I am most amazed to see a few folks who want all their enemies to adopt saving throws just like the party. The debate over definitions is amusing, but in the end, pointless so far as game play goes, since the DM makes that decision, no matter how much rules-lawyering you might try to pull. It's funny too, to see folks try to use scientific classifications, to determine something, when no such effort is required, at any point. If you're DM, you set the guidelines and if you're a player, you follow the guidelines set by the DM, as per RaW, where the DM has final say in all ruling matters.
Also. I want to point something out. People make comments like somebody give an Anecdote where Death Saves are a problem.
At Any Point At Any Time, A DM can decide that any thing that you have beat down wasn't necessarily killed. Potentially creating an Enemy that the party thought was dead. This is a viable story hook. Since Most things are not likely to survive confirming kills is basically going overboard. But it is an example of a complication that can be created entirely by death saves. Anything that makes it's death save just becomes stable and stops dying. It doesn't wake up unless it makes a natural 20. So you may not actually know it's alive. Specially if you don't have any skill in medicine.
But it is technically a possibility, A rare outside possibility but it can happen. A Possibility that can technically happen even to Diligent characters for a variety of Reasons under the most general rules. It's even a tactic I have used a few times as a DM both on minor characters that turned out to be an interesting counter dynamic to the party, or even a couple times for major NPC's. Both ally and Enemy... And for one particular story, Ally turned Enemy (That particular group purposefully left the Ally in question to die when they could have helped and saved the individual).
We are in a society where so many people use anecdotes to prove a point. Anecdotes don't prove any thing. They are flawed but they do show possibilities. by collecting and analysing anecdotes we might answer the RAI question even if they don't answer the raw one. I was honestly looking for examples of potential player abuse that might indicate the intent was for instant death to be RAI for balance and game function.
Because the indicators are the exact opposite. Terms like "special NPC" and "Most", the concept of PCS and companions, the rules about non-lethal damage all point to the the design intent being player driven. The rules/ and dm adjuration are there to prevent "Mary Sue's" and things that interfere with gameplay and/or narrative. How does removing death saves from important character fall within the system?
The system that it replaced in Stamina's worth of negative health before you drop dead was deeply flawed and often a lot less fair. Many characters actually dropped dead before they ever got a chance to be brought back into the fight. That's actually much harder to do under the death save system.
But When it comes to Death Saves. The intention is completely clear. The Default is death saves. The Monster Exception is for the DM to choose to not bother with the saves and just deem them failed. The Exception to the Exception that might be used is the Rare very particular NPC's and Monster's that play some real part in the story be treated like Player Characters instead of monsters as is the default. There is no real way for Players to Abuse this system. There is only room for DM's to manipulate/use this system. it Saves time of players going around and doing things like making sure things are dead or having things pop up that are just going to drop dead again unless they are special enough to warrant such treatment in some way. The Intention and the RaW are extremely clear. And the Exceptions like certain rare spells for PC's are dangerous because they do take away that safety net and are the main likely way to meet immediate death that many players will experience unless a DM is really vindictive or Players create a reason for NPC's/Monsters to make sure the PC is dead (there is one other but it becomes increasingly ludicrous to achieve the higher the level gets).
There is not Anecdotes to be had of players abusing the System because the Players basically can't abuse the system to create the RaI your hoping for. There are only three Scenario's that players can potentially use in regard to them rolling death saves. One is to not admit they rolled a 1, the second is to say that they rolled a 20 when they did not so they are back on their feet, and the third is to say that they achieved a success when they really failed (technically they could say they failed when they succeeded but that's typically not in the players interest).
It's a surprisingly robust and tight system and does a good job replacing what was a much more manipulated system that had trouble doing the similar job of giving that safety net. This is why the biggest attempt to manipulate the system is to try to label PC's and monsters as the same, And the biggest argument is over whether things like animal companions get saving throws or not. Despite the fact that it's the system that basically saves or breaks characters, and does that job so well that it's created the mentality that healing is not as effective and some people consider ways to homebrew to actually tone it down to give healing more weight instead of being treated as a last resort choice for resources.
I am most amazed to see a few folks who want all their enemies to adopt saving throws just like the party. The debate over definitions is amusing, but in the end, pointless so far as game play goes, since the DM makes that decision, no matter how much rules-lawyering you might try to pull. It's funny too, to see folks try to use scientific classifications, to determine something, when no such effort is required, at any point. If you're DM, you set the guidelines and if you're a player, you follow the guidelines set by the DM, as per RaW, where the DM has final say in all ruling matters.
