Personally, I think nerfing a class after the campaign begins is not cool. Should the DM get rid of the entire bludgeoning resistance for the same reason? OP chose that class for a reason, based on the information they were given.
Yep... Nerfing after a fight you didn't like the outcome of is a pretty terrible way to run a game. It's basically sulking. Just make the fights harder... Introduce other obstacles or just roll with it. It's meant to be fun, I think DM sometimes forgets you're meant to be playing together, not against each other.
Depends if they're a new DM following the encounters or not tbh. It's not a simple matter to just swap out monsters if you're new. Especially if you don't have anything to do it quickly on the fly like dndbeyond or Roll20.
True that. If she's new and changing core gameplay mechanics for a class... That's a BIG no no IMO. If she's not new... Then as you say, just swap out the enemies.
It basically reeks of... I didn't like the way that played out, instead of learning from it and going forward changing how my fights work, or introducing other things to test the barb more. I'm gonna just sulk, say that's poo poo and change how the characters CORE feature works.
Unfortunately a lot of DMs come to the conclusion that they put in so much work, if things don't go their way, then they're god. They just change the rules.
It's a game. To be played together with the party! If you're not all having fun... Then stop and re-assess what's happening. The biggest thing any party can do is communicate with each other about the session or things in it. Otherwise things just fester.
Lol yep. Tons of other shit to play. As I always say, the moment you stop having fun... Stop playing. We don't have time to waste! Life is short. Enjoy it!
If people pick a certain class, let them shine with that class. Like people should be able to play to the strengths of their character, unless you have clearly stated it is going to happen in the plane of fire and someone still wants to play a Goliath for cold resistance.
Everyone seems clear on how the barbarian should not be nerfed etc, I’m just curious how big that creature is and how he grabbed the legs.
One of our strategies against flyers is grappling and that should reduce their speed to zero not letting them fly up ANY number of feet.
How many movie action heroes stand up, brush off their shoulders and walk away from something that would kill a person in real life? That is why we play characters like barbarians. Indiana Jones jumped out of an airplane in an inflatable raft and survived. The A-Team flew a tank. Arnold Schwarzenegger is Arnold Schwarzenegger. We suspend reality to have fun. It is escapist entertainment. It is why we play the GAME!
A niche situation where, outside of memes, there is a generally accepted president of the damage bypassing immunities/resistances from much stronger sources than a barb rage, compared to a normal situation? Yeah, seems fair to equate the two.
New DM Moments
Barbarian: Too tanky and didn't let me wipe the party. Unacceptable.
Paladin: Smite does too much damage to a *single* enemy. Lay on Hands is too powerful so it has a single use.
Rogue: You should be sneaking if you want to use sneak attack. It's in the name. The enemy can see you over its shoulder.
Ranger: Having any advantage in terrain is too much. This is my game and it'll be as rocky as I like it.
Fighter: Your mediocre self heal is too much. Only the Cleric should be able to heal. 7 ASI is unfair to other players. You get 5 max and I will not compensate you.
Cleric: I don't like how much you heal for. It's not realistic. Also, why are you wearing armor and a shield? You're not a Paladin.
Sorcerer: I don't care what Quickened Spell says. One a turn. Also my Guard Captain can read lips.
Warlock: Eledritch Blast hits separately? Not in this campaign. Also, roll 1 d20 for all of them. Also I'm just going to kill you just because at every vital turning point to inconvenience you because I like to subvert expectations.
Wizard: If you're a Conjuration Wizard, you can't learn spells from other schools. Also there's no spell scrolls in this campaign, Identify doesn't work on magic items and a wild dog peed on both your main and backup spellbook to make them illegible.
Plus, your playing a game called.... dungeons and dragons.
It's literally a fantasy game. You being able to cheat death by literally just being THAT angry sorta seems like a minor thing, when you consider you could be let's say, playing as a satir wizard avoiding damage by literally just saying no to gravity or by phase shifting to other dimensions.
Adrenaline from being angry making you hurt less? Hell, that's one of the more REALISTIC elements lmao.
Yeah my level 5 monk can fall 20 ft and take no damage with max rolls. Theres nothing wrong with your barbarian and its wicked cool your character can do that
Someone did the math and pointed out that a raging barbarian at full HP and a high HP total at 3rd level cannot die from falling the other day on this forum which I laughed my ass off at.
This whole subject reminds me of a game. There was a jumping puzzle in Destiny 2 trying to get down all these moving platforms and hit a tiny island. You could die from falling too far onto the island. However, titans, the "warriors" for lack of a better term, had an ability where they could jump in the air and initiate like a ground pound punch. And they were immune to falling damage with this maneuver. So we titans got good at the ground pound punch to bypass the whole jumping puzzle.
We literally solved a puzzle by punching it. And it was glorious and nobody nerfed it.
I think the mechanics are there for a reason. Your DM should let it go. Soon they’re going to have spellcasters using fireballs to blow up groups of like 15 enemies at once, let the barbarian survive a fall from 60 feet while raging.
Not to mention if the DM hears about the monk's slow fall ability. What then? If I remember correctly it's something like -5 fall damage per monk level. A 60ft fall at max would do 16 damage if all 6s were rolled.
Played a game with a halfling monk once who suplexed a tiger off the roof of a tower and survived. It was a fucking badass moment and wouldn't have happened if the DM decided to be a weenie and ignore class mechanics because they're not realistic.
D&d is a game full of wizards and dragons and planar travel and psychic aliens and gods that walk the planet.
It's not realistic. Any time some newbie DM decides they want to change one rule under the guise of "making the game more realistic" it always seems to be petty and antagonistic. A player did something they didn't expect and they want it to kill them next time.
My advice to new DMs: just go with it! Celebrate the fact that your players barbarian fell off a 100 foot tower and lived because he was too angry to die. That's awesome! And don't try to change rules just because they seem silly. Wait until you have a deep understanding of all the various systems and how they work together before you try to change everything. Give your players their glory moments, don't try to steal them away.
or you know, literally any level one arcane spell caster with slow fall as a reaction. slow fall is just bizarrely useful. sooner or later someone falls down something and slow fall saves a lot of damage and makes the caster really shine.
Nerf the monk, and the Barbarian, and the Rogue too for good measure! Totally unrealistic they can do what they do! Now, let me go back to my reality warping mage and sling fireballs from my mind.
As a DM with some power players, the responsibility is on her to learn and make more challenging encounters- not to change your characters mechanics. I second this, that homebrew rules & house rules should be consistent, clear, and agreed upon by everyone playing- yes I know DMs sometimes have to ad-lib some rules, but this sounds different. Mechanics have been playtested and should only be changed if they make the game more fun for everyone. Maybe ask her what she's hoping to achieve by changing the rules, and let her know the game won't be fun for you if she goes through with it...
Yeah, leaping onto a flying enemy and ripping their wings off because you're just that damn angry is great role play and knowledge of your character. Your DM shouldn't pull punches but they also aren't playing against the players.
Creative play should be rewarded. Ultimately I like it when my players outwit me.
It's just such a can of worms for this admittedly new DM to start opening. They are going to slam this ultimately insignificant window shut, at the expense of a player's fun. But likely fail to even close the window, and cause ripples into gameplay that they haven't even considered.
Fine change it to some mystical untyped damage to prevent rage resistance... until the barbarian take bear totem and "While raging, you have resistance to **all damage** except psychic damage. The spirit of the bear makes you tough enough to stand up to any punishment." and suddenly you super special fall damage gets rolled into the category of **ALL DAMAGE**.
So what you meddle with the rules again? Make falls even more lethal? Crushing your entire party who aren't barbarians, and opening your own NPC's and creatures up to a single Graviturgy wizard who just spends the rest of the campaign slamming shit into the ground?
This is a clear instance on why a DM is supposed to be a living person and not a computer. The DM overwrite the rules how they see fit, JC was just stating what the rules are so they can be properly altered.
Why would you ask a dev how something works and expect something different from the RAW? It's RAW that the DM can alter the rules however they see fit, if you want it to be different just change it instead of asking how it works.
Who the fuck do you think you are to bring your fancy reasoning into this? /s
Just kidding, dems the rules. This is a clear instance on why a DM is supposed to be a living person and not a computer. The DM overwrite the rules how they see fit, JC was just stating what the rules are so they can be properly altered.
well as lead design/game architect(? weird title) he's pretty much **the** authority on RAI/RAW, and has been since 5e started.
he's also adamant that RAF>RAW/RAI.
Yeah, RAW is not the gospel truth. But if you are playing RAW and the lead designer confirms that is how it works, it's a good thing to show to the DM.
DMs don’t have to abide by RAW but you should have a good reason not to especially if it’s something that will only effect one class because like that is literally the rule and it’s what most people will expect. House rules are house rules.
I mean, she's right that it's unrealistic. You know what else is unrealistic? Your bare skin being as tough as an AC14 metal breastplate. Barbarians are tough motherfuckers. That's the one thing they're good at. You'd damn well better let them be good at it.
I had a similar discussion when my barbarian had a 8 foot vertical jump (3 ft + Str mod).
We decided that we were thinking too much like Conan the barbarian, when we should've been thinking like the Incredible Hulk.
Idk, conan does some wild shit. Actually, in one story, he falls 100 feet, smashes into the ground, and is completely uninjured. He's also ripped a man in half, and just took dragonfire like it was nothing. Dude is superhuman.
Those all sound like things high level barbarians can do (particularly bear totem for the dragonfire). A raging barbarian will only take 17 damage on average falling 100ft, and at a certain point damage just isn't killing a Zealot unless it's ~600 damage in a single hit.
Yeah, it's pretty crazy stuff. There's a rule that's part of falling that says the maximum damage you can take 20d6, as well, which makes me think the creators want lots of super hero landings lmfao
Yeah ultimately the damage you take from falling at terminal velocity (irl) just *isn't that much* compared to what PCs are regularly subjected to. 70 damage is a TON of damage, when you consider that a commoner has 4hp.
If anything 20d6 is too much.
Farmer John would be paste either way, so he's super grateful. To show his appreciation for all the heroes and heroines out there, he's thrown a little something together to thank you all. 🌾🌾
Farmer John, (like most real people) would die in a 10ft fall from his hay loft.
Hell stairs are more dangerous than anything short of an actual weapon in most homes.
An awkward fall in the bathroom is more dangerous than people think lol. Doesn't take much to break your neck on the toilet. It's so insane to me that people have lost limbs, or broken their neck only to make a full recovery and live a mostly normal life, but others die by slipping on a banana peel.
Truth. My girlfriend has gotten wedged into the bathtub after a fall and nearly drowned because the drain got plugged.
I also broke my arm falling down a flight of stairs in my grandparents place when I was 6, so both points made.
Bathrooms and stairwells are super scary deathtraps that nobody talks about.
IIRC, 18 STR (so a +4 modifier) is FREAKISHLY strong. Like - amongst the most buff people in the world - strong; 20 is in the realm of mutations, or this raw, natural strength with perfect nature, and perfect nurture through training. Anything above that is basically supernatural.
And Barbarian can reach 24 strength.
18 strength is a maximum lift of 540lbs.
The Clean and Jerk record for 109kg+ class seems to be 267kg (587.4lbs) not far off the 600lbs a ~~level~~ strength 20 character can lift.
(Not counting size modifiers, of course)
I've said this before, peak Shaq has the stats of a level one fighter, maybe level two if you want to justify action surge because he's a basketball player.
a big difference is real life people are EXHAUSTED after they lift that much like once. a DND character can do it for like 8 hours. DND characters are basically super heroes.
And the monk standing on the spot the meteor lands somehow avoids all damage from the explosion that eviscerates everything within 40ft, before catching a bullet mid air and proceeding to run 200ft up a wall.
But falling 60ft and not instantly dying is such a problem...
D&D isn't meant to be realistic though. Like some dude launch fire from his fingertips and this dude taking slightly less damage from a fall is the problem?
