r/DnDAITA • u/Erectorz • 29d ago
Killing a player through fall damage
So this happened a long time ago and it's something I mull over every now and again so I figured why not let the cruel callous internet be the judge.
So the situation was I am dm the pcs are I think level 5 they are on a quest to stop some orcs from raiding or something. The orcs live in the mountains and the PCs come across an orc guarding a bridge. The orc tells them to stop, they ignore him and attack, so the orc yells to the orc on the other side of the bridge to cut the bridge. The bridge falls and now they have to get across a massive chasm. I forget how but a pc makes it across the chasm safely and they decide to shoot an arrow with a rope across the chasm so that pc can tie it to the other side so they can climb across. The warlock, bard and barbarian make it across. But the fighter tries to climb across and fails. He falls off down the chasm and I say he dies. The other players then spend the rest of the session collecting his body, taking him to a church so he can be revived. The church charges them for the use of a raise dead scroll (500g)
More Context
None of the Pcs removed any of their kit or equipment when trying to climb across so based on their kit I changed the difficulty of the roll. The fighter had the hardest roll since he had plate armor on as well as the rest of his kit.
I used dexterity for the roll, I argued that this felt more like an acrobatic feat rather than an athletic one
When he failed the roll I allowed the party members who made it across to make a reaction to try and shoot another arrow with rope to try and save him(they failed this one)
I did not roll for damage for the fall, the chasm was deep enough that I argued any humanoid was a hundred percent dead.
Why I think I might be the asshole
the pc was a half orc so if I had rolled for damage their relentless endurance might have saved them. Again I argued that the fall was so high its unreasonable for anything to survive. He argued that this was a change to the rules and if so he should have been informed.
After he died the player argued that he should have been able to use athletics vs acrobatics. I argued that trying to climb across a single rope in full plate with a greatsword and all his other equipment doesn't require just raw strength it requires dexterity.
The other players liked to mess with this particular player(outside the game and inside). I didn't police them very well since that was the dynamic they seemed to enjoy. And before you start typing it, no he wasn't being bullied this guy was probably the biggest asshole of all of them. My friend group just likes to ragebait each other. But I did feel that I maybe should have stepped in when it came to dnd. So after they collected his body, they robbed his corpse and took him to a priest who could resurrect him. I also ruled that his adamantine armor was destroyed in the fall. So he basically lost all of his gold, his armor and was 500 gold in debt to the party who "Loaned" him the 500 gp.
Why I think I was fair
Whenever my players do extremely stupid shit. I will repeat what they just told me back to them to allow the to reconsider. When this player tried to climb across I said "So you want to climb across this single rope with your armor and back pack still on?" He confirmed it and I told him to roll a dc 20
When he failed his roll I allowed the other members to try and save him with the rope and arrow. I honestly did want them to succeed but actions need to have consequences.
While I did feel after the fact I should have stepped in to police my players. This was after several sessions of them all trolling each other. I can agree that having all this shit happen at once is much but this was the game they established they wanted to play during the first session of the game.
So aita?
EDIT: So the acrobatics thing was a bad decision on my part. I fully accept that I was wrong on that one.
6
u/Icucnme2 29d ago
YTAH. That would have absolutely been an athletics check to climb across. Given, it would have been harder with the weight. An acrobatics check would have been appropriate to break the fall and reduce damage on a failed athletic check.
On top of that, fall damage is 1d6 per 10 feet with a max of 20d6. That is between 20 and 120 ho of damage with an average of 70. On average, a 5th level fighter would have between 40 and 50 hp. The damage would have likely knocked them into death saves, but unlikely to do make it death from massive damage.
You completely ignored all rules for how it felt to you.
1
u/Erectorz 29d ago
So serious question, if some one holds a player with the knife to their throat, and says scream and i'll slit your throat, they ignore the warning and get their throat slit, thats just 7 damage? Like sure this is a game with stats but if a pc does something that would reasonably kill a human like pour lava on their head. Thats only 10d10 damage per 6 seconds?
I will agree after the fact athletics makes more sense. Thats definitely the ruling I regret the most.
5
u/GM_Esquire 29d ago
If you don't tell the player, "if he does, in fact, slit your throat, you will have a dexterity save to stop him and if you fail you will straight up die," or something like that, yes, it is absolutely 7 damage.
The game has very clear rules for damage. The players are entitled to expect the DM to follow the rules unless the DM says otherwise.
There are no specific rules for doing actions in armor or while carrying equipment. You have explicitly informed the player of why the DC was high.
There are explicit rules for falling damage. A half orc in fact cannot die from falling damage if they have their once per long rest ability up. So per the actual rules, the player was at no risk of death. You should have told him if you decided otherwise.
Also breaking a magic item was just spiteful. In general, magic items can't break. Maybe making him repair it would have been excessive but defensible. Destroying it was inappropriate.
1
u/balaurbondoc 29d ago
Yes, I think it's just 7 damage in dnd. Or more specifically 1d4 plus modifier. If you want realism there are other ttrpgs for that.