But only if we use the correct dice, right? ;)
it's not even that they want all their enemies to adopt death saving throws (they already have all other saving throws by default). it's that they want set in stone assurance that their "pets" have them and they are willing to have the rest make such rolls as well to be able to get that assurance.
I am most amazed to see a few folks who want all their enemies to adopt saving throws just like the party. The debate over definitions is amusing, but in the end, pointless so far as game play goes, since the DM makes that decision, no matter how much rules-lawyering you might try to pull. It's funny too, to see folks try to use scientific classifications, to determine something, when no such effort is required, at any point. If you're DM, you set the guidelines and if you're a player, you follow the guidelines set by the DM, as per RaW, where the DM has final say in all ruling matters.
But only if we use the correct dice, right? ;)
it's not even that they want all their enemies to adopt death saving throws (they already have all other saving throws by default). it's that they want set in stone assurance that their "pets" have them and they are willing to have the rest make such rolls as well to be able to get that assurance.
And the DM can say no....so we are back where we started.
I am most amazed to see a few folks who want all their enemies to adopt saving throws just like the party. The debate over definitions is amusing, but in the end, pointless so far as game play goes, since the DM makes that decision, no matter how much rules-lawyering you might try to pull. It's funny too, to see folks try to use scientific classifications, to determine something, when no such effort is required, at any point. If you're DM, you set the guidelines and if you're a player, you follow the guidelines set by the DM, as per RaW, where the DM has final say in all ruling matters.
But only if we use the correct dice, right? ;)
it's not even that they want all their enemies to adopt death saving throws (they already have all other saving throws by default). it's that they want set in stone assurance that their "pets" have them and they are willing to have the rest make such rolls as well to be able to get that assurance.
And the DM can say no....so we are back where we started.
Except the Truth is that we're not exactly. The book gives us a spot to point to to have a conversation about it or request that the DM follow the book.
That happens to be Chapter 9 of the PHB under the Heading of "Damage and Healing" and the Subheadings of "Dropping to 0 hitpoints" and "Monsters and Death" Which give us not only the core rules that everything follows, as well as the Exception to that rule a DM can follow but doesn't have to for ease of book keeping, and in that exception also gives an Exception to that Exception, which can cover their pets.
At the end of the Day it is still an answer in the book that the player can point to and even more than that suggested black and white homebrew alterations to that rule. Which is a lot more than what many "ask your DM" style questions actually have. And if your in a game where you know that your DM reasonably tries to follow the book or use it as closely followed basis that can be an important difference since it can set a certain level of expectation before even speaking to the DM. And for those that like to Adopt variants and Options as well as their homebrews. It's a basis to potentially have them adopt another. One that they possibly did not realize was already there. Just like many tables actually do for "Pets" already.
the dm gets the final say is an awful argument. we all know that rule. It is irrelevant and off topic. If a dm just says rocks fall the pc is dead, they are in their rights. It is also clear that they are deliberately bypassing rules to do so and being a jerk. The dm is held to the same rule book as the rest. They are just given leeway to make calls when there is a question or to determine checks that are irrelevant or time wasters or solve gameplay mistakes. DM fiat is not an end all solution to every question.
This isn't about guaranteed safety of pets. My favorite ranger had several die even with death saves. I have also had a single pet last the whole life of the ranger. a dm has every right to remove enemies instantly that's not the issue. The issue is, If are they making an exception to hamper a characters pets entitled saves when they are gained from a class feature. that is an antagonistic dm. IF the dm can honestly give a reason besides it just dies I am more than willing to accept no save as they are not being antagonistic.
The question is what is the game standard? this is important for things like adventures league and conventions? is there a reason the pets are not entitled to saves? Saying they are not entitled just because they are monsters has been proven wrong on several levels.
the dm gets the final say is an awful argument. we all know that rule. It is irrelevant and off topic. If a dm just says rocks fall the pc is dead, they are in their rights. It is also clear that they are deliberately bypassing rules to do so and being a jerk. The dm is held to the same rule book as the rest. They are just given leeway to make calls when there is a question or to determine checks that are irrelevant or time wasters or solve gameplay mistakes. DM fiat is not an end all solution to every question.
This isn't about guaranteed safety of pets. My favorite ranger had several die even with death saves. I have also had a single pet last the whole life of the ranger. a dm has every right to remove enemies instantly that's not the issue. The issue is, If are they making an exception to hamper a characters pets entitled saves when they are gained from a class feature. that is an antagonistic dm. IF the dm can honestly give a reason besides it just dies I am more than willing to accept no save as they are not being antagonistic.