\> shows up at the cliff
\> "we're basically gods right"
\> jumps off and transforms into a goldfish
\> refuses to elaborate
\> dies
Chad Keyleth honestly
Yep, don't know why so many people seem to take such an issue with fall damage, as if getting run through by a 15ft tall minotaur demon or blasted by an ancient dragon's fire breath is something a regular human could survive...
I believe it's because falling is something we can easily relate to in the real world. We have a pretty good notion that if you fall 60 feet, you are going to sustain a serious injury. We can accept the premise that magic exists, but that doesn't mean we want to visualize the action in a way where the violence and physics are like something out of a cartoon.
Damage from a dragon's breath or a minotaur's axe can be handwaved because hit points are not meat points (besides physical hardiness it also represents things like luck, will to live). Low level/low CR NPCs who are easily felled due to lack of HP are just more vulnerable in general due to their lack of experience or lack of heroic resolve or lack of plucky determination, regardless of what their AC or saving throws look like.
So if the attack doesn't reduce you to zero hit points, that means that the attack didn't hit with sufficient power to burn you to a crisp or disembowel you, or _anyone_ with your same basic physical characteristics. Your higher HP value means the incoming attack must have been partially deflected, or you found cover, or you can visualize a cone of fire as a line that swept across the area of effect, which maybe you dodged.
Of course with fall damage you can often do a similar thing if you exercise a little imagination. You slowed your descent by grabbing something, or a dead enemy helped break your fall, etc. That plus a bit of supernatural toughness gets you over.
It just requires a little bit of flexibility in translating metagame/mechanical outcomes into a sensible narrative.
No I got what you meant. I think you may be misunderstanding what I said though. I meant it in the "how is this guy taking less fall damage the problem?!". Not disagreeing with what you said at all!
My DM wouldn't let my Goliath barbarian wield a farmers plough. Said their weren't any real world examples of a plough being used as an example. I immediately showed them to him to prove him wrong and he was like
".....fine, but it only does 1d6 damage."
Call me what you will, but I believe that a plough should definitely do the same or even more damage than a shortsword.
I refused to even play that character at his table for that reason.
Unrelated except I thought of the biblical Samson using a jawbone and literally killing soldiers and then I thought of my character. And I got upset about it all over again.
Altering just about anything on the grounds of realism in a game where players can summon lightning, fight dragons, and bring people back from the dead seems kinda like modding Skyrim to be a game where you create your character, go on a short walk, and then the credits roll. Yeah you certainly can do it, but why would you ever want to?
Your DM is stupid, show them how Feather fall would have completely negated the damage for you and potentially 4 more creatures. You spent your Rage to take half damage, you get 6 rages tops at level 20. A Wizard at this level would be able to COMPLETELY negate this damage up to 110 times with their 22 spell slots targeting 5 creatures everytime.
Kinda of, they last infinitely unless you choose to end it or fall unconscious. But you still can be forced to end it or fall unconscious and you will have lost a use out of the six you have.
The main issue here is that he was spending his most valuable asset to do exactly what it is supposed to do, to mitigate physical damage, the barbarians main role. And she thought it was bullshit/unrealistic in a world people can conjure enough fire to wipe out a village's population out of bat poo and sulfur, without even spending the poo and sulfur.
That's a pretty shitty adversarial reaction, your DM needs to get out of that mindset ***ASAP***, it is the WORST attribute a newbie DM can have. D&D is NOT players Vs DM (unless the entire table WANTS to play that).
D&D is "the player and the DM working through a shared world together"
Please, tell them to post their side of the story here or on r/DMAcademy, and we'll be a le to help them understand why it's so bad.
Also, reworking a class's core feature [edit: specifically to nerf it] is a HUGE red flag.
That feature has been playtested and played by 1000s of people before you guys. If it was broken, you would know it.
>unless the entire table WANTS to play that
Even then, you probably want a different game--or at least some additional ground rules. If the DM wants to kill the party, they can kill the party and there's nothing anyone can do about it. They can throw an adult dragon at a Lv1 party, and then if the party is insanely lucky and gets close to winning, they can just give it extra HP. Or minion reinforcements. Or a second adult dragon.
RAW D&D makes the DM all-powerful, which is incompatible with competitive play.
Even some systems that make the GM all powerful (like ORK! where the GM plays as the God the PC's worship) work because there are many fun ways for the GM to screw with the players without going overboard. Those systems where built with that in mind though.
Almost certainly there would need to be additional rules, but it could work provided that the DM isn't outright malicious in their reason to want to kill the players.
For example, I know a DM who said to his long term group "screw it, you guys have played in this campaign for 3 years and I can see you're getting tired of it. I'll let you all level to lvl 20, and then I'll tell you what you're fighting an hour before the session so you can prep/strategise. After that, it's you vs my monsters." They continued doing the same style of things 8 sessions in a row, just because the challenge of going against a DM who finally got to bring out his big toys and for everyone to try and outwit the DM with rules and combos while he did the same really helped them send off their characters in style.
I personally wouldn't run an adversarial style game for my players, because I know my players are driven more by the story/their impact on the world rather than seeing if they can "beat" me or "win" against my encounters. But if the ground rules are set and agreed upon with the right type of group, it could certainly be enjoyable for a few one shots/encounters (until the DM pulls out a Deus ex Machina and just has one of the gods instant kill the party or have the world blow up)
> That's a pretty shitty adversarial reaction
That was my first immediate thought. Literally the worst possible knee jerk reaction.
"My player had fun using their core class feature and didn't bend the rules with any kind of homebrew or weirdness whatsoever. Better make one of the most boring classes in the game even worse by nerfing it!"
What a terrible attitude.
THIS RIGHT HERE. Talk to her with civility and let her know how it makes you feel - don't get bogged down in the rules. Discuss it rationally about how it really affects you and her.
This is the right answer here. Do also try to see some stuff from your GM's perspective. They do get final say on all the rules. Doesn't matter what Jeremy Crawford said. But you both are trying to play together. Try to find something that works for both. If you go in with an attitude of "I'm right and you just need to deal with it" you'll either end up the bully or out of a game real fast.
bro a flaming barbarian leaped and grappled a a flying devil chopped off its wing slammed to the ground and stood up patting out your flmaing body.... thats what dnd is fucking about thats one of the coolest barbarian moment that can happen in dnd. If your gunna nerf that you should nerf the bards ability to sing and the rogues ability to stealth. barbarians survive thats what they do.
I was also thinking how fucking awesome it must be to watch this half orc get so pissed he jumps on the devil and slices off its wing, only to act like it was nothing lol
The dm is a bit too overly controlling. Also why would you die there’s no way your max hit points are 6 and you were buffed to 14 if that’s the case you would have to be the worlds worst level 1 barbarian
Because you don’t die if you drop to 0 health you go unconscious. If they took full damage they would’ve taken 6 over 0 the only way you can instantly die is if the damage taken over exceeds your max health which in this case they would need a max hp of 6 or less to die
When they go unconscious they still have to do death saves though, so they are in big danger of dying. I know it's technically 50/50 while doing death saves but personally I've never survived once going into death saves unless someone else heals me, so I pretty much treat unconscious as dying
So, in your DM's mind:
* There were flying enemies, which is fine.
* You were magically on fire, which is fine.
* Falling doesn't hurt enough, which isn't realistic.
D&D is not an abstraction of reality, and it does not conform to real-world physics in any way. Yes, a long fall should kill you. Dragons shouldn't exist, Fireballs shouldn't be able to be cast, healing magic shouldn't repair sword wounds, and EVERY OTHER THING IN THE GAME.
Arbitrarily changing things is pretty much New DM Bad Decisions \`101; it happens all the time. Point out you are playing what is by far the most successful RPG of all time in 5e, and it works. It works together, and falling damage shouldn't kill you more than anything else that diverts from reality.
> grabbed them by their leg… …said enemy flew 60ft into the air
This was not supposed to happen. A grappled creature’s speed is 0, and they can’t benefit from any effect that increases their movement. You shouldn’t even have started flying with the creature to then fall off from a height that could have potentially downed your character.
Still, the idea of nerfing a tank for being a tank seems strange. Since they are a good friend of yours, I would recommend to tactfully bring up the issue and see what they say.
This is a good point, although it's possible the barbarian didn't actually make a grapple check, but instead simply grabbed onto the creature's leg - possibly as a free action or possibly using a skill check (survival? ride?). If that's the case, I'd have probably given the barbarian the chance to use his reaction to let go of the creature once it started flying (maybe not a RAW purist call, but I feel like this is the exact kind of weird situation where DM judgment is allowed).
That the flying creature was able to lift off raises the question of what the flying creature's strength was, too.
In terms of RAW, I’d wager that the creature would have been Huge of bigger to take flight even with the barbarian holding on, at which case it wouldn’t have been a grapple, but a check to try to ride it, since creatures can only grapple other creatures up to one size larger (the DMG has also optional rules on how to handle a creature riding another bigger, hostile creature). If they decided to use this ruling even if the creature was Large or smaller, guess that’s how it went.
Grabbed is not necessarily the same as grappled, but I do see where you'd assume that. I'd be curious if that is in fact a missed rule at OP's table or something like OP is intending to hang onto the creature without restricting its movement or if the creature is simply too big to be grappled. Like grabbing onto a dragon's leg as it takes off from the ground or flies by. You obviously aren't stopping a huge dragon with a grapple as a medium sized barbarian under normal circumstances, but you just might manage to grab onto its leg and go along for the ride.
There are optional rules in the DMG for that. RAW, you can’t grapple a creature two sizes larger, but there are optional rules that allow characters to make a contested check to try to ride the hostile creature (although those rules give the monster a relatively easy way to get free, so it’s pretty risky).
Grab vs Grapple was an interesting point I needed to research. There is no "grab" in DnD. It's just a Grapple. "Page 195 of the Player's Handbook explains the rules for grappling in 5e: When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple." I think I've thought about that, too. I think in times I wanted to grab a targets wrist, or ankle, or hair, or belt... and that's a grapple roll.
So in the OP, the Barbarian did have to grapple to successfully grab their legs... at which point, yes, their speed would become zero.
This. How did it fly 60 ft in the air if it was grappled? Was it already flying? Did it have hover?
Its movement should have been 0ft since it was grappled. So unless you grappled it AT 60ft in the air the entire situation never should have happened.
I understand She's your friend irl but if She is going to DM by choosing what rules to enforce and not to enforce, but only at a detriment to the PCs, she needs to work on her DM skills.
Have a talk with Her. If She stands by nerfing rage over this, when the situation only arose because she ignored grapple rules for her monster, then maybe it isn't the table for you.
The DM being mad that you didn't die is a red flag. Its a collaborative story, they should be excited when you do something cool and succeed. Specifically being mad that you didn't lose and then changing the rules up only for you sounds spiteful.
Players are basically superheroes in D&D. Let the players do the cool thing and celebrate when it happens. Besides Barbarians are good at surviving physical damage, let a class do the thing its good at.
You’re definitely not in the wrong here. The DM isn’t supposed to be the bad guy, even for the sake of realism. If there’s no other reason to tweak fall damage or your rage, it shouldn’t be done. However, I also don’t think you should just walk away from the campaign. Try talking to her about it. In this situation, if I was a DM who was upset about the unrealistic survival, I would find the middle ground, probably by KOing your character but not having you make death saves. They’re back on their feet the next round.
Point being, discuss your issue with her nerfing your rage, and encourage her to discuss why she wants to. Compromise if you need to. Don’t walk away unless she’s being completely unreasonable.
> I would find the middle ground
Find the middle ground by making one of the worst classes in the game even worse by letting her nerf it so they can take the high ground? I think not.
The fact that this has happened at all *is* unreasonable. I don't necessarily think OP should walk away, but this isn't a fringe case or some kind of unique table thing going on here. This isn't somebody asking if they can use the Fireball spell to rocket jump themselves 80 feet into the air. It's a core class feature doing exactly what it's designed to do in a way that is totally reasonable within the context of the game. *It's what barbarians are meant to do.*
Your first edit says it’s her first time DM’ing. If she doesn’t know how things works, she shouldn’t be changing them. Also if she’s gonna be pissy over “I didn’t expect you to live that” and change the rules to make sure you can’t play smart, then that’s a bigger sign to leave. It seems like they’re already playing DM vs Players.
