shrug That was a controlled eight-second dive into water. Well below terminal velocity and not out of the realm of survivability for normal, non-movie humans.
Also, again, not really relevant to the main point I’ve been repeatedly making.
The problem you’ve got here is that Indiana Jones landing an inflatable raft on a snowy mountain is one of the most often referenced scenes for demonstrating why Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a bad movie. It’s a really dumb scene. So’s the one Grumman linked to - I’m not sure if that’s the Cap scene you were talking about, or the one in Winter Soldier, where he jumps into the ocean. Which still should have been fatal, technically, but it doesn’t take too much heavy lifting on behalf of the audience to suspend their disbelief there. If he’d done that onto a cement floor, people would have laughed the movie out of the theater.
Hang on a minute. People in real life haven’t survived falls from that high because they’re “high level.” They survived because of pure, random, dumb luck. Vesna Vulovi did survive because she was an epic level stewardess, she survived because a freak of chance had her hit a snowy slope at precisely the right angle to gradually (sort of) arrest her fall.
You can model that kind of random chance in a roleplaying game if you want - this is exactly what fate points and similar mechanics are for. But nobody ever survived a fall out of an airplane at cruising altitude because they’re really tough. You can be a Navy SEAL, and you’re still going to splat just the same as a toddler when you hit the ground.
I’m using a rule that says, “Really stupid shit doesn’t belong in games I run.” People falling hundreds and hundreds of feet and taking only minor injuries fall squarely under that rule, in most circumstances.
You may be arguing that, but you’re pretty much the only one. Everyone else seems to be arguing whether falling damage or instant falling death are proper D&D. Both sides are saying the other side is stupid and wrong.
I mean, Chimera even flat out said that Grumman isn’t playing real D&D if he has fall damage. Miller says that Grumman really wants to play Toon. How is that different from what Grumman said?
Seems that, if you want to make this point, you need to make it on both sides, not just against the side that disagrees with how you play.
(Which, BTW, includes me. But only because I hate death in any role playing game, and do not like house rules that make it more likely. I’m perfectly fine with falling just being a horrible inconvenience. That’s enough danger for me. It doesn’t break immersion for me, any more than the fact that I can just restart in a video game breaks immersion. )
Oops. Forgot to explain why I hate death. Because you don’t get some death adventure like Roy did. You either stay out of the action, waiting for a resurrection, or you have to roll up a new character, which discourages too much investment in any one character. Or it encourages the fiction where you happen to find a perfect doppleganger who just happens to be at the same level.
Plus, I see Chronos’s point. You can effectively be preternaturally strong enough to survive a huge fall. There is a terminal velocity, after all, and you can maneuver in mid-air. Plus the way the “cinematic universe” works is that the characters think they are in danger, but the actors (aka players) know they really aren’t. You don’t need the actual fear of death to play your character like they are afraid of falling, and it’s perfectly within the DM’s rights to punish a player that crunches numbers instead of properly roleplaying (if the DM has already explained that they don’t like number crunching.)
Plus I have to wonder why they even bother with a fall damage cap if they didn’t expect players to survive falls. Why put in a rule like that that every DM has to houserule out? I would not want to remove the rule without knowing why it exists.
The Indiana Jones stunt isn’t too implausible in the real world. It’s been mythbusted.
The raft does act like a parachute, and descends gently. Their dummy passenger showed no damage. I don't know if two adults and a child would be the same. And there is a big risk of the raft flipping over during the descent. But it isn't that big a suspension of disbelief.Don’t forget that D&D has its roots in wargaming, which has rules for pretty much everything that might happen on the table.
Earlier editions of D&D had much lower hitpoint ceilings. After level 9, you stop rolling your hit dice and only get a few HP per level.
So in 2e, a level 20 fighter with a +1 con bonus (a great roll in that edition) and a slightly above-average roll of 6 hp/level would have 107 hitpoints against that 20d6 “terminal velocity” falling damage. And that’s at level 20, well beyond the end of the vast majority of all campaigns. A level 8 character with the same rolls would have 56 hitpoints. He might or might not survive that fall.
Here’s the entry for falling damage:
"When a character falls, he suffers 1d6 points of damage for every 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6 (which for game purposes can be considered terminal velocity).
"This method is simple and reasonably realistic. The distance fallen is not the only determining factor in how badly a person is hurt. Other factors may include elasticity of the falling body and the ground, angle of impact, shock wave through the falling body, dumb luck, and more.
“People have actually from great heights and survived, albeit it very rarely. The current record-holder, Vesna Vulovic…”
It continues from there with some examples. But the takeaway is this: falling from a great height is almost certainly going to kill you. Unless it doesn’t. Because D&D is a game.
Each edition of D&D has been less deadly than the last. In this case it’s because the falling cap has remained static, but overall hitpoints have increased.
Don’t put words in my mouth, BigT.
So — nobody else thinks the Feather Fall item is the gloves?
I guess I don’t care very much what the featherfall item is?
The usual featherfall item is a ring. The Gloves are probably to cover it up.
Or to keep his hands from getting cold.
They’re enchanted with an Endure Cold that only extends to his wrists 
New Comic: King of Indecision
If Durkon leaves to go Dominate dwarven elders, wouldn’t he lose his vote?
Unless the “we” Gontor speaks of means just him and the other thralls.
I was going to say, pretty sure leaving the area would invalidate things. Good thing Durkon has minions now. Trick is, I wonder how difficult it will be for those minions to actually dominate a Dwarven ruler.
EDIT: more importantly, the Order is now stuck here while the clan deliberates, and Xykon is already at the last gate with Redcloak
It it my imagination, or was that a faster update?
Not your imagination – four days! Maybe an early Christmas gift from Rich. 
Not fond of this new development - just get on with it, already, Rich!
While his bare feet get cold.
His feet have natural fur and thick leathery soles. He doesn’t need boots even in the snow.