The question is what is the game standard? this is important for things like adventures league and conventions? is there a reason the pets are not entitled to saves? Saying they are not entitled because they are monsters has been proven wrong on several levels.
Yes it's important in this case because we are talking about something that 99% of DMs do....
Do you really expect DMs to do death saves for everything?
No that's unreasonable. It's then reasonable that the DM says the same for the companion as it's a non-pc creature.
I just think it's reasonable if a DM declines to give death saves for a companion including a beastmasters companion especially how the feature is written.
You are taking an NPC creature and convincing it to be your companion.
I just think it's reasonable if a DM declines to give death saves for a companion including a beastmasters companion especially how the feature is written.
You are taking an NPC creature and convincing it to be your companion.
I don't think it's ever reasonable for a DM to decline to give death saves to any NPC with narrative relevance. If the PCs or DM care if a creature is alive or dead, it should get death saves. Death saves should only be waived for NPCs where everyone has no investment in their future. For example, if you fight a BBEG and their goblin minions, the minions don't need to get death saves. They lost narrative relevance when they dropped. But you can bet your bottom dollar the BBEG will get death saves if the PCs are trying to capture them alive or if there's some chance they could survive and recur.
As a DM, that means even the random bartender gets death saves if a) I think it matters if they live (perhaps to testify in a trial later) or b) the players think it matters (perhaps they are trying to keep the bartender alive).
I just think it's reasonable if a DM declines to give death saves for a companion including a beastmasters companion especially how the feature is written.
You are taking an NPC creature and convincing it to be your companion.
I don't think it's ever reasonable for a DM to decline to give death saves to any NPC with narrative relevance. If the PCs or DM care if a creature is alive or dead, it should get death saves. Death saves should only be waived for NPCs where everyone has no investment in their future. For example, if you fight a BBEG and their goblin minions, the minions don't need to get death saves. They lost narrative relevance when they dropped. But you can bet your bottom dollar the BBEG will get death saves if the PCs are trying to capture them alive or if there's some chance they could survive and recur.
As a DM, that means even the random bartender gets death saves if a) I think it matters if they live (perhaps to testify in a trial later) or b) the players think it matters (perhaps they are trying to keep the bartender alive).
That's your thoughts sure and that's accounted for in that section ..... But not all DMs are the same and it's still something in their right to say no to... Which is also covered in that same section.
What is or isn`t reasonable to DM belong to them respectively, the rules provide guidelines for both giving or not giving Death Saving Throws to creatures deemed necessary. Mighty villains and special NPC are given as an exemple.
Even in official Organized Play i`m sure DM have most monster die at 0 hit points.
What is or isn`t reasonable to DM belong to them respectively, the rules provide guidelines for both giving or not giving Death Saving Throws to creatures deemed necessary. Mighty villains and special NPC are given as an exemple.
Even in official Organized Play i`m sure DM have most monster die at 0 hit points.
This isn't about the dms right to kill mob or enemies or even PCs or NPCs. The problem is directly making an association of killing mobs and forcing "special NPCs" and "PCs" auto fail death saves when the game rules and intentions show otherwise.
The standard rule is all creatures make death saves. By looking at the definitions of "monsters" we show it is an unreasonable term for defining who gets death saves. There are so many qualifiers to the term and the reference that it is a useless measurement tool. By looking at the definitions of "characters" and or "adventurers" and "party members" we know who Wizards actively discourages from auto killing them unless it is in their statblock or creation spell.
Basicaly saying the dm should not allow monsters death saves is false. Saying wizards encourages no death saves for basic enemies is true.
What is or isn`t reasonable to DM belong to them respectively, the rules provide guidelines for both giving or not giving Death Saving Throws to creatures deemed necessary. Mighty villains and special NPC are given as an exemple.
Even in official Organized Play i`m sure DM have most monster die at 0 hit points.
This isn't about the dms right to kill mob or enemies or even PCs or NPCs. The problem is directly making an association of killing mobs and forcing "special NPCs" and "PCs" auto fail death saves when the game rules and intentions show otherwise.
The standard rule is all creatures make death saves. By looking at the definitions of "monsters" we show it is an unreasonable term for defining who gets death saves. There are so many qualifiers to the term and the reference that it is a useless measurement tool. By looking at the definitions of "characters" and or "adventurers" and "party members" we know who Wizards actively discourages from auto killing them unless it is in their statblock or creation spell.