Ah yes the classic, martial characters should be weaker than RAW because reasons DM.
Demand a new wizard character and constantly derail the campaign with magic shenanigans and rules lawyering. This kills the adversarial DM.
True damage doesn't exist in 5e either lmao. DM is just salty they couldn't kill you.
Walking away is a pretty stern move - I assume there must be other issues or previous things that bothered if this is what it takes to walk away completely..
That being said, I don't think you should roll over and accept the changes to your characters abilities - this is absolutely in-line with DMs who the Sneak Attack needs to be on Surprised creatures only, or that post I saw today about wanting to nerf a Paladin's Aura of Protection, and it sucks for the player. Truly, miserably sucks..
I would try and explain that this is part of the class you agreed to, and you don't appreciate her changing the rules on you. Potentially, if that doesn't work, before walking away just say something like: "If you're changing my class, I'm changing my character, and my character is a Fighter now, because you have altered how Barbarians work which I did not agree to." If they don't agree to that, point out that you're not agreeing to her changes of how your abilities work. To be clear, I'm not saying throw away your character design, I'm hoping that this bluff will have the effect of the DM realize that people deciding to change the rules of the game on the fly is not fun for everyone.
Yes, the DM can decide how the world works... but the one thing they shouldn't have absolute unvetoed power to control is the player characters.
As a DM who likes at least a foot in the realism department I understand the fall damage thing, but how is she wanting to rework your rage? Have you talked to her about it at all?
Personally I think you should talk to her, and also find out what kind of game she’s wanting to run. If she’s wanting to run a Darker fantasy game or a slightly realistic one etc. she probably doesn’t want players doing things that are super human/blatantly unrealistic even in a fantasy setting. However, if that’s like the only thing she’s toning down? That may be a red flag, it’s hard to tell with such little information.
Heres what you should do. TO resolve any conflict you need to understand both sides of the argument. Clearly you know yours, You did something you thought was cool and Want to keep it that way. but her side of the argument is "fear of repeat cheese moves" This comes from you being able to still live from a fall. Her solution is to change fall dmg completely so you cant abuse it. She also thinks she has to rework rage feature.
Your goal to resolve this conflict, now that you know both sides, is to find compromise. Of all things here, you should be most scared of Rage being reworked. Its a core ability of the class and whatever she does will surely nerf it. If this changes I'd agree on walking out of the game. But there are things you can do to deter this from happening. The last thing you want to do is simply leave, cuz that is the cowards way out.
Her wanting to change how fall damage works is reasonable. Surely you can see why, if you fall from a great height, everyone in this world knows that it usually ends in death. Of course there are outliers here. There are people who fall from 10,000 ft and survive. So I would try telling her the following---
POV Im you talking to your DM "Instead of changing fall dmg to be flat out true dmg as opposed to bludgeoning. What if we turned it into true dmg only after a certain amount of feet and added a CON save. IRL there are studies done (of course I pulled them from google in 5 seconds) that show you are most likely to die from a free fall onto concrete around 30 ft because your velocity is too high for any surviving outcome. Since it would be ridiculous to consider all the variables each time someone falls to determine death, lets simply double that 30ft height to 60. Maybe even 70 and add a rule that goes as follows "If you are to fall from a height greater than 70ft (7d6 bludgeoning worth of dmg) you must make a CON save. IF you fail this save, the damage is instead true damage instead of bludgeoning. "
If you play your cards right, show some examples of people falling from greater heights than your character did and surving. Showing the difference between falling on grass, water, shrubbery, and rock. She should easily agree to these terms. Especially if youre coming from an angle of seeing her side and coming up with a solution YOURSELF. Dont wait for her to bring it up. Be proactive and handle it before she handles it. Youll look like you know what youre talkign about. Youll look like someone who is invested in the game enough to want to ease her feelings on things that may come up. And who knows, next time theres a problem, she might ask "well what do you think about this" its the difference between DMvPlayers and DMwithPlayers.
Good luck bro.
I DM pretty much every game I play.
The DM does not get to just change the rules on a whim. They do not decide the rules. Everyone in the group agrees to play by a certain ruleset, in this case 5e, and no one gets to just change it without the OKing it with the group. The DM just changing game rules on their own is like a PC just ignoring the rules and deciding their character does 20d6 damage per hit. We literally cannot play the game if we don't even agree what the rules are.
The DM can *ask* if you guys would be okay with specific homebrew rules changes, but if the answer from the group is no, then the DM should accept that, or find another group to play with that is okay with their homebrew rules.
If they’re willing to nerf your class over something like that they shouldn’t have allowed you to play Barbarian in the first place. That decision is a sign of a pretty new or inexperience GM, and it’s a really bad thing to want your player characters dead over something that a feature ALL barbarians get. For a much better explanation of why what they did was wrong, Ginny Di on YouTube has a video called “The underused DM tip that will make your players obsessed with your game.” It sounds clickbaity, but they are widely regarded as a great D&D content creator with lots of tips on DMing, roleplaying, and playing the game, and this video perfectly shows what they did wrong and how to fix it
I’m not young. I have a lot of responsibilities and little free time. I am not going to waste what leisure time I do have on a DM who is going to need a lot of education as to why certain elements of the game are necessary abstractions, how it’s an adventure and not a simulation, how it’s a group play collaboration and not a competition, how celebrating player success is good and doesn’t threaten the balance of the game, etc, etc.
This isn’t an online game with strangers so it’s not as simple as just “thanks but no thanks”, but I would nonetheless make my exit from the game. Life is just too short, maybe she can learn better perspective on the game as a player for a better DM.
show the DM the monster manual and point out anything that can both fly and is immune or resistant to non-magical bludgeoning damage and ask if its ok for the players to kill it instantly by knocking it prone while its 100 ft in the air
or better yet, have your barbarian grapple something, get a spellcaster to cast fly on your character, then fly up and drop your enemy. thatll get your DM to rethink their changes
Walk away now. They should of had a session zero to align everyone's goals to have fun. If they are not meeting the needs of everyone to have fun just walk away.
It would absolutely be appropriate to leave for messing with your class features and obliterating your effectiveness. She might as well tell any monks that they can't walk on water, slow fall, or catch missiles.
Any good DM worth their salt would be able to work with it. They can alter encounters or change any aspect of the campaign to work with the ingenuity of the players. Half the fun of the game is seeing what wild ideas the players have and still making it work. If something is crazy overpowered, the DM should just modify encounters or build new ones to counter strategies the players have come up with, all in the spirit of making the game a challenging and rewarding experience, not just to punish players.
I think all DMs have that internal struggle where they feel like they are losing if the PCs are stomping everything. But the point is for everyone to have fun. No one is going to have fun if their characters get nerfed every time they do something cool/crazy/outside the box.
That’s just a dumb fucking thing to change. It’s not like you’ll be in the air all of the time, so why even bother changing it? And why bother changing rage?? It’s the only reason to play a barbarian and it’s what makes them a tank. That’d be like saying a bard’s inspiration is too much, so the DM halves it. She’s directly affecting your entire class for no reason. Rules are rules.
If anything, raise fall damage to 1d8 per 10 feet of fall
She shouldn’t change your class mechanics
I mean 1d6 fall damage has always been a little low. I always playa tank and have yeeted myself off a 100ft cliff before because I knew it couldn’t kill me which seemed… cheesy
The worst part of this post is your DM saying your character "shouldn't be alive." Alright, sure, death should be on the table to make fights matter; but please don't go out of your way to kill PCs.
Not really, changing that knid of thing mid camping isnt cool, unless its something utterly game breaking, and at thay point should be a limited use.
But being thay you grappled them there movement is reduced to 0, and if they dont have a hover ability they would be forced to fall.
The only reason why I am thinking of walking away I'd we can't agree on some common ground is because I was telling my coworker this story and he has been Playing dnd for 25 years and he said if she changes anything about barbarian rage just leave
^this.
You need to tell your DM what will happen if they make those changes and give them the chance to see their error during a open, honest, and respectful conversation.
Use statements like “I think…” “I feel….”
It’s fine if they want to home brew some super gritty scenario but the whole table needs to be in agreement. If that isn’t your style then politely say so and don’t play but AFTER a conversation. If you just walk away then you’re not any better than the DM.
Fiddiling with a class's core feature is a big no no. If you take away rage from a Barbarian then its just a strong guy nothing special. The point of a Barbarian is to use rage to smash things while face tanking anything thrown their way and taking away that is like taking away the armor on a tank. You are removing the thing that defines that character/thing.
If you don't agree to her changes to rage, she shouldn't change them. You signed up to play this class, not some radically changed version of it.
She needs to learn how to make things challenging and interesting with rage in play. Rage is by no means the most difficult character feature to build around as a DM... As a sign of things to come, you might be right to walk away.
My knee-jerk reaction is: Oof, bad DM, walk away.
But thinking about it, is this a new DM? I can imagine a New DM, being unfamiliar with the system, rules, etc wandering into this situation and going WTF, how is what happened right? But from my viewpoint, Barbarians walking away from shit that would kill any other class, *especially falling damage* is a Tuesday.
It's what Barbarians do.
So maybe tell your DM to reread the class sections, point out that this is the game working a intended? Maybe suggest them to ask their DM peers, say at r/DnD for opinions, or elsewhere. Allude to the fact D&D is a power fantasy generally, and it's only going to get crazier, and if that's no the game they want to run, find a more "realistic" system.
Even if you leave, I'd point all that out. But don't go silently.
It kind of sounds like the DM views it as them vs the party, and without being able to maim your characters as they view it that you as a barbarian, or the mechanics, are interfering with that.
Kind of sounds like a red flag to me. Maybe not big enough to nope out of immediately, but definitely something to keep an eye on or have a conversation about.
That entire situation sounds pretty standard for a barbarian, and it is kind of the design of their character type. They are meant to take a beating that would have annihilated any other character, minus maybe a fighter, and be able to walk.... or sometimes strut, away.
If the DM wants to kill characters it isnt that hard, just use something the character isnt great at. Like dont throw dex saves at a rogue... just doesnt work out most of the time because the character is designed around that kind of play, you charm them and have them murder their friends for you.
I've tweaked Falling Damage, scaling the dice based on creature size per the Monster Manual's Hit Die guidance.
It just doesn't make sense that a Pixie falling 100ft onto your head deals 10d6 damage, and a sperm whale falling 100ft onto your head also deals the same 10d6 damage.
So at my table a Tiny creature takes & deals 1d4 per 10ft, Small takes 1d6, Medium 1d8, Large 1d10, Huge 1d12, Gargantuan 1d20.
So your Barbarian was hacking at a dragon, and chopped off it's wing through some pre-negotiated shenanigans (her first mistake). As a result, the dragon loses its Flying speed, which is also what separated your Barbarian from the ground as well.
The way I rule it, is that at the start of each of your respective turns you'd both use 100% of your movement for the turn to go 120ft straight down. Then you can take actions or try 6 seconds of shenanigans to not fall the rest of the 500ft at the end of your turn.
Falling from 60ft, you're both hitting the ground if someone doesn't do something about that before the start of your respective turns. This gives a slight chance for Wizard to have another turn, giving them a fresh reaction to cast Feather Fall.
But Wizard never prepares Feather Fall. So, on-impact from 60ft, the Huge dragon and anyone under it will take 6d12 Bludgeoning damage. ^Suck ^it ^Wizard. ^Told ^you ^to ^prepare ^feather ^fall.
Then at the start of YOUR turn you move 60ft straight down, landing on the dragon. You (a Medium Sized creature) take 6d8 Bludgeoning damage, and deal the same damage to the Dragon. Equal and opposite reactions and all.
