telwar]

In general I wouldn't. 5e is not built to take lingering injuries in play. If you want those, it's probably best to explore a system that is built for those, like Riddle of Steel or GURPS.

But, if like many groups, they don't want to try any new and possibly scary systems, then go for it. However, I would be extremely flexible about backtracking stuff, as it's very likely players who are subject to those will change their minds after having their genitals chopped off by a random orc with a mace for the fourth time.

[Rukelnikov]

I think the key thing here is not that a lingering injury isn't impacting the character, but that it shouldn't be a PERMANENT incapacitation. To Zhorn's point earlier in the thread, they should only come into play when it's appropriate, when it's fun, and when there's a reasonable assumption that they can be corrected.

Well, its DnD, nothing can't be undone. Losing an arm may take a while to undo at low levels, until the party gets access to a regenerate spell, but its not permanent.

[Mastikator]

It wouldn't be acomplishing its job if it didn't.

Then just kill the character.

Any injury that permanently prevents a character from being an adventurer, should and will stop them from being an adventurer. So either accept that "I lose my fingers, I no longer can wield a sword, I stop being an adventuring fighter, I make new character" or just straight up kill the character.

Those are the only options. It's not a false dichotomy, it's a true dichotomy. You either can adventure or you can't. If you can't then you won't.

[da newt]

IMO a fall that does more than 50% of the PC's max HP would be a reasonable threshold, but I'd also ensure the injury only lingers for a period of time - NOT permanent and not debilitating, just a flavorful nuisance.

[Sneak Dog]

If you drop to zero hp from some grandiose source of damage, roll a d20. On 9 or less, you suffer an appropriate injury. Falling damage? Leg broke. Lets say it halves your speed and you lose 1 hp for every minute of intensive use. will take some weeks to heal.
If you roll a 10, but less than 9+old injury count, and old injury flares up. Will annoy you for a week. Lets say it's just half the usual penalty, so minus a quarter the speed for the leg.
You can have up to 6 old injuries. If you manage to get another one, replace the least memorable one.

There. A loose injury system that's dramatic, makes dropping to zero a risk and lets the high level fighter enjoy their massive hp pool by jumping off an airship and rolling with the landing. Even promotes the barbarian shoving the wizard in front because they've hp left to tank with. Maybe give fighters and barbarians a bonus class feature at higher levels to be less bothered by injuries.

[Rukelnikov]

Then just kill the character.

Any injury that permanently prevents a character from being an adventurer, should and will stop them from being an adventurer. So either accept that "I lose my fingers, I no longer can wield a sword, I stop being an adventuring fighter, I make new character" or just straight up kill the character.

Those are the only options. It's not a false dichotomy, it's a true dichotomy. You either can adventure or you can't. If you can't then you won't.

My Sorlock spent 3 levels without an eye, so yeah it is a false dichotomy.

[Zhorn]

My Sorlock spent 3 levels without an eye, so yeah it is a false dichotomy.
Not all injuries can be compared 1-to-1.
Yes a caster can easily manage to go for multiple levels having lost an eyes, since it has no impact on the vast majority of their spells being save-based rather than ranged attack rolls.
For martials though loosing the use of a hand (be it through loosing fingers, the hand, or the whole arm) rules out being able to use 2 handers, dual wielding, having a shield and weapon simultaneously, and ranged options that require a second hand to wield or even just reload.

Stuff like that is why I limit lingering injuries to only when solutions are a ready available option to the players within a sesson's worth of time.
Not dependant on if the players are luck
nor on the results of dice rolls
nor on the whims of the DM

The players have full control over "I leave the dungeon, return to town, get fixed up" sequence so that by the same point in time by next session they are no longer dealing with the lingering injury unless by their own choice.

If the whims of the DM state "no this injury will last multiple sessions and has these hoops you much jump through to resolve, of which are quests in their own right"... yeah, that character is retiring for a non-injured character to take over.

[Gwin Thornspear]

Thanks everybody for your input on this question, I think I am going to go with if you lose more than half your HP from a fall you gain a lingering injury. Should be interesting to see how common of an occurrence it will be, and if it truly becomes too debilitating or not.

As for those of you saying critical injuries should not be applied to a game, I would have to disagree with that, I think it all depends on the type of game you want to play. My games tend to be more political based and less dungeon crawly so missing an arm (which is still pretty rare), for instance, isn't as debilitating because theres a lot more negotiating and leading of armies than constant party skirmishes. All in all it really comes down to what type of game you want to run, and making sure your players are aware and okay with these rules before you start a game.

[Kane0]

All in all it really comes down to what type of game you want to run, and making sure your players are aware and okay with these rules before you start a game.

Hear hear!

[Rukelnikov]

Not all injuries can be compared 1-to-1.
Yes a caster can easily manage to go for multiple levels having lost an eyes, since it has no impact on the vast majority of their spells being save-based rather than ranged attack rolls.
For martials though loosing the use of a hand (be it through loosing fingers, the hand, or the whole arm) rules out being able to use 2 handers, dual wielding, having a shield and weapon simultaneously, and ranged options that require a second hand to wield or even just reload.