Basicaly saying the dm should not allow monsters death saves is false. Saying wizards encourages no death saves for basic enemies is true.
the dm gets the final say is an awful argument. we all know that rule. It is irrelevant and off topic. If a dm just says rocks fall the pc is dead, they are in their rights. It is also clear that they are deliberately bypassing rules to do so and being a jerk. The dm is held to the same rule book as the rest. They are just given leeway to make calls when there is a question or to determine checks that are irrelevant or time wasters or solve gameplay mistakes. DM fiat is not an end all solution to every question.
Please note: "The DM gets the final say" is NOT irrelevant nor off-topic and only serves to confuse users by stating such. This facet is written into the sourcebooks and will be upheld as an on-topic point in any/all discussion, as it holds true in every scenario. Any direction to other users to limit, avoid, or contradict such is null.
See below example(s):
[And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.]
[The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game.]
I must remind folks that your purpose on these boards is not arguing to convince others that your playstyle/methods are "right" (or likewise that theirs are "wrong") but to share your opinion ... and move on. If you find that you cannot respect the opinions of others or need to beat a dead horse (with or without saving throws), it might be time to stand up and take a break from the thread.
Good. Now that we have all that settled, There is an item in the game that indicates creatures get death saves. Note the creature category meaning creatures go into an Unstable state. creatures includes every definition of monster or character.
The healers kit
This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, salves, and splints. The kit has ten uses. As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to stabilize a creature that has 0 hit points, without needing to make a Wisdom (Medicine) check.
Good. Now that we have all that settled, There is an item in the game that indicates creatures get death saves. Note the creature category meaning creatures go into an Unstable state. creatures includes every definition of monster or character.
The healers kit
This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, salves, and splints. The kit has ten uses. As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to stabilize a creature that has 0 hit points, without needing to make a Wisdom (Medicine) check.
It doesn't matter what the healer kit or anything else says. It's up to the DM. There isn't a single rule in the game that a player can force a DM to observe, regardless of how or where it is written. The DM is the final arbiter of all.
Good. Now that we have all that settled, There is an item in the game that indicates creatures get death saves. Note the creature category meaning creatures go into an Unstable state. creatures includes every definition of monster or character.
The healers kit
This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, salves, and splints. The kit has ten uses. As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to stabilize a creature that has 0 hit points, without needing to make a Wisdom (Medicine) check.
It doesn't matter what the healer kit or anything else says. It's up to the DM. There isn't a single rule in the game that a player can force a DM to observe, regardless of how or where it is written. The DM is the final arbiter of all.
Yes but it can be unsustainable. I know of several dms with no one will play with. Just because the dm can change anything, doesn't mean they aren't violating the social contract and intended design.
A quote or two from the DMG
Master of worlds:
Consistency is a key to a believable fictional world.
Know Your Players
The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them, and help steer the campaign through their characters’ actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you’ve created, and to let their characters do awesome things.
Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players’ preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged.
Good. Now that we have all that settled, There is an item in the game that indicates creatures get death saves. Note the creature category meaning creatures go into an Unstable state. creatures includes every definition of monster or character.
The healers kit
This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, salves, and splints. The kit has ten uses. As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to stabilize a creature that has 0 hit points, without needing to make a Wisdom (Medicine) check.
It doesn't matter what the healer kit or anything else says. It's up to the DM. There isn't a single rule in the game that a player can force a DM to observe, regardless of how or where it is written. The DM is the final arbiter of all.
Yes but it can be unsustainable. I know of several dms no one will play with. Just because the dm can change anything, doesn't mean they aren't violating the social contract and intended design.
A quote or two from the DMG
Master of worlds:
Consistency is a key to a believable fictional world.
Know Your Players
The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them, and help steer the campaign through their characters’ actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you’ve created, and to let their characters do awesome things.
Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players’ preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged.
You would establish this at session 0.
Ask your DM if they plan on allowing Death saves for beast companion.
If no then you get to decide to walk or play another subclass.
Good. Now that we have all that settled, There is an item in the game that indicates creatures get death saves. Note the creature category meaning creatures go into an Unstable state. creatures includes every definition of monster or character.
The healers kit
This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, salves, and splints. The kit has ten uses. As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to stabilize a creature that has 0 hit points, without needing to make a Wisdom (Medicine) check.
It doesn't matter what the healer kit or anything else says. It's up to the DM. There isn't a single rule in the game that a player can force a DM to observe, regardless of how or where it is written. The DM is the final arbiter of all.