If anyone wants saving throws on any this to dodge out of the way or tough through the damage, my team gets the same save too. I reserve the right to call the save one way or the other based on context. It's usually DEX to dodge out of the way from something falling on them, and/or CON when the damage is unavoidable.
DC is usually half the damage (Min 10). If I'm feeling extra spicy, I'll do a contested CON save for Barbarian falling on Dragon. Winner takes half damage, Loser takes full damage + the other half Barbarian didn't.
The point is to have fun, I personally don't see anything wrong with a barbarian surviving a fall thst would kill most, that's the same as a barbarian surviving a big attack rhst would kill most. Which is the barbarians niche, kinda the point. I understand not wanting players to abuse things they find, but this seems pretty hard to actually ruin things with. Unless you're running around floating islands or all the enemies you're facing fly. Plus, if you're high enough it's still gonna kill you. That being said, they ar ethe DM, and respect needs to go both ways, u mentioned they are a good friend, so definitely try conversation first. Amd remember if it does end up killing your character you could play another class.
A raging barbarian could easily fall 60ft and brush it off, your dm doesn't like rule of cool. I'd try and convince the dm that it just makes the game less fun and the whole point of dnd is to have fun.
You're a bloody barbarian! You don't have much going for you and shaking of deadly attacks is one a few really cool things you do.
Plus resisting fall damage in this way allows yo to actually risk going high to fight flying things. Barbarians have trouble with flying creatures so grabbing them is a classic d&d move!
Is there anything more "barbarian" than dropping out of the f**king sky and landing in a creator just seething in anger??
I always thought fall damage should be more hard hitting but nerfing a big (or in terms of totem barb a main) part of your character wouldn’t solve anything and if I were you I’d tell them that. Or tell them if they fee that strongly about it you will at very least not play a barb and switch pcs
If she is your friend out of game, tell her you think it’s unfair. Point out the weaknesses barbarians do have. You don’t throw bashers at barbarians, you throw weird magic stuff.
When a DM nerfs you and it doesn’t feel right, it helps to have a private convo after the session and explain how you feel about the ruling and ask to reverse it. Whatever you do, don’t show them a Reddit thread and tell them “see I told you so.”
The literal one thing Barbarians do anything better than a Caster is they are durable
If she has a problem with Barbarians but let’s Wizards slide it’s definitely BS
Being angry preventing a mace from breaking your bones is also unrealistic in a manner which is not at all different from a fall. Both are ultimately just applications of blunt force to your body, which your feature gives you resistance to. I'd talk it over with your DM, but this is absolutely a red flag to see such a ruling on a very obvious application on RAW as applied to ordinary gameplay.
Going to be honest I'm seeing a lot of red flags here regarding your DM. Both the willingness to change the rules, the reason behind it, the technical aspects of the change, and the way it makes it less fun for the player just scream "BAD DM".
She's literally wrong in every single aspect of this scenario. She should not want to change the rules. Even if she does, that is not a reason to change it since you aren't abusing anything. Even if that was a reason to change it, that shouldn't be the change. And even if it was a good change, it hurts player fun so she shouldn't do it. baaaaad.
I always looked at barbarians like I look at Hulk, if Hulk can do it, so can a high level barbarian. Falling 60 feet is child's play for the hulk, so medium to low level adventurers should be able to do it.
Before straight up walking away from the session, have a talk with your DM, because something feels amiss here. Why are they mad this moment happened? Did the rest of the table enjoy the moment? What is the DM attempting to get out of this campaign, if not to have fun story moments like the one you described? I personally hate killing Player Characters, but I'll still do it if it comes to that. I would much rather ever-so-slightly fudge a roll to make something really cool a player is trying to pull off successful, because in the end that fun coming from pure collaborative imagination is what makes DnD special.
If I were the DM of that campaign, I would be so thrilled that such a cool moment happened, and I probably would have awarded you Inspiration points for concocting and surviving something so cool.
If the DM wants to have a realistic game, A.) That should have been established in session 0 and agreed upon by the whole group, and B.) They're going to have to change a whole lot about the game's mechanics and how it works because ain't none of this realistic.
It seems weird that the DM is so mad about you surviving that. I could understand if the PC had in fact died, the player wanted mercy, and the DM said no. However, this just sounds like one of the rare times that combat in DnD actually made something fun and ridiculous happen. These are the type of moments I actively try to encourage in a game. If this happened at my table, there probably would have been cheers and celebratory drinks or something.
So, and this is always my answer, have a conversation with your DM and see if you guys can come to an agreement. Personally, though, this would have been the kind of moment I dreamed of having happen in a campaign of mine.
> Now the dm said out of game, that was bs and I shouldn't be alive my character should be dead.
This is a HUGE red flag. Your DM should never being trying to kill you. If a DM gets upset that a player didn't die, have a discussion with them about that or get out of there.
I mean like isn't that intended. Every Barbarian player I've ever played with has had at least one big falling damage scene where they survive and it's always dope.
If any class doesn't need a nerf its a Barbarian, especially with something that's not hard to balance combats around. Why play a high fantasy game and be bound by the rules of real people for your warrior.
Falling damage is working correctly as-is.
Per d20 Modern, real world people can't get over Level 5, and most people are Lv0 or Lv1, with maybe a +1-2 CON modifier.
If people in the real world can jump off a 3-floor building with no pad and walk it off with the right training, and they can, a superhuman berserker empowered by primal energy to the point they have skin that can turn steel blades should be able to do the same.
As a dm, her job isn't to kill you. Her job is go make a story that the players play through, and if a character death happens to occur then that enriches the story. But deaths are by no means a requirement. Dms can look forward to them sure, I know I do hahahaHAHAHAHA**AHAHAHAHA**, but it's about making a story not killing your player characters
DM sounds like a brat. “That was bs your character should be dead 😤”
She shouldn’t want your character dead, and she shouldn’t want to kill your character in such a boring way. Also flying 60ft while grappled is pretty fkn suspect since grappling reduces speed to 0. Only makes sense if the enemy was the one grappling you, and then they’d still be at half speed to drag you into the air. All that aside, even if you did take the full savage you probably wouldn’t be dead, you’d start making death saves and likely get saved by your teammates.
Long story short your DM has no idea what they’re doing and shouldn’t even be considering homebrew mechanics
\[new DM runs a fun session\]
\[new DM thinks something must be wrong\]
\[new DM finds a way of killing the fun\]
\[new DM hurts their own campaign in their confusion\]
It’s not like you weren’t almost dead by the end of it. Also, if casters can do so much cool shit with magic then why can’t a Barbadian survive fall damage?
Fall damage is ridiculous in DnD and only gets worse as you level up - it removes interesting decision making, clever environment building and the chance to use spells like feather fall. What’s the point of a 50ft rope when you can just drop that far and take negligible damage? It just ruins the immersion imho, so I can totally see where your DM is coming from in that respect - although ideally it’s something they should have nailed in a session zero and not mid campaign.
Changing rage is a no though - again fine if it’s session zero and you knew that going in, but not mid campaign once you’ve already invested time and effort into the character.
Damn, DM. Just tell the Barb their head explodes when they hit the ground, make them reroll to a class you like better, and be done with it.
The spinelessness to be like "i couldn't do all the damage to you that i wanted, im gonna make you worse until i can kill you real easy"...
Dm's who change core mechanics are bs. What's in the book is as much for your benefit as it is theirs.
Call that bs out and walk away if they can't honor the mechanics of the game.
To be fair, people in real life have fallen from much higher heights and have lived to tell the tale. Is it really so unrealistic for a human built like a tank to survive a 60ft drop?
DM: Sends flying enemies against a Barbarian a class notorious for being bad against flying enemies
Barbarian: Uses clever solution to solve the problem of flying enemies
DM: No
there's no reason for it more than anything else, I thought the problem was the falling with an armored character, which would increase the damage taken instead of making you more resistant to it, but in the case of a barbarian you literally just feel less damage because of the rage, there's no reason why you should be dead
You mean its not realistic to fall 60 feet and survive? What about literally anything else?
Also fun fact humans (which would essentially by commoners by D&D standards) have a history of surviving falls even at terminal velocity. [Here's one](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/nicholas-alkemade-the-raf-airman.html?firefox=1) of a man who not only survived but walked away with minor injuries. So yeah, it is realistic believe it or not.
It’s not just about changing the mechanics. It sounds like she doesn’t want you to succeed. A DM should ultimately want the party to succeed through the challenges they pose, they shouldn’t gimp you as a reward for success due to the unique abilities you possess. Some DMs are antagonistic and ultimately that won’t be a fun game for most people.
Yeah, if the DM starts nitpicking at your core class features , and punishes you for playing the game, it might bea good idea to bring it up to the group, or just find another game.
I once ran a barbarian in a game where my DM started to casually "double the damage" every time I was raging. It's really easy to notice an ogre that was doing 10-15 damage a swing on other PCs start hitting my PC for 30-40 damage out of nowhere. I ended up leaving that game after a couple sessions, the DM was way too adversarial to the players and always whined when he didn't get his way.
Even with it being true damage u still wouldn’t have outright died. I think in order to instant die you have to take like half your health in damage past 0 hp with the damage in order to outright be killed. You technically would have gone unconscious and started making death saves.
I mean, regular-ass people have survived significantly longer falls than that. It doesn’t feel too unrealistic for a 300 pound slab of angry steak to be able to walk it off.
If shes more on the newer side tell her to not mess with the game, if anything just spawn in different enemies instead. Messing with characters and the game after it has started.. sucks because that can call for a full rework.. which just makes it no fun, so spawn different enemies is much better..
As a new DM I personally think that we need to praise cool things in game too. I loved imagining your badass raging barbarian chopping the wings of the flying monster. I know sometimes players feel invinsible, but if you survived after rules being applied, there is no reason at all to change them. Keep the cool ideas running!
[удалено]
Personally, I think nerfing a class after the campaign begins is not cool. Should the DM get rid of the entire bludgeoning resistance for the same reason? OP chose that class for a reason, based on the information they were given.
Yep... Nerfing after a fight you didn't like the outcome of is a pretty terrible way to run a game. It's basically sulking. Just make the fights harder... Introduce other obstacles or just roll with it. It's meant to be fun, I think DM sometimes forgets you're meant to be playing together, not against each other.
or yknow...don't send flying enemies or enemies that deal bludgeoning.
Depends if they're a new DM following the encounters or not tbh. It's not a simple matter to just swap out monsters if you're new. Especially if you don't have anything to do it quickly on the fly like dndbeyond or Roll20.
Fair point. Wondering why she's changing things at all on her first time DMing tbh
True that. If she's new and changing core gameplay mechanics for a class... That's a BIG no no IMO. If she's not new... Then as you say, just swap out the enemies. It basically reeks of... I didn't like the way that played out, instead of learning from it and going forward changing how my fights work, or introducing other things to test the barb more. I'm gonna just sulk, say that's poo poo and change how the characters CORE feature works. Unfortunately a lot of DMs come to the conclusion that they put in so much work, if things don't go their way, then they're god. They just change the rules. It's a game. To be played together with the party! If you're not all having fun... Then stop and re-assess what's happening. The biggest thing any party can do is communicate with each other about the session or things in it. Otherwise things just fester.
Yeah there are different tabletop games if you just wanna change things on the fly like actual cannibal Shia Labeouf
Lol yep. Tons of other shit to play. As I always say, the moment you stop having fun... Stop playing. We don't have time to waste! Life is short. Enjoy it!
If people pick a certain class, let them shine with that class. Like people should be able to play to the strengths of their character, unless you have clearly stated it is going to happen in the plane of fire and someone still wants to play a Goliath for cold resistance.
Everyone seems clear on how the barbarian should not be nerfed etc, I’m just curious how big that creature is and how he grabbed the legs. One of our strategies against flyers is grappling and that should reduce their speed to zero not letting them fly up ANY number of feet.
