Because the DM isn't being consistent. If any monster is going to have death saves the players should know that the possibility exists, giving them the choice to use more action economy on "finishing off", or to fight those that remain.
I
That's not a problem unique to monsters rolling death saves. In fact, it shouldn't affect PC actions at all. PCs don't know what a "death save" is.
Thr combat rules are not just for PCs. They give us the rules for all creatures.
"Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points"
Don’t be silly. You know what I mean. We are establishing what a monster is in the context of the game.
Well the companion is a creature/monster... They are not a PC as you have to spend resources telling them what to do and generally follow your commands but are independent thinkers that you have to convince to join you. They use a literal monster statblock
They would fall under the "special npc" category and by that cutie virtue the DM may decide to let them have death saves.
But they could just add easily say no
I am not sure you can prove a beast companion isn't a PC. it is a class feature and directly part of the class. it is one of the only creatures in the Game where the player determines its actions and personal motivations because of this they are PCs too. Note: the wording changed for tasha's ranger and artificer making it a friendly creature so not a pc.
Also I would like to point out monster is a defined game term and people in this thread are assuming what it is without actually looking at definitions.
an npc, a monster, and beast companion, creature, and type tags(beast, humanoid, shapechanger ect.) are all independent terms and must be applied accordingly. Which means a thing can be several at once.
Here is the definition of a monster from the monster manual:
A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters. Most of the monsters that haunt the D&D world, however, are threats that are meant to be stopped: rampaging demons, conniving devils, soul-sucking undead, summoned elementals — the list goes on.
Here is the interesting bit an npc traveling with the party takes a share of the xp. since a beast companion traveling with the party does not get xp It is actually a pc.
DMG: NPC party members:Any NPC that accompanies the adventurers acts as a party member and earns a full share of experience points.
Thr combat rules are not just for PCs. They give us the rules for all creatures.
"Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points"
Don’t be silly. You know what I mean. We are establishing what a monster is in the context of the game.
Well the companion is a creature/monster... They are not a PC as you have to spend resources telling them what to do and generally follow your commands but are independent thinkers that you have to convince to join you. They use a literal monster statblock
They would fall under the "special npc" category and by that cutie virtue the DM may decide to let them have death saves.
But they could just add easily say no
I am not sure you can prove a beast companion isn't a PC. it is a class feature and directly part of the class. it is one of the only creatures in the Game where the player determines its actions and personal motivations because of this they are PCs too. Note: the wording changed for tasha's ranger and artificer making it a friendly creature so not a pc.
Of course the beast companion is not a PC. It's a companion, you said so yourself. A class feature is not a player character. A Paladin's divine sense is also not a PC.
Also I would like to point out monster is a defined game term and people in this thread are assuming what it is without actually looking at definitions.
an npc, a monster, and beast companion, creature, and type tags(beast, humanoid, shapechanger ect.) are all independent terms and must be applied accordingly. Which means a thing can be several at once.
Here is the definition of a monster from the monster manual:
A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters. Most of the monsters that haunt the D&D world, however, are threats that are meant to be stopped: rampaging demons, conniving devils, soul-sucking undead, summoned elementals — the list goes on.
Here is the interesting bit an npc traveling with the party takes a share of the xp. since a beast companion traveling with the party does not get xp It is actually a pc.
DMG: NPC party members:Any NPC that accompanies the adventurers acts as a party member and earns a full share of experience points.
So a familiar is a PC? Any summons? What about a warhorse?
Any time something is claimed to be a hard and fast rule that starts with something like “Most DMs…” is not a rule it’s an allowance. The rules for creatures making death saving throws upon reaching zero hit points is clearly stated previously in that very section.
As a DM and a player, I’ve never had a companion not make death saving throws. I’ve heard of it, and each time I have, the general consensus by the players was that particular DM was a jerk for that and other things.
Any time something is claimed to be a hard and fast rule that starts with something like “Most DMs…” is not a rule it’s an allowance. The rules for creatures making death saving throws upon reaching zero hit points is clearly stated previously in that very section.
As a DM and a player, I’ve never had a companion not make death saving throws. I’ve heard of it, and each time I have, the general consensus by the players was that particular DM was a jerk for that and other things.
