D&D 5E Feather Fall hanger on

[Ovinomancer]

First, If you want to choose to drag other threads into this, thats on you. i have not done so.

Exhibiting a behavior of insinuating or outright calling into question my motives in multiple threads is really on you. Mentioning it is, as you note, on me, but that fact doesn't obviate the behavior.

Second, you seem determined to manufacture a weight limit for my feather fall choice, even though there is none. My case involved death cancelling the effect (if that is the rule) regardless of whether or not the death is caused by weight crushing or not. if you do not see or recognize the difference bewteen a fly ending when a caster drowns to death vs a spell ending when the caster is submerged for x amount of time kinds of cases (or a case where a target dies from crushing vs spell ending due to weight) , that is just not something i can do any more to help you with. A spell ending because the recipient is killed by fireball is not the same thing as a spell ending when a fireball affects the target. those seem obvious to me.

The death was caused by what, again? Oh, yes, it was casting feather fall with too much weight carried. You keep moving back to the ending of the feather fall effect despite my multiple, clear statements that this isn't the crux of my statements. You apply a ruling to feather fall when too much weight is applied to the target creature: if it exceeds some arbitrary and still unstated threshold, the creature will die due to the weight. I've challenged you multiple times to expound upon this ruling, and it's clearly a ruling that interacts with both feather fall and weight, and you keep trying to obfuscate by introducing arrows, death by drowning, fly spells, and dead people not being able to be targeted by feather fall, all of which are completely orthogonal to the questions I've raised.

Again, you really want to institute rulings when their ones you agree with, and yet you still wish to disparage those you disagree with. And the proof of that is this next statement:

As for the anti-player nature of the decision, well it seems obvious if you pay attention to what i have said.

Thank you for the clear statement that you've decided my intentions are to punish players for nefarious reasons.

In the example cited, it was a player initiating the leap to grab the falling participant. We have no info on the carrying capacity of the falling target, we have no information on the size, weight, encumbrance etc of the jumper. So, we cannot know if your ruling would go against the leaper, but it certainly could not help them in their survival effort.

In the cases where i have made observations about my own experience, i have stated clearly that in my experience the vast number of times i have seen feather fall used in game it has been PCs using it to save themselves and their allies, often in rather dire circumstances. So, a rule change to add in a weight limit based "counter" or "off-switch" that NPCs can exploit is going to be one which would work against the PCs more than the PCs.

But as i acknowledged in games where feather fall is more commonly used by enemies than allies, it could be reversed.

Right, you said that my choice was "thwart[ing]" player tactics, but now hold out (and you didn't do this until responding to a different poster and that recently) that you could acknowledge that it wasn't an anti-player decision if enemies use it, too. But, no, your initial reaction to my ruling was that it was anti-player, and your continued response is that it's anti-player.

And, yet, when I applied the same ruling to the character using feather fall to try to keep a falling airship from plummeting, my response was just that it didn't work. You kill the character. And, yet, my rulings are "anti-player".

Pro-tip: don't assume rulings are anti-player. That's probably hard for you because (and I'm bringing in other threads again) it's a common response from you to play styles you don't use.

As for me invoking a ruling, if you consider "things work as they usually do with no special interactive changes needed" a ruling, than i guess you are right. i did not change what happenes when a ship drops on your character or what happens when you fall through feather fall.

How does casting feather fall in a cabin of a falling airship usually work, then? You say it results in the immediate pulpification and death of the character, and yet we haven't determined the strength of the ceiling, the time the airship has been falling, speed at which it's falling, or any of the other physical issues that might affect a consideration of the damage one would assume falling at a different speed might cause. This is even without the consideration of the unique physics of D&D, where the airship will fall 500 ft a round (XGtE) and not what it would really fall (closer to 600ft in the first 6 seconds, almost 1800 feet in the next 6 seconds).

So, please, tell us all how it normally works, here.

But by that token every time a character fires a bow and i choose to not apply some new mechanic to bow fire, i am making a ruling too so... i find your definition of ruling to be rather a tad too broad.

Nope. That's a strawman. You can even fire arrows at it, if you'd like, with that bow. But, when you decide it's time for a ruling that kill characters that unadvisedly cast feather fall, you bet it's a big enough deal that you might get questioned on it.