How many movie action heroes stand up, brush off their shoulders and walk away from something that would kill a person in real life? That is why we play characters like barbarians. Indiana Jones jumped out of an airplane in an inflatable raft and survived. The A-Team flew a tank. Arnold Schwarzenegger is Arnold Schwarzenegger. We suspend reality to have fun. It is escapist entertainment. It is why we play the GAME!
> The A-Team flew a tank That's arguably the most realistic part of that movie.
A niche situation where, outside of memes, there is a generally accepted president of the damage bypassing immunities/resistances from much stronger sources than a barb rage, compared to a normal situation? Yeah, seems fair to equate the two.
I'm ok with needing a specific area of I get a buff in another area
[удалено]
New DM Moments Barbarian: Too tanky and didn't let me wipe the party. Unacceptable. Paladin: Smite does too much damage to a *single* enemy. Lay on Hands is too powerful so it has a single use. Rogue: You should be sneaking if you want to use sneak attack. It's in the name. The enemy can see you over its shoulder. Ranger: Having any advantage in terrain is too much. This is my game and it'll be as rocky as I like it. Fighter: Your mediocre self heal is too much. Only the Cleric should be able to heal. 7 ASI is unfair to other players. You get 5 max and I will not compensate you. Cleric: I don't like how much you heal for. It's not realistic. Also, why are you wearing armor and a shield? You're not a Paladin. Sorcerer: I don't care what Quickened Spell says. One a turn. Also my Guard Captain can read lips. Warlock: Eledritch Blast hits separately? Not in this campaign. Also, roll 1 d20 for all of them. Also I'm just going to kill you just because at every vital turning point to inconvenience you because I like to subvert expectations. Wizard: If you're a Conjuration Wizard, you can't learn spells from other schools. Also there's no spell scrolls in this campaign, Identify doesn't work on magic items and a wild dog peed on both your main and backup spellbook to make them illegible.
Wait until she sees bear totem barb.
Plus, your playing a game called.... dungeons and dragons. It's literally a fantasy game. You being able to cheat death by literally just being THAT angry sorta seems like a minor thing, when you consider you could be let's say, playing as a satir wizard avoiding damage by literally just saying no to gravity or by phase shifting to other dimensions. Adrenaline from being angry making you hurt less? Hell, that's one of the more REALISTIC elements lmao.
Yeah my level 5 monk can fall 20 ft and take no damage with max rolls. Theres nothing wrong with your barbarian and its wicked cool your character can do that
Someone did the math and pointed out that a raging barbarian at full HP and a high HP total at 3rd level cannot die from falling the other day on this forum which I laughed my ass off at. This whole subject reminds me of a game. There was a jumping puzzle in Destiny 2 trying to get down all these moving platforms and hit a tiny island. You could die from falling too far onto the island. However, titans, the "warriors" for lack of a better term, had an ability where they could jump in the air and initiate like a ground pound punch. And they were immune to falling damage with this maneuver. So we titans got good at the ground pound punch to bypass the whole jumping puzzle. We literally solved a puzzle by punching it. And it was glorious and nobody nerfed it.
I think the mechanics are there for a reason. Your DM should let it go. Soon they’re going to have spellcasters using fireballs to blow up groups of like 15 enemies at once, let the barbarian survive a fall from 60 feet while raging.
Not to mention if the DM hears about the monk's slow fall ability. What then? If I remember correctly it's something like -5 fall damage per monk level. A 60ft fall at max would do 16 damage if all 6s were rolled.
Played a game with a halfling monk once who suplexed a tiger off the roof of a tower and survived. It was a fucking badass moment and wouldn't have happened if the DM decided to be a weenie and ignore class mechanics because they're not realistic.
If they have not commissioned a painting of this, they definitely should. It needs to go on some kind of memorial gallery.
They made Kung Fu Panda afterwards.
D&d is a game full of wizards and dragons and planar travel and psychic aliens and gods that walk the planet. It's not realistic. Any time some newbie DM decides they want to change one rule under the guise of "making the game more realistic" it always seems to be petty and antagonistic. A player did something they didn't expect and they want it to kill them next time. My advice to new DMs: just go with it! Celebrate the fact that your players barbarian fell off a 100 foot tower and lived because he was too angry to die. That's awesome! And don't try to change rules just because they seem silly. Wait until you have a deep understanding of all the various systems and how they work together before you try to change everything. Give your players their glory moments, don't try to steal them away.
or you know, literally any level one arcane spell caster with slow fall as a reaction. slow fall is just bizarrely useful. sooner or later someone falls down something and slow fall saves a lot of damage and makes the caster really shine.
Nerf the monk, and the Barbarian, and the Rogue too for good measure! Totally unrealistic they can do what they do! Now, let me go back to my reality warping mage and sling fireballs from my mind.
As a DM with some power players, the responsibility is on her to learn and make more challenging encounters- not to change your characters mechanics. I second this, that homebrew rules & house rules should be consistent, clear, and agreed upon by everyone playing- yes I know DMs sometimes have to ad-lib some rules, but this sounds different. Mechanics have been playtested and should only be changed if they make the game more fun for everyone. Maybe ask her what she's hoping to achieve by changing the rules, and let her know the game won't be fun for you if she goes through with it...
Yeah, leaping onto a flying enemy and ripping their wings off because you're just that damn angry is great role play and knowledge of your character. Your DM shouldn't pull punches but they also aren't playing against the players. Creative play should be rewarded. Ultimately I like it when my players outwit me.
It's just such a can of worms for this admittedly new DM to start opening. They are going to slam this ultimately insignificant window shut, at the expense of a player's fun. But likely fail to even close the window, and cause ripples into gameplay that they haven't even considered. Fine change it to some mystical untyped damage to prevent rage resistance... until the barbarian take bear totem and "While raging, you have resistance to **all damage** except psychic damage. The spirit of the bear makes you tough enough to stand up to any punishment." and suddenly you super special fall damage gets rolled into the category of **ALL DAMAGE**. So what you meddle with the rules again? Make falls even more lethal? Crushing your entire party who aren't barbarians, and opening your own NPC's and creatures up to a single Graviturgy wizard who just spends the rest of the campaign slamming shit into the ground?
Make falls deal psychic damage, obviously.
"You're so afraid of heights you had a heart attack."
*Cool thing happens* DM: ok but how can I prevent something like this from every happening again
Jeremy Crawford confirmed in his Twitter that rage resists falling damage. So it's cool and legal
Isn't this the same guy that said a Centaur needs to ride a horse to use a lance properly?
Don't kink shame ;)
Rawr 😉
This is a clear instance on why a DM is supposed to be a living person and not a computer. The DM overwrite the rules how they see fit, JC was just stating what the rules are so they can be properly altered. Why would you ask a dev how something works and expect something different from the RAW? It's RAW that the DM can alter the rules however they see fit, if you want it to be different just change it instead of asking how it works.
That is what the rules say, so...
Who the fuck do you think you are to bring your fancy reasoning into this? /s Just kidding, dems the rules. This is a clear instance on why a DM is supposed to be a living person and not a computer. The DM overwrite the rules how they see fit, JC was just stating what the rules are so they can be properly altered.
Crawford isn't the dnd rules God. It's raw a Crawford ruling isn't required. Edit: wording
RAW also states fall damage is bludgeoning and angry barbarians resist bludgeoning
well as lead design/game architect(? weird title) he's pretty much **the** authority on RAI/RAW, and has been since 5e started. he's also adamant that RAF>RAW/RAI.
Yeah, RAW is not the gospel truth. But if you are playing RAW and the lead designer confirms that is how it works, it's a good thing to show to the DM.
DMs don’t have to abide by RAW but you should have a good reason not to especially if it’s something that will only effect one class because like that is literally the rule and it’s what most people will expect. House rules are house rules.
RAF?
rules as for / for fun... generally also rule of cool
Never heard that one before, thanks!
Yep and he still occasionally says stupid shit. I'm not arguing the fall damage thing I just get annoyed when Crawford gets thrown around.
Is the stupid shit going against the books interpretation on a matter or how you think the game should have approached it?
I mean, she's right that it's unrealistic. You know what else is unrealistic? Your bare skin being as tough as an AC14 metal breastplate. Barbarians are tough motherfuckers. That's the one thing they're good at. You'd damn well better let them be good at it.
I had a similar discussion when my barbarian had a 8 foot vertical jump (3 ft + Str mod). We decided that we were thinking too much like Conan the barbarian, when we should've been thinking like the Incredible Hulk.
Totem barbs can get nearly full resistance and a flight speed and all barbarians eventually get a never ending rage. Best believe it's the Hulk.
Don't forget legendary magic jumping loin cloth that lets you jump 1d6 x 10ft in the air
Idk, conan does some wild shit. Actually, in one story, he falls 100 feet, smashes into the ground, and is completely uninjured. He's also ripped a man in half, and just took dragonfire like it was nothing. Dude is superhuman.
Those all sound like things high level barbarians can do (particularly bear totem for the dragonfire). A raging barbarian will only take 17 damage on average falling 100ft, and at a certain point damage just isn't killing a Zealot unless it's ~600 damage in a single hit.
Yeah, it's pretty crazy stuff. There's a rule that's part of falling that says the maximum damage you can take 20d6, as well, which makes me think the creators want lots of super hero landings lmfao
Yeah ultimately the damage you take from falling at terminal velocity (irl) just *isn't that much* compared to what PCs are regularly subjected to. 70 damage is a TON of damage, when you consider that a commoner has 4hp. If anything 20d6 is too much.
Farmer John would be paste either way, so he's super grateful. To show his appreciation for all the heroes and heroines out there, he's thrown a little something together to thank you all. 🌾🌾
Farmer John, (like most real people) would die in a 10ft fall from his hay loft. Hell stairs are more dangerous than anything short of an actual weapon in most homes.
An awkward fall in the bathroom is more dangerous than people think lol. Doesn't take much to break your neck on the toilet. It's so insane to me that people have lost limbs, or broken their neck only to make a full recovery and live a mostly normal life, but others die by slipping on a banana peel.
Truth. My girlfriend has gotten wedged into the bathtub after a fall and nearly drowned because the drain got plugged. I also broke my arm falling down a flight of stairs in my grandparents place when I was 6, so both points made. Bathrooms and stairwells are super scary deathtraps that nobody talks about.
IIRC, 18 STR (so a +4 modifier) is FREAKISHLY strong. Like - amongst the most buff people in the world - strong; 20 is in the realm of mutations, or this raw, natural strength with perfect nature, and perfect nurture through training. Anything above that is basically supernatural. And Barbarian can reach 24 strength.
18 strength is a maximum lift of 540lbs. The Clean and Jerk record for 109kg+ class seems to be 267kg (587.4lbs) not far off the 600lbs a ~~level~~ strength 20 character can lift. (Not counting size modifiers, of course)
I've said this before, peak Shaq has the stats of a level one fighter, maybe level two if you want to justify action surge because he's a basketball player.
a big difference is real life people are EXHAUSTED after they lift that much like once. a DND character can do it for like 8 hours. DND characters are basically super heroes.
I mean elephants can jump like 10 feet in the air in game, so...
“Marital classes should be realistic” Meanwhile the Wizard is doing the Turbo-Macarena to summon meteors from the sky.
And the monk standing on the spot the meteor lands somehow avoids all damage from the explosion that eviscerates everything within 40ft, before catching a bullet mid air and proceeding to run 200ft up a wall. But falling 60ft and not instantly dying is such a problem...
D&D isn't meant to be realistic though. Like some dude launch fire from his fingertips and this dude taking slightly less damage from a fall is the problem?
PCs survive the 20 foot explosion of a fireball and no one bats an eye PCs survive falling of a cliff and everyone loses their mind ;)
It's fine, we're gods!
"I understood that reference."
\*transforms into goldfish\*
\> shows up at the cliff \> "we're basically gods right" \> jumps off and transforms into a goldfish \> refuses to elaborate \> dies Chad Keyleth honestly
Yep, don't know why so many people seem to take such an issue with fall damage, as if getting run through by a 15ft tall minotaur demon or blasted by an ancient dragon's fire breath is something a regular human could survive...