It's up to the DM overall.
Some DMs coup de grace and some don't.
Some don't use feats.
Everyone has an opinion on these but it's how it goes
Any time something is claimed to be a hard and fast rule that starts with something like “Most DMs…” is not a rule it’s an allowance. The rules for creatures making death saving throws upon reaching zero hit points is clearly stated previously in that very section.
It's in the book, it's a rule. The fact that you don't like that rule doesn't change that. The fact that you try to move the goalposts as to what counts as a rule doesn't change that.
As a DM and a player, I’ve never had a companion not make death saving throws. I’ve heard of it, and each time I have, the general consensus by the players was that particular DM was a jerk for that and other things.
Now we know what your opinion is, completely irrelevant to the actual rules though.
Of course the beast companion is not a PC. It's a companion, you said so yourself. A class feature is not a player character. A Paladin's divine sense is also not a PC.
You gave absolutely no mechanical justification for that point. I am willing to listen but you need to give something in the mechanics to support that.
The term companion is not incompatible with the term PC. Just like how you can have a "monstrous pc" you can also have a beast companion PC.
PC just means a character assigned to the player that they are the person responsible for their actions (assuming no charm or willpower overrides)
Because the DM isn't being consistent. If any monster is going to have death saves the players should know that the possibility exists, giving them the choice to use more action economy on "finishing off", or to fight those that remain.
I
That's not a problem unique to monsters rolling death saves. In fact, it shouldn't affect PC actions at all. PCs don't know what a "death save" is.
so after the first time a monster comes back to life after 18 seconds, the PCs need to become slightly evil, and go around stabbing anything unconscious? Or tie everything up and take them to some form of court for justice?
Also I would like to point out monster is a defined game term and people in this thread are assuming what it is without actually looking at definitions.
an npc, a monster, and beast companion, creature, and type tags(beast, humanoid, shapechanger ect.) are all independent terms and must be applied accordingly. Which means a thing can be several at once.
Here is the definition of a monster from the monster manual:
A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters. Most of the monsters that haunt the D&D world, however, are threats that are meant to be stopped: rampaging demons, conniving devils, soul-sucking undead, summoned elementals — the list goes on.
Here is the interesting bit an npc traveling with the party takes a share of the xp. since a beast companion traveling with the party does not get xp It is actually a pc.
DMG: NPC party members:Any NPC that accompanies the adventurers acts as a party member and earns a full share of experience points.
So a familiar is a PC? Any summons? What about a warhorse?
Obviously that's a bad way to try to define it.
A familiar or summon is an NPC not an NPC party member.
Here is the difference between Npc and NPC party member. who is responsible for their action control and personality? The dm or the player? How was said creature brought to the party? spells are temporary, class features are "permanent". are they willing companions or was some form of coercion, compelling, bribery or exchange of money or items? will they try and analyze orders for the party interest or their own?
things like charms don't make them "party members." summons are by default run by the dm not the player. Here is another part of that same DMG quote: NPCs might join the adventuring party because they want a share of the loot and are willing to accept an equal share of the risk, or they might follow the adventurers because of a bond of loyalty, gratitude, or love. Such NPCs are controlled by you, or you can transfer control to the players. Even if a player controls an NPC, it’s up to [the DM] make sure the NPC is portrayed as a character in his or her own right, not just as a servant that the players can manipulate for their own benefit.
Now, who determines how the Companion is portrayed and has say on the Beasts companions ideas of Self. This is not the dm. A player has full control because they determine what "United in focus" means. The player determines what Training the beast has. So the only the player can determine what "the beast acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself" means. protecting its self may include tactical retreat or aggressive action or even seeking help(animals are actually known to do this on occasion). only training and personal ideals can make the deciding factor for how the companion decides.
also note: how all summons define what happens when they hit zero HP directly overriding any form of death save.
if a party that buys warhorses to manipulate combat the dm has every right to adjust enemies and count them in the CR calculation. if the dm say added wyvern mounts for free without accounting for it to every combat wouldn't the players be upset? There are several places where official adventures have animals supporting a handler and they are treated as part of the encounter CR. However, summons via spells are directly not part of the CR and instead part of the base creatures CR. A dm doesn't adjust the CR for things like animate objects or conjure woodland beings.