As already said, you are free to rule any house rule you want for your games.

its not a direction i would consider worthwhile in mine, for reasons already stated.

Yes, you've been very clear that you think I'm ruling expressly to thwart clever player tactics and am doing so from an anti-player perspective.

But your constant attempt to re-frame what i said to be that i have added a weight limit is not accurate and at this point does not seem to be in good faith especially now that it seems you are explicitly trying to tie it in with other prior disagreements.

Okay, let's say the character is under a falling kayak when they cast feather fall. Dead?
What if they/'re under a falling rowboat? Dead?
What if they're under a falling dinghy? Dead?
What about a falling torpedo boat? Dead?
We know that when their under a falling schooner the answer is dead.

Where is the magic line of flying ship size where the casting of feather fall equates to death? And, could that ruling of death have anything to do with the weight of the falling ship?

Of course, the answer that that rhetorical answer is:clearly. You stated as much when you declared the character dead from having the falling airship smush them to a pulp. So, yes, you continued evasions that you do make a ruling about feather fall based on weight ring extra-ordinarily hollow as they clearly do. Further, the fact that you're willing to arbitrarily kill characters based on this weight, thus thwarting their clever tactics to halt the crashing of their airships shows that you're just fine with such rulings, so long as they comport themselves to your opinions instead of other people's.

 

[Arial Black]

You've grossly oversimplied the process, though, and applied it to split second timing decision. HALO jumper don't wait until the last moment to open, they open at a relatively high altitude, providing usually a minute of glide before they contact the ground. The typical height for a HALO jump opening is 2000 feet. At this height, you're approximately 12 seconds from impact. Most reserve chutes can open in 1200 feet (some in as little as 400). This means you have about 4.5 second to determine a main chute malfunction has occurred and pull your reserve. Most times, this isn't enough time.

Stating that HALO jumps occur, with their extensively built in safety margins of more than a round's worth of time to justify split moment timing is bogus. In a 600 foot fall, your velocity at impact is approximately 98 feet/second. At 500 feet it's marginally slower at 95 feet/second. To initiate feather fall at 60 feet at a speed of 95-98 feet/second entails a timing window of less than 7 tenths of a second. That's the entire time you have to time your casting anywhere between 60 feet and 1 foot. That's a significant timing issue, and isn't guaranteed. Sure, featherfall goes off instantly when you pull that trigger, but can you, the character, so precisely time that fall? If you routinely practiced such things, I'd give you advantage on the initiative check, DC 10, to pull off that timing, but, then, you've earned that in a very dangerous way.

And fireball requires the caster to choose a point within 150 feet to precisely place a 40 foot diameter hemisphere, with possible allies near the area who could get caught in an imprecisely aimed spell. Aiming it would be just as precise/imprecise as casting feather fall, or any other spell where the caster chooses timing/target point etc.

What do you make your casters roll to place that fireball? Is it a DC 10, like you suggest for feather fall? Or do you only enforce a DC 10 for feather fall, nerfing this 1st level spell by giving it a 50% chance to kill the caster, while leaving the deadly fireball spell un-nerfed?

Under your rulings a lot of casters are going to go splat and/or roast their friends.

Or could it be that the system, now and always, handwaves caster precision when casting their own spells?

I was confused by your claim that RAW was clear and thus no ruling was required. Have you had a change or heart, or are we talking past each other?

We must be talking past each other. I never said that no ruling was required, only that the rules were silent on the issue of hangers on and feather fall. As always in RPGs, the GM's duty is to make a ruling where a ruling is required to resolve what is happening in the game if that situation is not already covered by rules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And fireball requires the caster to choose a point within 150 feet to precisely place a 40 foot diameter hemisphere, with possible allies near the area who could get caught in an imprecisely aimed spell. Aiming it would be just as precise/imprecise as casting feather fall, or any other spell where the caster chooses timing/target point etc.

What do you make your casters roll to place that fireball? Is it a DC 10, like you suggest for feather fall? Or do you only enforce a DC 10 for feather fall, nerfing this 1st level spell by giving it a 50% chance to kill the caster, while leaving the deadly fireball spell un-nerfed?