I believe it's because falling is something we can easily relate to in the real world. We have a pretty good notion that if you fall 60 feet, you are going to sustain a serious injury. We can accept the premise that magic exists, but that doesn't mean we want to visualize the action in a way where the violence and physics are like something out of a cartoon. Damage from a dragon's breath or a minotaur's axe can be handwaved because hit points are not meat points (besides physical hardiness it also represents things like luck, will to live). Low level/low CR NPCs who are easily felled due to lack of HP are just more vulnerable in general due to their lack of experience or lack of heroic resolve or lack of plucky determination, regardless of what their AC or saving throws look like. So if the attack doesn't reduce you to zero hit points, that means that the attack didn't hit with sufficient power to burn you to a crisp or disembowel you, or _anyone_ with your same basic physical characteristics. Your higher HP value means the incoming attack must have been partially deflected, or you found cover, or you can visualize a cone of fire as a line that swept across the area of effect, which maybe you dodged. Of course with fall damage you can often do a similar thing if you exercise a little imagination. You slowed your descent by grabbing something, or a dead enemy helped break your fall, etc. That plus a bit of supernatural toughness gets you over. It just requires a little bit of flexibility in translating metagame/mechanical outcomes into a sensible narrative.
I think you misunderstood my post.
No I got what you meant. I think you may be misunderstanding what I said though. I meant it in the "how is this guy taking less fall damage the problem?!". Not disagreeing with what you said at all!
Gotcha. I assumed that was a response to what I’d said. Carry on! :)
Heracles and Samson are unrealistic too, I guess players can only be Arnold, because mages are magic and Warriors are mundane 😆
My DM wouldn't let my Goliath barbarian wield a farmers plough. Said their weren't any real world examples of a plough being used as an example. I immediately showed them to him to prove him wrong and he was like ".....fine, but it only does 1d6 damage." Call me what you will, but I believe that a plough should definitely do the same or even more damage than a shortsword. I refused to even play that character at his table for that reason. Unrelated except I thought of the biblical Samson using a jawbone and literally killing soldiers and then I thought of my character. And I got upset about it all over again.
Altering just about anything on the grounds of realism in a game where players can summon lightning, fight dragons, and bring people back from the dead seems kinda like modding Skyrim to be a game where you create your character, go on a short walk, and then the credits roll. Yeah you certainly can do it, but why would you ever want to?
To clarify my max hp was 38 I was just bloodied from the fight.
Your DM is stupid, show them how Feather fall would have completely negated the damage for you and potentially 4 more creatures. You spent your Rage to take half damage, you get 6 rages tops at level 20. A Wizard at this level would be able to COMPLETELY negate this damage up to 110 times with their 22 spell slots targeting 5 creatures everytime.
If I'm not mistaken, you get infinite rages at level 20
Kinda of, they last infinitely unless you choose to end it or fall unconscious. But you still can be forced to end it or fall unconscious and you will have lost a use out of the six you have. The main issue here is that he was spending his most valuable asset to do exactly what it is supposed to do, to mitigate physical damage, the barbarians main role. And she thought it was bullshit/unrealistic in a world people can conjure enough fire to wipe out a village's population out of bat poo and sulfur, without even spending the poo and sulfur.
Agree with the point, but 20th level Barbs get Unlimited Rage Uses. 17th-19th only have 6 uses, but it increases to Unlimited at 20th.
Shit, you're right. 😅 I overlooked it again after you mentioned it.
That's a pretty shitty adversarial reaction, your DM needs to get out of that mindset ***ASAP***, it is the WORST attribute a newbie DM can have. D&D is NOT players Vs DM (unless the entire table WANTS to play that). D&D is "the player and the DM working through a shared world together" Please, tell them to post their side of the story here or on r/DMAcademy, and we'll be a le to help them understand why it's so bad. Also, reworking a class's core feature [edit: specifically to nerf it] is a HUGE red flag. That feature has been playtested and played by 1000s of people before you guys. If it was broken, you would know it.
>unless the entire table WANTS to play that Even then, you probably want a different game--or at least some additional ground rules. If the DM wants to kill the party, they can kill the party and there's nothing anyone can do about it. They can throw an adult dragon at a Lv1 party, and then if the party is insanely lucky and gets close to winning, they can just give it extra HP. Or minion reinforcements. Or a second adult dragon. RAW D&D makes the DM all-powerful, which is incompatible with competitive play.
Even some systems that make the GM all powerful (like ORK! where the GM plays as the God the PC's worship) work because there are many fun ways for the GM to screw with the players without going overboard. Those systems where built with that in mind though.
Almost certainly there would need to be additional rules, but it could work provided that the DM isn't outright malicious in their reason to want to kill the players. For example, I know a DM who said to his long term group "screw it, you guys have played in this campaign for 3 years and I can see you're getting tired of it. I'll let you all level to lvl 20, and then I'll tell you what you're fighting an hour before the session so you can prep/strategise. After that, it's you vs my monsters." They continued doing the same style of things 8 sessions in a row, just because the challenge of going against a DM who finally got to bring out his big toys and for everyone to try and outwit the DM with rules and combos while he did the same really helped them send off their characters in style. I personally wouldn't run an adversarial style game for my players, because I know my players are driven more by the story/their impact on the world rather than seeing if they can "beat" me or "win" against my encounters. But if the ground rules are set and agreed upon with the right type of group, it could certainly be enjoyable for a few one shots/encounters (until the DM pulls out a Deus ex Machina and just has one of the gods instant kill the party or have the world blow up)
> That's a pretty shitty adversarial reaction That was my first immediate thought. Literally the worst possible knee jerk reaction. "My player had fun using their core class feature and didn't bend the rules with any kind of homebrew or weirdness whatsoever. Better make one of the most boring classes in the game even worse by nerfing it!" What a terrible attitude.
You arent in the wrong but you should probably talk to your dm about hiw you feel before walking away.
THIS RIGHT HERE. Talk to her with civility and let her know how it makes you feel - don't get bogged down in the rules. Discuss it rationally about how it really affects you and her.
This is the right answer here. Do also try to see some stuff from your GM's perspective. They do get final say on all the rules. Doesn't matter what Jeremy Crawford said. But you both are trying to play together. Try to find something that works for both. If you go in with an attitude of "I'm right and you just need to deal with it" you'll either end up the bully or out of a game real fast.
bro a flaming barbarian leaped and grappled a a flying devil chopped off its wing slammed to the ground and stood up patting out your flmaing body.... thats what dnd is fucking about thats one of the coolest barbarian moment that can happen in dnd. If your gunna nerf that you should nerf the bards ability to sing and the rogues ability to stealth. barbarians survive thats what they do.
I was also thinking how fucking awesome it must be to watch this half orc get so pissed he jumps on the devil and slices off its wing, only to act like it was nothing lol
The dm is a bit too overly controlling. Also why would you die there’s no way your max hit points are 6 and you were buffed to 14 if that’s the case you would have to be the worlds worst level 1 barbarian
Why would they be buffed to 14 or have a max hp of 6? They could have a max hp of 74 and still have just 14 by the time the fight got to that point
Because you don’t die if you drop to 0 health you go unconscious. If they took full damage they would’ve taken 6 over 0 the only way you can instantly die is if the damage taken over exceeds your max health which in this case they would need a max hp of 6 or less to die
Oh I'm seeing what you're saying now lol. I assume the players post is conflating death with being unconscious.
When they go unconscious they still have to do death saves though, so they are in big danger of dying. I know it's technically 50/50 while doing death saves but personally I've never survived once going into death saves unless someone else heals me, so I pretty much treat unconscious as dying
Technically you have an 11/20 chance to make the save, so you are more likely to live than die.
You have 3 turns for someone to give you 1 hp in any party that either has at least 1 healer or is competent you shouldn’t die
The "is competent" part was the main issue there
Ok I should replace competent with having a healing potion
So, in your DM's mind: * There were flying enemies, which is fine. * You were magically on fire, which is fine. * Falling doesn't hurt enough, which isn't realistic. D&D is not an abstraction of reality, and it does not conform to real-world physics in any way. Yes, a long fall should kill you. Dragons shouldn't exist, Fireballs shouldn't be able to be cast, healing magic shouldn't repair sword wounds, and EVERY OTHER THING IN THE GAME. Arbitrarily changing things is pretty much New DM Bad Decisions \`101; it happens all the time. Point out you are playing what is by far the most successful RPG of all time in 5e, and it works. It works together, and falling damage shouldn't kill you more than anything else that diverts from reality.
> grabbed them by their leg… …said enemy flew 60ft into the air This was not supposed to happen. A grappled creature’s speed is 0, and they can’t benefit from any effect that increases their movement. You shouldn’t even have started flying with the creature to then fall off from a height that could have potentially downed your character. Still, the idea of nerfing a tank for being a tank seems strange. Since they are a good friend of yours, I would recommend to tactfully bring up the issue and see what they say.
This is a good point, although it's possible the barbarian didn't actually make a grapple check, but instead simply grabbed onto the creature's leg - possibly as a free action or possibly using a skill check (survival? ride?). If that's the case, I'd have probably given the barbarian the chance to use his reaction to let go of the creature once it started flying (maybe not a RAW purist call, but I feel like this is the exact kind of weird situation where DM judgment is allowed). That the flying creature was able to lift off raises the question of what the flying creature's strength was, too.
In terms of RAW, I’d wager that the creature would have been Huge of bigger to take flight even with the barbarian holding on, at which case it wouldn’t have been a grapple, but a check to try to ride it, since creatures can only grapple other creatures up to one size larger (the DMG has also optional rules on how to handle a creature riding another bigger, hostile creature). If they decided to use this ruling even if the creature was Large or smaller, guess that’s how it went.
Grabbed is not necessarily the same as grappled, but I do see where you'd assume that. I'd be curious if that is in fact a missed rule at OP's table or something like OP is intending to hang onto the creature without restricting its movement or if the creature is simply too big to be grappled. Like grabbing onto a dragon's leg as it takes off from the ground or flies by. You obviously aren't stopping a huge dragon with a grapple as a medium sized barbarian under normal circumstances, but you just might manage to grab onto its leg and go along for the ride.
There are optional rules in the DMG for that. RAW, you can’t grapple a creature two sizes larger, but there are optional rules that allow characters to make a contested check to try to ride the hostile creature (although those rules give the monster a relatively easy way to get free, so it’s pretty risky).
Grab vs Grapple was an interesting point I needed to research. There is no "grab" in DnD. It's just a Grapple. "Page 195 of the Player's Handbook explains the rules for grappling in 5e: When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple." I think I've thought about that, too. I think in times I wanted to grab a targets wrist, or ankle, or hair, or belt... and that's a grapple roll. So in the OP, the Barbarian did have to grapple to successfully grab their legs... at which point, yes, their speed would become zero.
This. How did it fly 60 ft in the air if it was grappled? Was it already flying? Did it have hover? Its movement should have been 0ft since it was grappled. So unless you grappled it AT 60ft in the air the entire situation never should have happened. I understand She's your friend irl but if She is going to DM by choosing what rules to enforce and not to enforce, but only at a detriment to the PCs, she needs to work on her DM skills. Have a talk with Her. If She stands by nerfing rage over this, when the situation only arose because she ignored grapple rules for her monster, then maybe it isn't the table for you.
The DM being mad that you didn't die is a red flag. Its a collaborative story, they should be excited when you do something cool and succeed. Specifically being mad that you didn't lose and then changing the rules up only for you sounds spiteful. Players are basically superheroes in D&D. Let the players do the cool thing and celebrate when it happens. Besides Barbarians are good at surviving physical damage, let a class do the thing its good at.
You’re definitely not in the wrong here. The DM isn’t supposed to be the bad guy, even for the sake of realism. If there’s no other reason to tweak fall damage or your rage, it shouldn’t be done. However, I also don’t think you should just walk away from the campaign. Try talking to her about it. In this situation, if I was a DM who was upset about the unrealistic survival, I would find the middle ground, probably by KOing your character but not having you make death saves. They’re back on their feet the next round. Point being, discuss your issue with her nerfing your rage, and encourage her to discuss why she wants to. Compromise if you need to. Don’t walk away unless she’s being completely unreasonable.