Now, where does the CR balance portion come from for a beast companion? Its not a spell, its the ranger Players character sheet. where is the stat block for a companion? Its a change from the original making it a unique creature and is directly recorded and kept with the players character information.
Any time something is claimed to be a hard and fast rule that starts with something like “Most DMs…” is not a rule it’s an allowance. The rules for creatures making death saving throws upon reaching zero hit points is clearly stated previously in that very section.
It's in the book, it's a rule. The fact that you don't like that rule doesn't change that. The fact that you try to move the goalposts as to what counts as a rule doesn't change that.
Call it what you like. But you are wrong. There are thousands of words in the rule books that aren’t rules. This is a rule of allowance, certainly. But to assume it is the baseline default is ignorant. To assume it applies to companions is ignorant.
Any time something is claimed to be a hard and fast rule that starts with something like “Most DMs…” is not a rule it’s an allowance. The rules for creatures making death saving throws upon reaching zero hit points is clearly stated previously in that very section.
It's in the book, it's a rule. The fact that you don't like that rule doesn't change that. The fact that you try to move the goalposts as to what counts as a rule doesn't change that.
Call it what you like. But you are wrong. There are thousands of words in the rule books that aren’t rules. This is a rule of allowance, certainly. But to assume it is the baseline default is ignorant. To assume it applies to companions is ignorant.
So it is a rule, glad you settled that once and for all.
Any time something is claimed to be a hard and fast rule that starts with something like “Most DMs…” is not a rule it’s an allowance. The rules for creatures making death saving throws upon reaching zero hit points is clearly stated previously in that very section.
It's in the book, it's a rule. The fact that you don't like that rule doesn't change that. The fact that you try to move the goalposts as to what counts as a rule doesn't change that.
Call it what you like. But you are wrong. There are thousands of words in the rule books that aren’t rules. This is a rule of allowance, certainly. But to assume it is the baseline default is ignorant. To assume it applies to companions is ignorant.
So it is a rule, glad you settled that once and for all.
Excellent! Then by using the rules, the DM could have a PC die when it reaches zero hit points as well.
Any time something is claimed to be a hard and fast rule that starts with something like “Most DMs…” is not a rule it’s an allowance. The rules for creatures making death saving throws upon reaching zero hit points is clearly stated previously in that very section.
It's in the book, it's a rule. The fact that you don't like that rule doesn't change that. The fact that you try to move the goalposts as to what counts as a rule doesn't change that.
Call it what you like. But you are wrong. There are thousands of words in the rule books that aren’t rules. This is a rule of allowance, certainly. But to assume it is the baseline default is ignorant. To assume it applies to companions is ignorant.
So it is a rule, glad you settled that once and for all.
but as you stated earlier.... opinions don't matter only rules. I don't care if your opinions agree with franks phrase of it being a "rules allowance" it still may be wrong. lets get back to actual game content instead of debate games and verbal sparing.
so . The question is how do you define your terms PC, NPC, Party NPC and special NPC. Are they given game mechanical definitions or are they supposed to be natural Language? Monster is a defined term in game. Saving throws are defined game terms. so lets look at that.
Saving Throws
A saving throw is an instant response to a harmful effect and is almost never done by choice. A save makes the most sense when something bad happens to a character and the character has a chance to avoid that effect. An ability check is something a character actively attempts to accomplish, whereas a saving throw is a split-second response to the activity of someone or something else.
Most of the time, a saving throw comes into play when an effect — such as a spell, monster ability, or trap — calls for it, telling you what kind of saving throw is involved and providing a DC for it.
Other times, a situation arises that clearly calls for a saving throw, especially when a character is subjected to a harmful effect that can’t be hedged out by armor or a shield. It’s up to you[DM] to decide which ability score is involved. The Saving Throws table offers suggestions..........
Note three important points.
1.saving throws are not optional (unless there is an exception) Now a dm is allowed per the exception to remove death from unimportant monsters and NPCS but not important ones.
2. this applies to characters not just player characters but also non-player characters. Monsters are characters.