Under your rulings a lot of casters are going to go splat and/or roast their friends.

Or could it be that the system, now and always, handwaves caster precision when casting their own spells?

To be fair, if a caster asked to place a fireball so that it comes only inches away from multiple allies so that only enemies are included then, yes, I would ask for a check. I tend to use a grid for combat, though, so my minimum distance is at least 5' from a character, so, no, it doesn't really come up. But, if I were asked to make an exception, I'd definitely call for a check.

For a caster wanting to not splat on the ground but pick a height, I'd have no problem with casting it without a check at an altitude over 100'. That's at least a second from the ground. But, if you insist that you want to pop at 10' for the surprise factor, that's a hard check at DC 15 to hit that last .1 seconds of falling. 60 feet was DC 10, to hit that last .7 seconds of falling. Anything over a second left of falling, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and let it work as declared.

We must be talking past each other. I never said that no ruling was required, only that the rules were silent on the issue of hangers on and feather fall. As always in RPGs, the GM's duty is to make a ruling where a ruling is required to resolve what is happening in the game if that situation is not already covered by rules.

No, sorry, I was still on your declaration that the spell cannot end nor can rate of descent change, and you're on determining what happens to the hanger-on. Although, if I'm hanging onto a creature that cannot ever fall faster than 60'/round, I'm not sure what rulings remain to be made -- unless you're suggesting that we rule that the guy holding on falls at a different rate than the guy he's holding onto?

 

[Arial Black]

No, sorry, I was still on your declaration that the spell cannot end nor can rate of descent change, and you're on determining what happens to the hanger-on. Although, if I'm hanging onto a creature that cannot ever fall faster than 60'/round, I'm not sure what rulings remain to be made -- unless you're suggesting that we rule that the guy holding on falls at a different rate than the guy he's holding onto?

I was answering the rules part of the question at the time, not offering houserule advice.

As written, spells do what they say they do, and that includes feather fall, the ending conditions for which are the 1 minute duration expiring, or landing.

Other game effects can end the spell, like dispel magic or anti-magic fields and so forth.

I would be very wary indeed of allowing spells to be ended by such mundane means has holding onto an enspelled creature. Are we really giving grappling the power to end spells on a target? Beyond breaking concentration, imagine introducing a rule in your campaign where you can end a magical curse just by holding onto the cursed creature and claiming that the original spell cannot target two creatures!

 

[5ekyu]

Exhibiting a behavior of insinuating or outright calling into question my motives in multiple threads is really on you. Mentioning it is, as you note, on me, but that fact doesn't obviate the behavior.

The death was caused by what, again? Oh, yes, it was casting feather fall with too much weight carried. You keep moving back to the ending of the feather fall effect despite my multiple, clear statements that this isn't the crux of my statements. You apply a ruling to feather fall when too much weight is applied to the target creature: if it exceeds some arbitrary and still unstated threshold, the creature will die due to the weight. I've challenged you multiple times to expound upon this ruling, and it's clearly a ruling that interacts with both feather fall and weight, and you keep trying to obfuscate by introducing arrows, death by drowning, fly spells, and dead people not being able to be targeted by feather fall, all of which are completely orthogonal to the questions I've raised.

Again, you really want to institute rulings when their ones you agree with, and yet you still wish to disparage those you disagree with. And the proof of that is this next statement:


Thank you for the clear statement that you've decided my intentions are to punish players for nefarious reasons.


Right, you said that my choice was "thwart[ing]" player tactics, but now hold out (and you didn't do this until responding to a different poster and that recently) that you could acknowledge that it wasn't an anti-player decision if enemies use it, too. But, no, your initial reaction to my ruling was that it was anti-player, and your continued response is that it's anti-player.

And, yet, when I applied the same ruling to the character using feather fall to try to keep a falling airship from plummeting, my response was just that it didn't work. You kill the character. And, yet, my rulings are "anti-player".

Pro-tip: don't assume rulings are anti-player. That's probably hard for you because (and I'm bringing in other threads again) it's a common response from you to play styles you don't use.