He was primarily an Ago Blast spammer, so yeah, disadvantage on his primary method of attack was indeed an issue, also got his face burned to disfiguration, which became a problem since he was merchant and somewhat the party's face.

Also, that's just one character, we've had a cleric who lost an arm, a dual weilder who lost an arm, got it back, and lost it again a couple levels later, a bardsinger that lost both legs, and many more.


Stuff like that is why I limit lingering injuries to only when solutions are a ready available option to the players within a sesson's worth of time.
Not dependant on if the players are luck
nor on the results of dice rolls
nor on the whims of the DM

The players have full control over "I leave the dungeon, return to town, get fixed up" sequence so that by the same point in time by next session they are no longer dealing with the lingering injury unless by their own choice.

Well, its playstyles I suppose, but that's like having an insurance of sorts, "go adventuring its perfectly safe, nothing bad will happen" that's anathema to what I look for in DnD.


If the whims of the DM state "no this injury will last multiple sessions and has these hoops you much jump through to resolve, of which are quests in their own right"... yeah, that character is retiring for a non-injured character to take over.

It needs not be whims of the DM, we use a table originally based upon the lingering injuries from the DMG.

[GloatingSwine]

Well, its playstyles I suppose, but that's like having an insurance of sorts, "go adventuring its perfectly safe, nothing bad will happen" that's anathema to what I look for in DnD.


TBH it sounds like what you're doing is bodging D&D to do what Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is intended to do.

[Rukelnikov]

TBH it sounds like what you're doing is bodging D&D to do what Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is intended to do.

Maybe its got to do with having started in 2e, getting used to and liking that death was more common, coming back harder, and resources in general far scarcer.

[Cheesegear]

So I started thinking about how to make fall damage more dangerous for my next game.

Why Fall damage, and not...Any damage?


The obvious thing is to remove the fall damage cap as it is a little ridiculous anyways

Sure. I've removed the fall damage cap in my games. It rarely comes up, and when it does, it feels reasonable.


How far do you think you would have to fall before it would be reasonable to incur a critical injury on a player.

There is no distance imaginable where it would be reasonable to incur a persistent injury on the player:

1a. The Injury gets healed with a Cure Wounds, Lesser or Greater Restoration.
1b. Depending on the tier of play, you may need them to go on adventure to find someone capable of casting Greater Restoration. At the very least you may have to front up the cash for a 5th-Level spell, plus the cost or acquisition of the diamonds.

Either way, any injury that can be healed, is the same as any other injury, and thus, is kind of pointless to think about. There's no point giving out persistent injuries because persistent injuries can be fixed...

Alternatively:

2a. The persistent injury hamstrings the player's character. Cool. The player retires that character, and rolls a new one with the exact same name and abilities, and is otherwise identical to the injured character...But doesn't have the injury anymore.
2b. The "quest" of attaining the ability to cure the persistent injury is long and/or boring and/or not what the players want to do. Cool. The player retires that character, rolls a new character with the exact same name and abilities - but without the injury - and now the players don't have to go on that quest and they can do what they really want to do.

Don't do persistent injuries. It's a fun idea. I've done it - for exactly one time, which was also the last time. But I've found that any negative trait to a player's character that they didn't specifically know what they were getting into when they acquired it, or, any negative trait that they don't want that lasts longer than 2-3 Long Rests, only causes them to retire their character.
Nobody wants to be penalised.
Nobody wants to play a character that sucks.
Or, the persistent injury is healed immediately via whatever magic you care to name. The party burns a resource and the game continues. In that case, the character simply suffered something...And the game continues.

Oooh...Looks like you dropped to 0 from a crit. Looks like you've suffered a major injury. *Rolls dice* ...Lose a hand! Oof, that's rough.
Cool. So I'm dead?
No, you just lost a hand.
Yeah, no. That hurts my character too much. I'd rather be dead, and I'll re-roll.
Wellll...You aren't dead. So you can't re-roll.
Okay. Cool. After the loss of my hand, I decide that my adventuring days are over and I walk into town and use whatever funds I've acquired whilst adventuring to buy a small house and who cares what happens after that? Now can I re-roll characters?
Okay. Ignore that. My bad. You drop to 0.
I don't lose a hand?
No...No I get it. Whilst it might be more realistic to have critical injuries. I can see that depending on your character, which injury you roll has the potential to make your character unplayable...And in that case, yes, you may as well just be dead or retire the character.

...And I never used persistent injuries again. I do, however, like Madnesses - they have a lot less chance of making a character unplayable, and they force the player open up roleplaying opportunities.

[KorvinStarmast]

{snip} I do, however, like Madnesses - they have a lot less chance of making a character unplayable, and they force the player open up roleplaying opportunities.
Whether I agree or not, your posts have a lot of entertainment value. :smallsmile: +1