Yes but it can be unsustainable. I know of several dms no one will play with. Just because the dm can change anything, doesn't mean they aren't violating the social contract and intended design.
A quote or two from the DMG
Master of worlds:
Consistency is a key to a believable fictional world.
Know Your Players
The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them, and help steer the campaign through their characters’ actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you’ve created, and to let their characters do awesome things.
Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players’ preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged.
You would establish this at session 0.
Ask your DM if they plan on allowing Death saves for beast companion.
If no then you get to decide to walk or play another subclass.
They are within their right to say no
and any one who doesn't follow standard 5e rules is also allowed to walk away. DM included. If they don't like the base game maybe there's a better suited one out there. I hear there are lots of other games out there.
But only if we use the correct dice, right? ;)
The system that it replaced in Stamina's worth of negative health before you drop dead was deeply flawed and often a lot less fair. Many characters actually dropped dead before they ever got a chance to be brought back into the fight. That's actually much harder to do under the death save system.
But When it comes to Death Saves. The intention is completely clear. The Default is death saves. The Monster Exception is for the DM to choose to not bother with the saves and just deem them failed. The Exception to the Exception that might be used is the Rare very particular NPC's and Monster's that play some real part in the story be treated like Player Characters instead of monsters as is the default. There is no real way for Players to Abuse this system. There is only room for DM's to manipulate/use this system. it Saves time of players going around and doing things like making sure things are dead or having things pop up that are just going to drop dead again unless they are special enough to warrant such treatment in some way. The Intention and the RaW are extremely clear. And the Exceptions like certain rare spells for PC's are dangerous because they do take away that safety net and are the main likely way to meet immediate death that many players will experience unless a DM is really vindictive or Players create a reason for NPC's/Monsters to make sure the PC is dead (there is one other but it becomes increasingly ludicrous to achieve the higher the level gets).
There is not Anecdotes to be had of players abusing the System because the Players basically can't abuse the system to create the RaI your hoping for. There are only three Scenario's that players can potentially use in regard to them rolling death saves. One is to not admit they rolled a 1, the second is to say that they rolled a 20 when they did not so they are back on their feet, and the third is to say that they achieved a success when they really failed (technically they could say they failed when they succeeded but that's typically not in the players interest).
It's a surprisingly robust and tight system and does a good job replacing what was a much more manipulated system that had trouble doing the similar job of giving that safety net. This is why the biggest attempt to manipulate the system is to try to label PC's and monsters as the same, And the biggest argument is over whether things like animal companions get saving throws or not. Despite the fact that it's the system that basically saves or breaks characters, and does that job so well that it's created the mentality that healing is not as effective and some people consider ways to homebrew to actually tone it down to give healing more weight instead of being treated as a last resort choice for resources.
it's not even that they want all their enemies to adopt death saving throws (they already have all other saving throws by default). it's that they want set in stone assurance that their "pets" have them and they are willing to have the rest make such rolls as well to be able to get that assurance.
And the DM can say no....so we are back where we started.
Except the Truth is that we're not exactly. The book gives us a spot to point to to have a conversation about it or request that the DM follow the book.
That happens to be Chapter 9 of the PHB under the Heading of "Damage and Healing" and the Subheadings of "Dropping to 0 hitpoints" and "Monsters and Death" Which give us not only the core rules that everything follows, as well as the Exception to that rule a DM can follow but doesn't have to for ease of book keeping, and in that exception also gives an Exception to that Exception, which can cover their pets.
At the end of the Day it is still an answer in the book that the player can point to and even more than that suggested black and white homebrew alterations to that rule. Which is a lot more than what many "ask your DM" style questions actually have. And if your in a game where you know that your DM reasonably tries to follow the book or use it as closely followed basis that can be an important difference since it can set a certain level of expectation before even speaking to the DM. And for those that like to Adopt variants and Options as well as their homebrews. It's a basis to potentially have them adopt another. One that they possibly did not realize was already there. Just like many tables actually do for "Pets" already.
the dm gets the final say is an awful argument. we all know that rule. It is irrelevant and off topic. If a dm just says rocks fall the pc is dead, they are in their rights. It is also clear that they are deliberately bypassing rules to do so and being a jerk. The dm is held to the same rule book as the rest. They are just given leeway to make calls when there is a question or to determine checks that are irrelevant or time wasters or solve gameplay mistakes. DM fiat is not an end all solution to every question.