How does casting feather fall in a cabin of a falling airship usually work, then? You say it results in the immediate pulpification and death of the character, and yet we haven't determined the strength of the ceiling, the time the airship has been falling, speed at which it's falling, or any of the other physical issues that might affect a consideration of the damage one would assume falling at a different speed might cause. This is even without the consideration of the unique physics of D&D, where the airship will fall 500 ft a round (XGtE) and not what it would really fall (closer to 600ft in the first 6 seconds, almost 1800 feet in the next 6 seconds).

So, please, tell us all how it normally works, here.

Nope. That's a strawman. You can even fire arrows at it, if you'd like, with that bow. But, when you decide it's time for a ruling that kill characters that unadvisedly cast feather fall, you bet it's a big enough deal that you might get questioned on it.

Yes, you've been very clear that you think I'm ruling expressly to thwart clever player tactics and am doing so from an anti-player perspective.



Okay, let's say the character is under a falling kayak when they cast feather fall. Dead?
What if they/'re under a falling rowboat? Dead?
What if they're under a falling dinghy? Dead?
What about a falling torpedo boat? Dead?
We know that when their under a falling schooner the answer is dead.

Where is the magic line of flying ship size where the casting of feather fall equates to death? And, could that ruling of death have anything to do with the weight of the falling ship?

Of course, the answer that that rhetorical answer is:clearly. You stated as much when you declared the character dead from having the falling airship smush them to a pulp. So, yes, you continued evasions that you do make a ruling about feather fall based on weight ring extra-ordinarily hollow as they clearly do. Further, the fact that you're willing to arbitrarily kill characters based on this weight, thus thwarting their clever tactics to halt the crashing of their airships shows that you're just fine with such rulings, so long as they comport themselves to your opinions instead of other people's.

Re the bolded parts where you seem detemined to play the victim...

As i explained in the sections before and the place where you separate the statement from its explanation in my most recent reply - the decision is anti-player in that
1 - in the case in question it can only hurt the player making the leap who is a PC.
2 - in the case of games i have experienced FF is most often used by PCs in attempts to save them or their allies much more often than it is used by NPCs so adding a new mechanical means to shut it down is going to shift it to be more likely to fail.
3 - for games in which the ratios in 2 are reversed the ruling would be reversed in its result... acknowledged several times.

Also, the first response where i think you keep referring to "thwart[ing]" was this "I myself would not be inclined to on the spot invent new rule/mechanics to an otherwise OK spell to thwart such an attempt." and you were not mentioned at all or even quoted in the post. Here in the part where you went off again i referred to the "As for the anti-player nature of the decision, well it seems obvious if you pay attention to what i have said." and went on to illustrate how the results would adversely affect PCs more than NPCs.

You seem to be attempting to portray these comments as personal attacks on yourself. You seem to want to take them as attacks on your intent. The former did not state that you were using that as your intent and did not mention you at all. The second references in the parts that follow how the results will trend against the players in the example and in my campaigns and even that it could reverse in other campaigns.

I will admit, it is good that you have now seen the light and have shifted away from using carrying capacity (as you originally stated - 120lb for your str 8) to using the push/drag/lift amounts (as you note now 240 lb) because that new take definitely is less often to lead to tragic results for PCs.

As for this...
"You apply a ruling to feather fall when too much weight is applied to the target creature: if it exceeds some arbitrary and still unstated threshold, the creature will die due to the weight."

Nope. no ruling to **feather fall** at all. Sorry.

To be clear. a character [having the weight of an airship dropped on them will die] if they are vulnerable to the damage and it is sufficient to kill them...
if using feather fall or not...
if using fly or not...
if using bless or not...
etc etc etc

similarly you can fill in the [having an airship dropped on them will die] with "hit by a fireball" or "struck by a club" or "shot by arrows" or any other source of death dealing significance.

i simply decided to make no exception for feather fall.

If that is what you call a ruling, then hey, there is little i can do about that.

as for your explict claim about my posaition and insta-pulp and now your what about ceiling etc etc etc

"I would have no problem inflicting on the falling character whatever problems being pinned under an airship takes "during the fall" and then on the ground if appropriate."

