If falling damage onto land is 1d6 for every 10 feet, what should it be for landing in water? Should there be any damage at all???
I'm currently guessing wildly at damage = (height in feet) / 50.
I would say 1/2, or 1d4.
Water hurts less, but it still hurts.
Ignore first 30ft, then half after that?
TheNovaLord wrote:
I would probably allow a DEX (acrobatics) check to turn it into 0 damage with a DC based on height of the fall and depth of the water, with a partial success at a lower DC for half damage. Usually I reduce the distance of the fall by 10 feet if there is water in which to land, regardless of the check.
It depends on the height, and the surface tension of the water. Technically speaking, falling 30 ft. into a poor of water that hasn't had it's surface tension broken can cause damage. On top of that, if the water is only betwen 4 fee and 8 feet deep, depending how heavy you are, you risk hitting the bottom, which can cause additional damage.
That being said; a Halfling (small creature) falling from a height of 30 feet into a pool of water that hasn't had it's surface broken, would still incur the 1d6 damage for every 10 feet fallen. Should the surface tension be significally broken before the halfling hits the water, he could manage to survive with no damage.
The same situation of a Human (medium creature) falling from a height of 30 feet into a pool of whater that hasn't had it's surface broken, would incur the standard 1d6 damage for every 10 feet fallen, as well any additional possible damage based on the depth of the pool.
Ultimately, it is up to the dM to decide.
This came up in a game of mine years ago, and one of my players who is an engineer said something about water having a higher tensile strength than concrete and that basically from a certain height it would actually do more damage to land on water than on dry land. He said basically, as a rule of thumb, if the distance seemed so little that it wouldn't do any damage, then we should count it as zero, otherwise it should deal the full falling damage. That sounded reasonable then and still does.
paulstrait wrote:
My solution was to make a check to change the fall into a dive or flawless dive. It seemed like a reasonable solution.
iDied wrote:
I personally like Ashrym's dexterity check idea (makes for funner programming), but should probably combine it with ignoring the first 50 ft, then normal falling damage after that if the dexterity check fails.
Since Strength (Athletics) is listed as the skill for swimming, I would go with it for diving (or falling into water) but Dex could be used, too. As it's possible to damage yourself falling from 10 ft. into water (ever done a belly-whacker from a diving board?) I would go with 1d6 per 10 ft. fallen, with an Athletics check for half damage made with advantage at less than 50 ft.
prestokeys wrote:
prestokeys wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Whatever you come up with should allow for Olympic Diving to be a non-fatal sport. 
Monks have Slow Fall as a class feature, maybe copying it for diving on purpose (but not for being thrown into a lake) would mechanically make the point.
the Op said 'falling damage'....... that is uncontrolled.......do that from even an 8m board and its ouchy time
Doing it on purpose with control (ie diving) is a whole different matter
depend on how technicall you want to be calculating the maximum velocity of free falling depending on the weight DENSITY of the object, the temperature of water, the manner the creature fall on that water (belly flat or perfect diving position?) the gravity of your world, the air composition...
Or simply dex save, if you fail to take a good diving position you hit a belly flop and take half damage, if you suceed then you take 0 damage (but now need to suceed at a swimming check to redirectt he energy to a horizontal movement instead of continuing on t=your vertical axis and hitting the ground for full damage.
I would suggest ignoring the first 50', then allowing an Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to half damage after that.
Surface cohesion is an obvious danger, turning a fall from a certain height (when combined with a human's terminal velocity) can make water just as dangerous the hit as the ground. However, once you've broken the surface, you're also allowed to enter the water and slow down, rather than find yourself at a sudden stop.
Something I hadn't taken into consideration is that when we think diving, we think somone in a swimsuit. Not to get too far into trying to simulate reality, but hitting the water from 20 feet wearing a backpack with a sword strapped to your side is going to hurt a lot more than just doing a dive in your skivvies.
I'll probably just keep it simple for my home campaign. Ignore the first 20 ft, 1d4 per 10 ft after that, acrobatics to reduce damage. I also allow the acrobatics check to reduce normal falling damage just because it makes sense to me.
Yeah. Simple is best for 5e
prestokeys wrote:
iDied wrote:
I say keep it simple, real simple. Still the standard 1d6 per 10' for damage but give an acrobatics check to reduce the damage, either a straight DC to half the damage (if the water is deep enough for a dive) or reduce the amount of damage based on the roll, maybe reduce the damage by the check result (get a 17 acrobatics, reduce damage by 17) or something along those lines. There might also already be rules for reducing damage (I have not read them yet), if there are I see no reason to differentiate for water unless the PC purposfully dives rather than falls. If you are falling much of the damage could be from bouncing off the cliff wall on your way down, and is not all necessarily from going splat at the bottom.
I'd have it deal no damage for the first 40' of falling, after that 1d6 per 10'. A DC 15 athletics or acrobatics check would reduce damage by 1d6+1 for every point you beat the DC.
prestokeys wrote:
transcendantviewer wrote:
Interestingly enough, this came up in my Tuesday night Expeditions session this week while playing Outlaws of the Iron Route
One of the PCs was rapelling up a 60 ft long zipline suspended 40ft above the ground. To make the climb, I made him make hard Athletics checks (DC15) each round due to the difficulty with suspending one's entire body weight by arm and leg strength alone. After 2 rounds (and 30ft of distance), I made him make Constitution saves to avoid suffering fatigue. He failed one such check (making the second).
With only 15 feet of distance left to cross, he fell. I allowed him to make an acrobatics check to alter his trajectory (DC10 due to the height, but made with disadvantage due to fatigue), and land in the fast flowing river below (he succeeded). As such, I ruled he did not suffer any falling damage from his 30-35ft fall.
Baphogoat wrote:
There was a risk they would hit the rocky shoreline instead -hense the acrobatics check to dive safely.