This isn't about guaranteed safety of pets. My favorite ranger had several die even with death saves. I have also had a single pet last the whole life of the ranger. a dm has every right to remove enemies instantly that's not the issue. The issue is, If are they making an exception to hamper a characters pets entitled saves when they are gained from a class feature. that is an antagonistic dm. IF the dm can honestly give a reason besides it just dies I am more than willing to accept no save as they are not being antagonistic.
The question is what is the game standard? this is important for things like adventures league and conventions? is there a reason the pets are not entitled to saves? Saying they are not entitled just because they are monsters has been proven wrong on several levels.
Yes it's important in this case because we are talking about something that 99% of DMs do....
Do you really expect DMs to do death saves for everything?
No that's unreasonable. It's then reasonable that the DM says the same for the companion as it's a non-pc creature.
I just think it's reasonable if a DM declines to give death saves for a companion including a beastmasters companion especially how the feature is written.
You are taking an NPC creature and convincing it to be your companion.
I don't think it's ever reasonable for a DM to decline to give death saves to any NPC with narrative relevance. If the PCs or DM care if a creature is alive or dead, it should get death saves. Death saves should only be waived for NPCs where everyone has no investment in their future. For example, if you fight a BBEG and their goblin minions, the minions don't need to get death saves. They lost narrative relevance when they dropped. But you can bet your bottom dollar the BBEG will get death saves if the PCs are trying to capture them alive or if there's some chance they could survive and recur.
As a DM, that means even the random bartender gets death saves if a) I think it matters if they live (perhaps to testify in a trial later) or b) the players think it matters (perhaps they are trying to keep the bartender alive).
That's your thoughts sure and that's accounted for in that section ..... But not all DMs are the same and it's still something in their right to say no to... Which is also covered in that same section.
What is or isn`t reasonable to DM belong to them respectively, the rules provide guidelines for both giving or not giving Death Saving Throws to creatures deemed necessary. Mighty villains and special NPC are given as an exemple.
Even in official Organized Play i`m sure DM have most monster die at 0 hit points.
This isn't about the dms right to kill mob or enemies or even PCs or NPCs. The problem is directly making an association of killing mobs and forcing "special NPCs" and "PCs" auto fail death saves when the game rules and intentions show otherwise.
The standard rule is all creatures make death saves. By looking at the definitions of "monsters" we show it is an unreasonable term for defining who gets death saves. There are so many qualifiers to the term and the reference that it is a useless measurement tool. By looking at the definitions of "characters" and or "adventurers" and "party members" we know who Wizards actively discourages from auto killing them unless it is in their statblock or creation spell.
Basicaly saying the dm should not allow monsters death saves is false. Saying wizards encourages no death saves for basic enemies is true.
The real answer is its completely up to the DM.
only gonna be with player's that don't accept the DM's take on this. It's completly up to him.
Please note: "The DM gets the final say" is NOT irrelevant nor off-topic and only serves to confuse users by stating such. This facet is written into the sourcebooks and will be upheld as an on-topic point in any/all discussion, as it holds true in every scenario. Any direction to other users to limit, avoid, or contradict such is null.
See below example(s):
I must remind folks that your purpose on these boards is not arguing to convince others that your playstyle/methods are "right" (or likewise that theirs are "wrong") but to share your opinion ... and move on. If you find that you cannot respect the opinions of others or need to beat a dead horse (with or without saving throws), it might be time to stand up and take a break from the thread.
Good. Now that we have all that settled, There is an item in the game that indicates creatures get death saves. Note the creature category meaning creatures go into an Unstable state. creatures includes every definition of monster or character.
The healers kit
This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, salves, and splints. The kit has ten uses. As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to stabilize a creature that has 0 hit points, without needing to make a Wisdom (Medicine) check.
It doesn't matter what the healer kit or anything else says. It's up to the DM. There isn't a single rule in the game that a player can force a DM to observe, regardless of how or where it is written. The DM is the final arbiter of all.
Yes but it can be unsustainable. I know of several dms with no one will play with. Just because the dm can change anything, doesn't mean they aren't violating the social contract and intended design.
A quote or two from the DMG
Master of worlds:
Consistency is a key to a believable fictional world.
Know Your Players
The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them, and help steer the campaign through their characters’ actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you’ve created, and to let their characters do awesome things.
Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players’ preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged.
You would establish this at session 0.
Ask your DM if they plan on allowing Death saves for beast companion.
If no then you get to decide to walk or play another subclass.
They are within their right to say no
and any one who doesn't follow standard 5e rules is also allowed to walk away. DM included. If they don't like the base game maybe there's a better suited one out there. I hear there are lots of other games out there.