That was what i said in response to your airship question when you first posed it. not the "whatever problems" not "insta-pulped".

If the airship has weak ceilings or a fall rate that does not make it appropriate to crushing the character, that is a different case and regardless - its not about feather fall.

Yout tact seems to have been a consistent approach to attacking my position - come up with elements not readily defined in the rules about weights and then pretend its about feather fall and being vague.

But you are right on one thing - if one were using airships one should know the answers to their construction, fall rates, ceiling strengths and so forth before making a ruling on how they affect interaction with a slow or non-falling character. (Again, not an issue for feather fall.)

As for this...

"Okay, let's say the character is under a falling kayak when they cast feather fall. Dead?
What if they/'re under a falling rowboat? Dead?
What if they're under a falling dinghy? Dead?
What about a falling torpedo boat? Dead?
We know that when their under a falling schooner the answer is dead"

The answer was actually... ""I would have no problem inflicting on the falling character whatever problems being pinned under an airship takes "during the fall" and then on the ground if appropriate."" That answer would apply in each of those cases... just replace "airship" with the appropriate vessel.

again, stated simply, make no change to how the actions would normally interact.

Do you have a point other than a notion that "weight damage from being under too heavy objects" is perhaps not as defined as you would like in the rules?

HINT: Changing feather fall will not help ""weight damage from being under too heavy objects" become clearer one bit. it just changes feather fall in a way that will allow a fairly mechanical counter-option to a spell that is more often than not used as a lifesaver for players' character IMX) So, no real gain in clarity of weights and crushing but a definite hit to the spell.

Sorry, but this is well beyond pointless.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I was answering the rules part of the question at the time, not offering houserule advice.

As written, spells do what they say they do, and that includes feather fall, the ending conditions for which are the 1 minute duration expiring, or landing.

Other game effects can end the spell, like dispel magic or anti-magic fields and so forth.

I would be very wary indeed of allowing spells to be ended by such mundane means has holding onto an enspelled creature. Are we really giving grappling the power to end spells on a target? Beyond breaking concentration, imagine introducing a rule in your campaign where you can end a magical curse just by holding onto the cursed creature and claiming that the original spell cannot target two creatures!

Well, the question becomes interesting when you add airships to the mix. What happens then? Are we really going to let a spell that is totally harmless and intended solely as an emergency save against falling to cause death or damage?

There's a line somewhere, yes?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Re the bolded parts where you seem detemined to play the victim...

As i explained in the sections before and the place where you separate the statement from its explanation in my most recent reply - the decision is anti-player in that
1 - in the case in question it can only hurt the player making the leap who is a PC.
2 - in the case of games i have experienced FF is most often used by PCs in attempts to save them or their allies much more often than it is used by NPCs so adding a new mechanical means to shut it down is going to shift it to be more likely to fail.
3 - for games in which the ratios in 2 are reversed the ruling would be reversed in its result... acknowledged several times.

Also, the first response where i think you keep referring to "thwart[ing]" was this "I myself would not be inclined to on the spot invent new rule/mechanics to an otherwise OK spell to thwart such an attempt." and you were not mentioned at all or even quoted in the post. Here in the part where you went off again i referred to the "As for the anti-player nature of the decision, well it seems obvious if you pay attention to what i have said." and went on to illustrate how the results would adversely affect PCs more than NPCs.

You seem to be attempting to portray these comments as personal attacks on yourself. You seem to want to take them as attacks on your intent. The former did not state that you were using that as your intent and did not mention you at all. The second references in the parts that follow how the results will trend against the players in the example and in my campaigns and even that it could reverse in other campaigns.

I will admit, it is good that you have now seen the light and have shifted away from using carrying capacity (as you originally stated - 120lb for your str 8) to using the push/drag/lift amounts (as you note now 240 lb) because that new take definitely is less often to lead to tragic results for PCs.

As for this...
"You apply a ruling to feather fall when too much weight is applied to the target creature: if it exceeds some arbitrary and still unstated threshold, the creature will die due to the weight."

Nope. no ruling to **feather fall** at all. Sorry.