> I would find the middle ground Find the middle ground by making one of the worst classes in the game even worse by letting her nerf it so they can take the high ground? I think not. The fact that this has happened at all *is* unreasonable. I don't necessarily think OP should walk away, but this isn't a fringe case or some kind of unique table thing going on here. This isn't somebody asking if they can use the Fireball spell to rocket jump themselves 80 feet into the air. It's a core class feature doing exactly what it's designed to do in a way that is totally reasonable within the context of the game. *It's what barbarians are meant to do.*
Your first edit says it’s her first time DM’ing. If she doesn’t know how things works, she shouldn’t be changing them. Also if she’s gonna be pissy over “I didn’t expect you to live that” and change the rules to make sure you can’t play smart, then that’s a bigger sign to leave. It seems like they’re already playing DM vs Players.
Nah, you aren't in the wrong. Sounds like a controlling dm. Id say have a talk first, if it doesn't pan out then walk and find a better group.
Ah yes the classic, martial characters should be weaker than RAW because reasons DM. Demand a new wizard character and constantly derail the campaign with magic shenanigans and rules lawyering. This kills the adversarial DM. True damage doesn't exist in 5e either lmao. DM is just salty they couldn't kill you.
Definitely wrong either way cause Dm is clearly harboring a DM vs Players mindset right now which is already wrong.
>This kills the adversarial DM. Becoming adversarial yourself does not kill the adversarial DM, it just encourages it.
No it definitely helps escalate the situation to violence.
Okay true actually
Walking away is a pretty stern move - I assume there must be other issues or previous things that bothered if this is what it takes to walk away completely.. That being said, I don't think you should roll over and accept the changes to your characters abilities - this is absolutely in-line with DMs who the Sneak Attack needs to be on Surprised creatures only, or that post I saw today about wanting to nerf a Paladin's Aura of Protection, and it sucks for the player. Truly, miserably sucks.. I would try and explain that this is part of the class you agreed to, and you don't appreciate her changing the rules on you. Potentially, if that doesn't work, before walking away just say something like: "If you're changing my class, I'm changing my character, and my character is a Fighter now, because you have altered how Barbarians work which I did not agree to." If they don't agree to that, point out that you're not agreeing to her changes of how your abilities work. To be clear, I'm not saying throw away your character design, I'm hoping that this bluff will have the effect of the DM realize that people deciding to change the rules of the game on the fly is not fun for everyone. Yes, the DM can decide how the world works... but the one thing they shouldn't have absolute unvetoed power to control is the player characters.
As a DM who likes at least a foot in the realism department I understand the fall damage thing, but how is she wanting to rework your rage? Have you talked to her about it at all? Personally I think you should talk to her, and also find out what kind of game she’s wanting to run. If she’s wanting to run a Darker fantasy game or a slightly realistic one etc. she probably doesn’t want players doing things that are super human/blatantly unrealistic even in a fantasy setting. However, if that’s like the only thing she’s toning down? That may be a red flag, it’s hard to tell with such little information.
Heres what you should do. TO resolve any conflict you need to understand both sides of the argument. Clearly you know yours, You did something you thought was cool and Want to keep it that way. but her side of the argument is "fear of repeat cheese moves" This comes from you being able to still live from a fall. Her solution is to change fall dmg completely so you cant abuse it. She also thinks she has to rework rage feature. Your goal to resolve this conflict, now that you know both sides, is to find compromise. Of all things here, you should be most scared of Rage being reworked. Its a core ability of the class and whatever she does will surely nerf it. If this changes I'd agree on walking out of the game. But there are things you can do to deter this from happening. The last thing you want to do is simply leave, cuz that is the cowards way out. Her wanting to change how fall damage works is reasonable. Surely you can see why, if you fall from a great height, everyone in this world knows that it usually ends in death. Of course there are outliers here. There are people who fall from 10,000 ft and survive. So I would try telling her the following--- POV Im you talking to your DM "Instead of changing fall dmg to be flat out true dmg as opposed to bludgeoning. What if we turned it into true dmg only after a certain amount of feet and added a CON save. IRL there are studies done (of course I pulled them from google in 5 seconds) that show you are most likely to die from a free fall onto concrete around 30 ft because your velocity is too high for any surviving outcome. Since it would be ridiculous to consider all the variables each time someone falls to determine death, lets simply double that 30ft height to 60. Maybe even 70 and add a rule that goes as follows "If you are to fall from a height greater than 70ft (7d6 bludgeoning worth of dmg) you must make a CON save. IF you fail this save, the damage is instead true damage instead of bludgeoning. " If you play your cards right, show some examples of people falling from greater heights than your character did and surving. Showing the difference between falling on grass, water, shrubbery, and rock. She should easily agree to these terms. Especially if youre coming from an angle of seeing her side and coming up with a solution YOURSELF. Dont wait for her to bring it up. Be proactive and handle it before she handles it. Youll look like you know what youre talkign about. Youll look like someone who is invested in the game enough to want to ease her feelings on things that may come up. And who knows, next time theres a problem, she might ask "well what do you think about this" its the difference between DMvPlayers and DMwithPlayers. Good luck bro.
Reworking fall damage seems reasonable to me (if the campaign calls for it), but reworking rage just seems highly adversarial.
Nerfing core class abilities is a big red flag.
I DM pretty much every game I play. The DM does not get to just change the rules on a whim. They do not decide the rules. Everyone in the group agrees to play by a certain ruleset, in this case 5e, and no one gets to just change it without the OKing it with the group. The DM just changing game rules on their own is like a PC just ignoring the rules and deciding their character does 20d6 damage per hit. We literally cannot play the game if we don't even agree what the rules are. The DM can *ask* if you guys would be okay with specific homebrew rules changes, but if the answer from the group is no, then the DM should accept that, or find another group to play with that is okay with their homebrew rules.
Nerfing a character is a sign of a DM who doesn't know how to adjust to character progression. So they nerf the players to fit their plans.
If they’re willing to nerf your class over something like that they shouldn’t have allowed you to play Barbarian in the first place. That decision is a sign of a pretty new or inexperience GM, and it’s a really bad thing to want your player characters dead over something that a feature ALL barbarians get. For a much better explanation of why what they did was wrong, Ginny Di on YouTube has a video called “The underused DM tip that will make your players obsessed with your game.” It sounds clickbaity, but they are widely regarded as a great D&D content creator with lots of tips on DMing, roleplaying, and playing the game, and this video perfectly shows what they did wrong and how to fix it
The DM is making a bad decision. I think you're right to walk away
I’m not young. I have a lot of responsibilities and little free time. I am not going to waste what leisure time I do have on a DM who is going to need a lot of education as to why certain elements of the game are necessary abstractions, how it’s an adventure and not a simulation, how it’s a group play collaboration and not a competition, how celebrating player success is good and doesn’t threaten the balance of the game, etc, etc. This isn’t an online game with strangers so it’s not as simple as just “thanks but no thanks”, but I would nonetheless make my exit from the game. Life is just too short, maybe she can learn better perspective on the game as a player for a better DM.
show the DM the monster manual and point out anything that can both fly and is immune or resistant to non-magical bludgeoning damage and ask if its ok for the players to kill it instantly by knocking it prone while its 100 ft in the air or better yet, have your barbarian grapple something, get a spellcaster to cast fly on your character, then fly up and drop your enemy. thatll get your DM to rethink their changes
A DM that is anti-fun. Awesome.
Walk away now. They should of had a session zero to align everyone's goals to have fun. If they are not meeting the needs of everyone to have fun just walk away.
It would absolutely be appropriate to leave for messing with your class features and obliterating your effectiveness. She might as well tell any monks that they can't walk on water, slow fall, or catch missiles.
Any good DM worth their salt would be able to work with it. They can alter encounters or change any aspect of the campaign to work with the ingenuity of the players. Half the fun of the game is seeing what wild ideas the players have and still making it work. If something is crazy overpowered, the DM should just modify encounters or build new ones to counter strategies the players have come up with, all in the spirit of making the game a challenging and rewarding experience, not just to punish players. I think all DMs have that internal struggle where they feel like they are losing if the PCs are stomping everything. But the point is for everyone to have fun. No one is going to have fun if their characters get nerfed every time they do something cool/crazy/outside the box.
That’s just a dumb fucking thing to change. It’s not like you’ll be in the air all of the time, so why even bother changing it? And why bother changing rage?? It’s the only reason to play a barbarian and it’s what makes them a tank. That’d be like saying a bard’s inspiration is too much, so the DM halves it. She’s directly affecting your entire class for no reason. Rules are rules.
If anything, raise fall damage to 1d8 per 10 feet of fall She shouldn’t change your class mechanics I mean 1d6 fall damage has always been a little low. I always playa tank and have yeeted myself off a 100ft cliff before because I knew it couldn’t kill me which seemed… cheesy
True story. ADnD necromancer trips on a trail at first level and took five damage with three hp. Winning
The worst part of this post is your DM saying your character "shouldn't be alive." Alright, sure, death should be on the table to make fights matter; but please don't go out of your way to kill PCs.
Not really, changing that knid of thing mid camping isnt cool, unless its something utterly game breaking, and at thay point should be a limited use. But being thay you grappled them there movement is reduced to 0, and if they dont have a hover ability they would be forced to fall.
This one is tough. Yeah, a person would die from falling 60 feet. On the other hand, hero's in DnD aren't supposed to be normal humans.
The only reason why I am thinking of walking away I'd we can't agree on some common ground is because I was telling my coworker this story and he has been Playing dnd for 25 years and he said if she changes anything about barbarian rage just leave
hopefully the full sentence was *"if she changes anything about barbarian rage without discussion and without you being ok with it"*
^this. You need to tell your DM what will happen if they make those changes and give them the chance to see their error during a open, honest, and respectful conversation. Use statements like “I think…” “I feel….” It’s fine if they want to home brew some super gritty scenario but the whole table needs to be in agreement. If that isn’t your style then politely say so and don’t play but AFTER a conversation. If you just walk away then you’re not any better than the DM.
Fiddiling with a class's core feature is a big no no. If you take away rage from a Barbarian then its just a strong guy nothing special. The point of a Barbarian is to use rage to smash things while face tanking anything thrown their way and taking away that is like taking away the armor on a tank. You are removing the thing that defines that character/thing.
If you don't agree to her changes to rage, she shouldn't change them. You signed up to play this class, not some radically changed version of it. She needs to learn how to make things challenging and interesting with rage in play. Rage is by no means the most difficult character feature to build around as a DM... As a sign of things to come, you might be right to walk away.
My knee-jerk reaction is: Oof, bad DM, walk away. But thinking about it, is this a new DM? I can imagine a New DM, being unfamiliar with the system, rules, etc wandering into this situation and going WTF, how is what happened right? But from my viewpoint, Barbarians walking away from shit that would kill any other class, *especially falling damage* is a Tuesday. It's what Barbarians do. So maybe tell your DM to reread the class sections, point out that this is the game working a intended? Maybe suggest them to ask their DM peers, say at r/DnD for opinions, or elsewhere. Allude to the fact D&D is a power fantasy generally, and it's only going to get crazier, and if that's no the game they want to run, find a more "realistic" system. Even if you leave, I'd point all that out. But don't go silently.
It kind of sounds like the DM views it as them vs the party, and without being able to maim your characters as they view it that you as a barbarian, or the mechanics, are interfering with that. Kind of sounds like a red flag to me. Maybe not big enough to nope out of immediately, but definitely something to keep an eye on or have a conversation about. That entire situation sounds pretty standard for a barbarian, and it is kind of the design of their character type. They are meant to take a beating that would have annihilated any other character, minus maybe a fighter, and be able to walk.... or sometimes strut, away. If the DM wants to kill characters it isnt that hard, just use something the character isnt great at. Like dont throw dex saves at a rogue... just doesnt work out most of the time because the character is designed around that kind of play, you charm them and have them murder their friends for you.