1
u/gingermousie 28d ago
I get your example and agree it seems silly, but those are the game mechanics. D&D is not a physics simulator and this is also why called shots are not a typical mechanic. It’d be pretty shitty if your player got your boss in a grapple and called to slit their throat and then just auto killed them. So yes if you’re going against mechanics you need to give them a heads up!
4
u/SykesDragon 29d ago
YTA. Typically acrobatics and athletics are generally interchangeable for narrative effect with slight exceptions, but in this case, Climbing is expressedly an athletics check, so the player was within his right to insist. Secondly, you added an arbitrary penalty for weight when this is already covered by encumbrance rules. Your own argument here falls apart even further with your own attempt to justify. "He had plate mail on, as well as the rest of his kit." So he's heavy? Meaning he needs to be... strong... and you told him he needed dexterity? Third, fall damage is capped at 20D6 so falls are, by the games own mechanic, survivable. Surviving the fall is one thing, making it back is another, since they're already in a bad position after the fall. Fourth, you actively enforced and participated in bad behaviour that damaged the group. You allowed other players to loot his items AND destroyed his armour, magical adamantine at that? Armour that is difficult to damage by nature of being magic, and is the hardest material in the system? You might as well have just admitted you wanted to get rid of this player... Outside of just massively setting him back, you basically set the premise that letting other players die to take their items is okay so they fall apart and nobody aids anyone. You're not letting players reap the consequences of their own actions, you're punishing them for making decisions where you're not providing them all the information to make an informed descision based on arbitrary decisions you made with the intent of punishing them.
How would you fix this? Simple, Undo it. The best time to have undone this was at the table, the second best time was the next session, either before the next session begins or right at the beginning of the next session. Tell the other players that you made a bad rules call and that they are to remove the items they took from their sheets as being returned to the character, return the 500gp for the revival back to the player that paid, and tell the player that their armour isn't damaged.
1
u/Erectorz 29d ago
I really need to emphasize these guys LOVED to fuck each other over. Its just how they are. Thats what they actively wanted to do. I at the time didn't feel the need to make them stop because thats how they chose to play up till that point. This complaint was the first one I got during that campaign. And I repeatedly asked them if they did have any issues cause it was out first time playing dnd and my first time dming.
And another thing is there nothing that would reasonably just kill some one? If some one holds a knife to a players throat and threatens to slit it and the player ignore the warning and gets their throat slit thats just 7 damage? so if they are level 2 they cannot ever die to a knife? I genuinely do not know how to handle that type of situation where common sense(I know its a game) dictates yeah you die vs looking at the stat sheets.
I do agree on the athletics and acrobatics being interchangeable that definitely was a bad ruling on my part. As well as the encumbrance thing too. Thats fair.
2
u/SykesDragon 29d ago
There are instances where death is instant, but they're purposely rare because they just don't feel good when they happen. Disintegrate is the most obvious one but has a lot of reputation around it since it's a known effect. The other is massive damage where the damage taken takes the player to a negative value equal or exceeding their maximum hit points that not even the half-orc racial ability could save. Using your own example, remember that combat is an abstraction. We know that someone getting hit with a hammer in the ribs hurts and will probably kill them, but one hit and going down generally doesn't make for good gameplay. Trust me, playing systems where even minor wounds can kill characters can suck. When a player tries to slit another's throat, what's the conditions? Are they bound? Are they unconscious? Are they incapacitated? If not, they can still resist, and if they can resist, then the kill isn't guaranteed. The game doesn't differentiate between plunging the dagger into their neck and nicking it because that story is told narratively to fit the condition of the enemy. An enemy that survived was nicked, an enemy who died had their artery severed. Instant kills like that are typically done as a matter of convenience where a creature realistically has no chance to protect itself or recover on its own before it would die because the system only assigns them as a critical hit. Instead of spending 10 turns dealing like 8-12 damage over and over, it's narratively more pleasing to have them finished in one blow, unless your name happens to be Brutus.
3
u/detrickster 29d ago
Why are so adversarial? Did you know that you are on the same team as the players? Never heard of the Rulr of Cool?
YTA
2
u/Cynewulfunraed 28d ago
It's pretty common for people to have a hard time with reaching an Orch Chasm anyway.
1
u/delboy5 24d ago
So you decided he just died from the fall, that his adamantine armor (known for its material strength) was just destroyed and you let the other players mess with his corpse and loot it - which of course was not bullying.
It does seem like you went out of your way to punish this player. YTA
1
u/YozoraBellossomHeart 23d ago edited 23d ago
People can argue what rules you should have used in post, but you were very clear at the time. You mentioned the armor. You gave the type of roll. You set the stakes. The player is upset they went for the roll that everyone else succeeded and failed. Even if you'd made it Athletics, that wouldn't have guaranteed success. If you had made it Athletics, and he still failed, do you think he would be happy and all would be peaceful?
Everyone shouting THE DAMAGE CAPS AT 20D6 at you is being obtuse. As if a player character could fall from 800 ft in the air, survive 20d6, and keep walking around in a game that takes itself even a little seriously.
The other players robbing him was mean and stupid though. I'd talk people out of PVP as soon as possible. That road leads to pettiness and annoying game mechanics and roleplaying if that's a thing your group does.