To be clear. a character [having the weight of an airship dropped on them will die] if they are vulnerable to the damage and it is sufficient to kill them...
if using feather fall or not...
if using fly or not...
if using bless or not...
etc etc etc

similarly you can fill in the [having an airship dropped on them will die] with "hit by a fireball" or "struck by a club" or "shot by arrows" or any other source of death dealing significance.

i simply decided to make no exception for feather fall.

If that is what you call a ruling, then hey, there is little i can do about that.

as for your explict claim about my posaition and insta-pulp and now your what about ceiling etc etc etc

"I would have no problem inflicting on the falling character whatever problems being pinned under an airship takes "during the fall" and then on the ground if appropriate."

That was what i said in response to your airship question when you first posed it. not the "whatever problems" not "insta-pulped".

If the airship has weak ceilings or a fall rate that does not make it appropriate to crushing the character, that is a different case and regardless - its not about feather fall.

Yout tact seems to have been a consistent approach to attacking my position - come up with elements not readily defined in the rules about weights and then pretend its about feather fall and being vague.

But you are right on one thing - if one were using airships one should know the answers to their construction, fall rates, ceiling strengths and so forth before making a ruling on how they affect interaction with a slow or non-falling character. (Again, not an issue for feather fall.)

As for this...

"Okay, let's say the character is under a falling kayak when they cast feather fall. Dead?
What if they/'re under a falling rowboat? Dead?
What if they're under a falling dinghy? Dead?
What about a falling torpedo boat? Dead?
We know that when their under a falling schooner the answer is dead"

The answer was actually... ""I would have no problem inflicting on the falling character whatever problems being pinned under an airship takes "during the fall" and then on the ground if appropriate."" That answer would apply in each of those cases... just replace "airship" with the appropriate vessel.

again, stated simply, make no change to how the actions would normally interact.

Do you have a point other than a notion that "weight damage from being under too heavy objects" is perhaps not as defined as you would like in the rules?

HINT: Changing feather fall will not help ""weight damage from being under too heavy objects" become clearer one bit. it just changes feather fall in a way that will allow a fairly mechanical counter-option to a spell that is more often than not used as a lifesaver for players' character IMX) So, no real gain in clarity of weights and crushing but a definite hit to the spell.

Sorry, but this is well beyond pointless.

Ah, the special pleading continue. The shifting of goalposts. The continued accusation of bad intentions. Yours is the last word in this discussion; feel free to use it however you wish.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The same as it means in the rest of the game.



Yes. The rate of descent is not a factor.



Falling.

In case this is unclear, here is the relevant part of the spell description:-

"Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you or a creature within 60 feet of you falls".

So, as long as you meet the criteria (you are still falling) you can cast this spell as a reaction.

There is no suggestion that the spell can only be cast at the beginning of a fall!

I'd require a player who wanted to be this cool-headed make some kind of roll to pull it off. Maybe one roll to avoid casting it instantly out of pure terror, and then another roll to time it well without splatting.

 

[Arial Black]

I'd require a player who wanted to be this cool-headed make some kind of roll to pull it off. Maybe one roll to avoid casting it instantly out of pure terror, and then another roll to time it well without splatting.

Player: I cast fireball centred right....there!
DM: That's....95 feet away from you.
Player: No problem; the spell's range is 150 feet and I have a clear line of sight.
DM: There's no way you could be so precise in the midst of combat. Roll a DC 10 Wis check to see if you manage to place the spell correctly.
Player: *rolls* Darn, 8.
DM: Okay...that means...you've killed the king and his entire family, who you were there to protect. Having fun yet?

There is no expectation in the rules to have to make rolls to have your spell casting decisions be the subject of skill checks. We don't have to roll to see if we place the blast radius in the right place, or to cast the spell when we want to cast it, or to affect the six correct targets with a friendly spell. These are automatic. If they weren't, D&D would've made this clear in the last 40+ years!

There is a difference between how the players experience this and how the characters experience it. For the players, it's things like, "I centre the blast radius 20 feet from the cave mouth", "I target all the party members except the wizard", "I cast the spell as soon as I get within 30 feet".

But the creatures in the game world are probably not doing that. They are more probably thinking things like, "I cast the spell....there!", "I buff these guys", "I cast the spell.....now!".