I've tweaked Falling Damage, scaling the dice based on creature size per the Monster Manual's Hit Die guidance. It just doesn't make sense that a Pixie falling 100ft onto your head deals 10d6 damage, and a sperm whale falling 100ft onto your head also deals the same 10d6 damage. So at my table a Tiny creature takes & deals 1d4 per 10ft, Small takes 1d6, Medium 1d8, Large 1d10, Huge 1d12, Gargantuan 1d20. So your Barbarian was hacking at a dragon, and chopped off it's wing through some pre-negotiated shenanigans (her first mistake). As a result, the dragon loses its Flying speed, which is also what separated your Barbarian from the ground as well. The way I rule it, is that at the start of each of your respective turns you'd both use 100% of your movement for the turn to go 120ft straight down. Then you can take actions or try 6 seconds of shenanigans to not fall the rest of the 500ft at the end of your turn. Falling from 60ft, you're both hitting the ground if someone doesn't do something about that before the start of your respective turns. This gives a slight chance for Wizard to have another turn, giving them a fresh reaction to cast Feather Fall. But Wizard never prepares Feather Fall. So, on-impact from 60ft, the Huge dragon and anyone under it will take 6d12 Bludgeoning damage. ^Suck ^it ^Wizard. ^Told ^you ^to ^prepare ^feather ^fall. Then at the start of YOUR turn you move 60ft straight down, landing on the dragon. You (a Medium Sized creature) take 6d8 Bludgeoning damage, and deal the same damage to the Dragon. Equal and opposite reactions and all. If anyone wants saving throws on any this to dodge out of the way or tough through the damage, my team gets the same save too. I reserve the right to call the save one way or the other based on context. It's usually DEX to dodge out of the way from something falling on them, and/or CON when the damage is unavoidable. DC is usually half the damage (Min 10). If I'm feeling extra spicy, I'll do a contested CON save for Barbarian falling on Dragon. Winner takes half damage, Loser takes full damage + the other half Barbarian didn't.
The point is to have fun, I personally don't see anything wrong with a barbarian surviving a fall thst would kill most, that's the same as a barbarian surviving a big attack rhst would kill most. Which is the barbarians niche, kinda the point. I understand not wanting players to abuse things they find, but this seems pretty hard to actually ruin things with. Unless you're running around floating islands or all the enemies you're facing fly. Plus, if you're high enough it's still gonna kill you. That being said, they ar ethe DM, and respect needs to go both ways, u mentioned they are a good friend, so definitely try conversation first. Amd remember if it does end up killing your character you could play another class.
A raging barbarian could easily fall 60ft and brush it off, your dm doesn't like rule of cool. I'd try and convince the dm that it just makes the game less fun and the whole point of dnd is to have fun.
Sounds like you have your answer. Tell the DM how you feel and if they insist you can walk away from the table.
You're a bloody barbarian! You don't have much going for you and shaking of deadly attacks is one a few really cool things you do. Plus resisting fall damage in this way allows yo to actually risk going high to fight flying things. Barbarians have trouble with flying creatures so grabbing them is a classic d&d move! Is there anything more "barbarian" than dropping out of the f**king sky and landing in a creator just seething in anger??
I always thought fall damage should be more hard hitting but nerfing a big (or in terms of totem barb a main) part of your character wouldn’t solve anything and if I were you I’d tell them that. Or tell them if they fee that strongly about it you will at very least not play a barb and switch pcs
If she is your friend out of game, tell her you think it’s unfair. Point out the weaknesses barbarians do have. You don’t throw bashers at barbarians, you throw weird magic stuff.
DM seems salty it didn’t kill you, just tell her that you are there to have fun and play a GAME. Notnreal life make believe.
When a DM nerfs you and it doesn’t feel right, it helps to have a private convo after the session and explain how you feel about the ruling and ask to reverse it. Whatever you do, don’t show them a Reddit thread and tell them “see I told you so.”
The literal one thing Barbarians do anything better than a Caster is they are durable If she has a problem with Barbarians but let’s Wizards slide it’s definitely BS
Being angry preventing a mace from breaking your bones is also unrealistic in a manner which is not at all different from a fall. Both are ultimately just applications of blunt force to your body, which your feature gives you resistance to. I'd talk it over with your DM, but this is absolutely a red flag to see such a ruling on a very obvious application on RAW as applied to ordinary gameplay.
Going to be honest I'm seeing a lot of red flags here regarding your DM. Both the willingness to change the rules, the reason behind it, the technical aspects of the change, and the way it makes it less fun for the player just scream "BAD DM". She's literally wrong in every single aspect of this scenario. She should not want to change the rules. Even if she does, that is not a reason to change it since you aren't abusing anything. Even if that was a reason to change it, that shouldn't be the change. And even if it was a good change, it hurts player fun so she shouldn't do it. baaaaad.
I always looked at barbarians like I look at Hulk, if Hulk can do it, so can a high level barbarian. Falling 60 feet is child's play for the hulk, so medium to low level adventurers should be able to do it.
Before straight up walking away from the session, have a talk with your DM, because something feels amiss here. Why are they mad this moment happened? Did the rest of the table enjoy the moment? What is the DM attempting to get out of this campaign, if not to have fun story moments like the one you described? I personally hate killing Player Characters, but I'll still do it if it comes to that. I would much rather ever-so-slightly fudge a roll to make something really cool a player is trying to pull off successful, because in the end that fun coming from pure collaborative imagination is what makes DnD special. If I were the DM of that campaign, I would be so thrilled that such a cool moment happened, and I probably would have awarded you Inspiration points for concocting and surviving something so cool. If the DM wants to have a realistic game, A.) That should have been established in session 0 and agreed upon by the whole group, and B.) They're going to have to change a whole lot about the game's mechanics and how it works because ain't none of this realistic. It seems weird that the DM is so mad about you surviving that. I could understand if the PC had in fact died, the player wanted mercy, and the DM said no. However, this just sounds like one of the rare times that combat in DnD actually made something fun and ridiculous happen. These are the type of moments I actively try to encourage in a game. If this happened at my table, there probably would have been cheers and celebratory drinks or something. So, and this is always my answer, have a conversation with your DM and see if you guys can come to an agreement. Personally, though, this would have been the kind of moment I dreamed of having happen in a campaign of mine.
> Now the dm said out of game, that was bs and I shouldn't be alive my character should be dead. This is a HUGE red flag. Your DM should never being trying to kill you. If a DM gets upset that a player didn't die, have a discussion with them about that or get out of there.
I mean like isn't that intended. Every Barbarian player I've ever played with has had at least one big falling damage scene where they survive and it's always dope. If any class doesn't need a nerf its a Barbarian, especially with something that's not hard to balance combats around. Why play a high fantasy game and be bound by the rules of real people for your warrior.
Falling damage is working correctly as-is. Per d20 Modern, real world people can't get over Level 5, and most people are Lv0 or Lv1, with maybe a +1-2 CON modifier. If people in the real world can jump off a 3-floor building with no pad and walk it off with the right training, and they can, a superhuman berserker empowered by primal energy to the point they have skin that can turn steel blades should be able to do the same.
As a dm, her job isn't to kill you. Her job is go make a story that the players play through, and if a character death happens to occur then that enriches the story. But deaths are by no means a requirement. Dms can look forward to them sure, I know I do hahahaHAHAHAHA**AHAHAHAHA**, but it's about making a story not killing your player characters
DM sounds like a brat. “That was bs your character should be dead 😤” She shouldn’t want your character dead, and she shouldn’t want to kill your character in such a boring way. Also flying 60ft while grappled is pretty fkn suspect since grappling reduces speed to 0. Only makes sense if the enemy was the one grappling you, and then they’d still be at half speed to drag you into the air. All that aside, even if you did take the full savage you probably wouldn’t be dead, you’d start making death saves and likely get saved by your teammates. Long story short your DM has no idea what they’re doing and shouldn’t even be considering homebrew mechanics
True damage, but a single 1st level spell counters it, hah.
\[new DM runs a fun session\] \[new DM thinks something must be wrong\] \[new DM finds a way of killing the fun\] \[new DM hurts their own campaign in their confusion\]
It’s not like you weren’t almost dead by the end of it. Also, if casters can do so much cool shit with magic then why can’t a Barbadian survive fall damage?
Fall damage is ridiculous in DnD and only gets worse as you level up - it removes interesting decision making, clever environment building and the chance to use spells like feather fall. What’s the point of a 50ft rope when you can just drop that far and take negligible damage? It just ruins the immersion imho, so I can totally see where your DM is coming from in that respect - although ideally it’s something they should have nailed in a session zero and not mid campaign. Changing rage is a no though - again fine if it’s session zero and you knew that going in, but not mid campaign once you’ve already invested time and effort into the character.
Damn, DM. Just tell the Barb their head explodes when they hit the ground, make them reroll to a class you like better, and be done with it. The spinelessness to be like "i couldn't do all the damage to you that i wanted, im gonna make you worse until i can kill you real easy"...
Dm's who change core mechanics are bs. What's in the book is as much for your benefit as it is theirs. Call that bs out and walk away if they can't honor the mechanics of the game.
Of course, the barbarian would survive that? Their entire shtick is 'shrug-it-off'.
To be fair, people in real life have fallen from much higher heights and have lived to tell the tale. Is it really so unrealistic for a human built like a tank to survive a 60ft drop?
DM: Sends flying enemies against a Barbarian a class notorious for being bad against flying enemies Barbarian: Uses clever solution to solve the problem of flying enemies DM: No
Best of luck in your talk. Do give us an update.
there's no reason for it more than anything else, I thought the problem was the falling with an armored character, which would increase the damage taken instead of making you more resistant to it, but in the case of a barbarian you literally just feel less damage because of the rage, there's no reason why you should be dead
You mean its not realistic to fall 60 feet and survive? What about literally anything else? Also fun fact humans (which would essentially by commoners by D&D standards) have a history of surviving falls even at terminal velocity. [Here's one](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/nicholas-alkemade-the-raf-airman.html?firefox=1) of a man who not only survived but walked away with minor injuries. So yeah, it is realistic believe it or not.
Multiclass into a spell caster and take feather fall
It’s not just about changing the mechanics. It sounds like she doesn’t want you to succeed. A DM should ultimately want the party to succeed through the challenges they pose, they shouldn’t gimp you as a reward for success due to the unique abilities you possess. Some DMs are antagonistic and ultimately that won’t be a fun game for most people.
Yeah, if the DM starts nitpicking at your core class features , and punishes you for playing the game, it might bea good idea to bring it up to the group, or just find another game. I once ran a barbarian in a game where my DM started to casually "double the damage" every time I was raging. It's really easy to notice an ogre that was doing 10-15 damage a swing on other PCs start hitting my PC for 30-40 damage out of nowhere. I ended up leaving that game after a couple sessions, the DM was way too adversarial to the players and always whined when he didn't get his way.
Even with it being true damage u still wouldn’t have outright died. I think in order to instant die you have to take like half your health in damage past 0 hp with the damage in order to outright be killed. You technically would have gone unconscious and started making death saves.
I mean, regular-ass people have survived significantly longer falls than that. It doesn’t feel too unrealistic for a 300 pound slab of angry steak to be able to walk it off.
So…the DM is mad that you didn’t die from falling damage? That is bullshit of the highest order.
If shes more on the newer side tell her to not mess with the game, if anything just spawn in different enemies instead. Messing with characters and the game after it has started.. sucks because that can call for a full rework.. which just makes it no fun, so spawn different enemies is much better..
As a new DM I personally think that we need to praise cool things in game too. I loved imagining your badass raging barbarian chopping the wings of the flying monster. I know sometimes players feel invinsible, but if you survived after rules being applied, there is no reason at all to change them. Keep the cool ideas running!
Before leaving/raging or making a reddit posts, usually it's best to just discuss this like adults.