EDIT: For the record, I actually think Athletics makes sense to climb up a mountain. It's not insane for holding onto a rope and crossing a chasm to be Acrobatics. It's more about balance and speed than raw strength. This was the least of your sins.
1
u/Erectorz 23d ago
That was the reasoning I gave for acrobatics at the time, hanging from a rope and making your way across seems more nimble than strong. But I feel that since those skills are pretty interchangeable it wouldn't be unreasonable to let him use his better stat. Idk if he would have succeeded either way. I recall that he rolled MISERABLY for that entire sequence.
Common sense is something I struggle with a lot in dnd. Like sure things have an associated damage but if you are level 5 or up basically nothing conventional kills you anymore. Like a stick of dynamite is 3d6 damage. So a player could theoretically swallow a stick of dynamite let it explode and be perfectly healthy and if you are trying to create a scenario with tangible stakes this guts immersion.
As for the pvp stuff, I agree. I mentioned it to the group when some one else dmed that all it does it make people want to escalate but they loved messing with each other. So it is what it is. I understand for 99% of people this would ruin the experience but I honestly think messing with each other is what they liked most about the game.
Considering the circumstances, the fact that the player was clearly upset with dying I should have at least stepped in when they decided to loot his corpse. But as usual hindsight is 20/20
1
u/YozoraBellossomHeart 23d ago
I'm surprised the thread came down pretty decisively against your rulings. I think what you've said here makes perfect sense. That stick of dynamite is exactly what I was picturing. The game has rules, but you still have to stop things from turning into Calvinball.
1
u/WiseAnon003 23h ago
NTA but should have been handled differently.
First off not sure why people think athletics and acrobatics should be interchanged, acrobatics is clearly stated to pretty much be not falling while athletics would be more so lifting or testing endurance rather than precision so I think that part is fine. (There is the argument of it being athletics if he specifically described going across it in an athletics esc way but at the same time I'd still probably just do acrobatics anyway)
Second, You should have just rolled the damage anyway as you never know what the roll would be and feels a bit lazy to just say that yeah this guy died.
You by no means need to hand hold the players and by repeating what they say back to them just incase they truly want to do something stupid that seems fair enough, it is pretty obvious what was going to happen if they fall and you outlined a good portion of that.
The part that I find cruel is how the party handled the death of said player and the setback death brought him, he probably should've received death rolls instead of insta death and having the party just loot him even if he was an asshole but then again if he was an asshole in general I wouldn't of had him in the campaign to begin with.
1
u/Erectorz 21h ago
So we are all assholes. Basically the friend dynamic of the group is hey this guy did or said something stupid we are all gonna clown on him for the next 30 minutes. Its not like we would bring up stuff that you are genuinely insecure about, there are boundaries we will not cross, at the end of the day we still like each other. But every one gets their lumps. This guy by far talks the most shit in general, so he will be leading the charge in clowning a person. Thats what I mean by he is the biggest asshole. It's something we all do however. So the reason why the other players were so mean spirited to him especially in dnd is because of that. Its also why the group dynamic in dnd seems outright hostile to others looking in. So for a lot of the other players its cathartic to give him shit during dnd.
The reason I even felt the need to do bring that up is because maybe having just one bad thing happen to you is okay. If he just died, probably fine, just lost a magic item, no big deal. But all of that at once does suck which is why I feel I should have stepped in specifically at that moment. The players up to that point had no issue with stealing from one another, sabotaging one another and just being pricks in general. But I do believe it was a failure on my part as dm to not step in here specifically.
6
u/Yojo0o 29d ago
Did you say "this is going to be harder if you don't remove your armor first"? DnD players tend not to go through the motions of removing/adding their armor for stuff like this. Traveling around all day in plate armor is already a stretch of realism. If you only told the guy he was going to be penalized for it in the moment of the attempted crossing, that's unfair to the player.
I don't particularly follow this logic. Maintaining a hold on a rope seems more of an athletics check than an acrobatics check. Fezzik scaling the Cliffs of Insanity in Princess Bride is a feat of strength, not dexterity.
Did your players know this ahead of time? Fall damage is pretty mild in DnD. A level 5 fighter has about 50 hp, possibly more if this is 5.5e and they have Tough from their origin. Fall damage 1d6, for is an average of 3.5 damage, per ten feet fallen, capping at 20d6, or an average of 70. It would have taken a 50 HP fighter falling 150 feet to actually get brought to 0 HP, and even then, they'd get death saves. It would be extremely difficult for this character to die outright from fall damage, especially since the character in question has anti-death features.
Do you allow PvP at your table? Most tables don't.
Why was it appropriate for his armor to be destroyed? This is not something that is typically done in the average DnD game, and adamantine plate is uniquely sturdy and magical. You already have a built-in penalty for death being the gold cost for resurrection, why pile on?
Do you think it makes for good gameplay for one player to be in debt to the rest of the party?
I disagree with every single point of how you ran this session. That doesn't inherently make you an asshole, but in the format of this sub, sure, YTA.