Feather fall should not be nerfed by an extra roll (or two rolls for you!) where failure could result in death, when there are no such rolls for the other spells. It's either all decision points of all spells, or we assume that the caster gets to freely choose these things without requiring rolls to see if he gets it right!

Which is it? Well, I think the game would mention it if rolls were required. The game allows creatures to do the things they can do whenever the rules allow them to do it. The use whatever action is required whenever the rules allow them to use that action, without randomly rolling to see if they got the timing right. They allow the spell to be cast at the desired spot within range, without randomising the distance. The caster attacks or affects the creatures he chooses, and concentrates on spells as long as he wants.

In fact, where things are uncertain, the rules are sure to tell us when! Do you hit your intended target? Yes. Yes you do. Unless the rules specify an attack roll or a saving throw. Do you keep concentrating on that spell? Yes, unless a concentration check is forced upon you as described in the rules. Do you aim the blast area where you intend? Yes. Do you cast the spell when you intend? Yes. If these things were subject to random rolls, the game would tell us.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Player: I cast fireball centred right....there!
DM: That's....95 feet away from you.
Player: No problem; the spell's range is 150 feet and I have a clear line of sight.
DM: There's no way you could be so precise in the midst of combat. Roll a DC 10 Wis check to see if you manage to place the spell correctly.
Player: *rolls* Darn, 8.
DM: Okay...that means...you've killed the king and his entire family, who you were there to protect. Having fun yet?

There is no expectation in the rules to have to make rolls to have your spell casting decisions be the subject of skill checks. We don't have to roll to see if we place the blast radius in the right place, or to cast the spell when we want to cast it, or to affect the six correct targets with a friendly spell. These are automatic. If they weren't, D&D would've made this clear in the last 40+ years!

There is a difference between how the players experience this and how the characters experience it. For the players, it's things like, "I centre the blast radius 20 feet from the cave mouth", "I target all the party members except the wizard", "I cast the spell as soon as I get within 30 feet".

But the creatures in the game world are probably not doing that. They are more probably thinking things like, "I cast the spell....there!", "I buff these guys", "I cast the spell.....now!".

Feather fall should not be nerfed by an extra roll (or two rolls for you!) where failure could result in death, when there are no such rolls for the other spells. It's either all decision points of all spells, or we assume that the caster gets to freely choose these things without requiring rolls to see if he gets it right!

Which is it? Well, I think the game would mention it if rolls were required. The game allows creatures to do the things they can do whenever the rules allow them to do it. The use whatever action is required whenever the rules allow them to use that action, without randomly rolling to see if they got the timing right. They allow the spell to be cast at the desired spot within range, without randomising the distance. The caster attacks or affects the creatures he chooses, and concentrates on spells as long as he wants.

In fact, where things are uncertain, the rules are sure to tell us when! Do you hit your intended target? Yes. Yes you do. Unless the rules specify an attack roll or a saving throw. Do you keep concentrating on that spell? Yes, unless a concentration check is forced upon you as described in the rules. Do you aim the blast area where you intend? Yes. Do you cast the spell when you intend? Yes. If these things were subject to random rolls, the game would tell us.

Feather fall is not "nerfed" by asking for a roll to cast it when 10' from the ground. It works just fine and as intended if cast before that.

The issue here isn't "does feather fall work" it's "can I tell, when moving at 174 feet/second, when I'm 10' from the ground? That's uncertain, there's nothing about casting feather fall that's uncertain.

The fireball example doesn't work because there's nothing uncertain about placing fireball with a resolution of 5 feet. That's the spacing enforced by the grid -- a minimum of 5' from your allies. That's 1/4 of the radius of the spell, and, if you refer back to the falling distance, 1/4 of your per round falling is 125 feet. What you're talking about with feather fall is 1/50th of the distance fallen (at 10'). For the fireball, you'd have to be placing it within 4 or so inches from your allies. And, if for some reason you actually wanted to do that in game, I'd definitely call a check for that.

Now, I didn't do that math before just now, but I still made this exact same argument earlier when I pointed out that the analogy would be placing the fireball extent within inches rather than within 5'.