3. The dm decides which ability is involved. not "if" an ability is involved. not if a save type is needed. So for death saves none of the abilities apply but the save still happens. so, this implies, saves not stated by default means no ability bonus applies but that save still happens.
Any time something is claimed to be a hard and fast rule that starts with something like “Most DMs…” is not a rule it’s an allowance. The rules for creatures making death saving throws upon reaching zero hit points is clearly stated previously in that very section.
It's in the book, it's a rule. The fact that you don't like that rule doesn't change that. The fact that you try to move the goalposts as to what counts as a rule doesn't change that.
Call it what you like. But you are wrong. There are thousands of words in the rule books that aren’t rules. This is a rule of allowance, certainly. But to assume it is the baseline default is ignorant. To assume it applies to companions is ignorant.
So it is a rule, glad you settled that once and for all.
but as you stated earlier.... opinions don't matter only rules. I don't care if your opinions agree with franks phrase of it being a "rules allowance" it still may be wrong. lets get back to actual game content instead of debate games and verbal sparing.
so . The question is how do you define your terms PC, NPC, Party NPC and special NPC. Are they given game mechanical definitions or are they supposed to be natural Language? Monster is a defined term in game. Saving throws are defined game terms. so lets look at that.
Saving Throws
A saving throw is an instant response to a harmful effect and is almost never done by choice. A save makes the most sense when something bad happens to a character and the character has a chance to avoid that effect. An ability check is something a character actively attempts to accomplish, whereas a saving throw is a split-second response to the activity of someone or something else.
Most of the time, a saving throw comes into play when an effect — such as a spell, monster ability, or trap — calls for it, telling you what kind of saving throw is involved and providing a DC for it.
Other times, a situation arises that clearly calls for a saving throw, especially when a character is subjected to a harmful effect that can’t be hedged out by armor or a shield. It’s up to you[DM] to decide which ability score is involved. The Saving Throws table offers suggestions..........
Note three important points.
1.saving throws are not optional (unless there is an exception) Now a dm is allowed per the exception to remove it from unimportant monsters and NPCS.
2. this applies to characters not just player characters but also non-player characters.
3. The dm decides which ability is involved. not "if" an ability is involved. not if a save type is needed. So for death saves none of the abilities apply but the save still happens. so, this implies, saves not stated by default means no ability bonus applies but that save still happens.
Not sure where you're going with this rambling post or what kind of relevance it has to what I or anyone else said but now we know what you think. So, thanks, I guess?
Any time something is claimed to be a hard and fast rule that starts with something like “Most DMs…” is not a rule it’s an allowance. The rules for creatures making death saving throws upon reaching zero hit points is clearly stated previously in that very section.
It's in the book, it's a rule. The fact that you don't like that rule doesn't change that. The fact that you try to move the goalposts as to what counts as a rule doesn't change that.
Call it what you like. But you are wrong. There are thousands of words in the rule books that aren’t rules. This is a rule of allowance, certainly. But to assume it is the baseline default is ignorant. To assume it applies to companions is ignorant.
So it is a rule, glad you settled that once and for all.
Excellent! Then by using the rules, the DM could have a PC die when it reaches zero hit points as well.
Did you forget about the part where it says that "monsters" die the instance they drop to 0 HP or did you just conviently ignore that part?
Any time something is claimed to be a hard and fast rule that starts with something like “Most DMs…” is not a rule it’s an allowance. The rules for creatures making death saving throws upon reaching zero hit points is clearly stated previously in that very section.
It's in the book, it's a rule. The fact that you don't like that rule doesn't change that. The fact that you try to move the goalposts as to what counts as a rule doesn't change that.
Call it what you like. But you are wrong. There are thousands of words in the rule books that aren’t rules. This is a rule of allowance, certainly. But to assume it is the baseline default is ignorant. To assume it applies to companions is ignorant.
So it is a rule, glad you settled that once and for all.
but as you stated earlier.... opinions don't matter only rules. I don't care if your opinions agree with franks phrase of it being a "rules allowance" it still may be wrong. lets get back to actual game content instead of debate games and verbal sparing.
so . The question is how do you define your terms PC, NPC, Party NPC and special NPC. Are they given game mechanical definitions or are they supposed to be natural Language? Monster is a defined term in game. Saving throws are defined game terms. so lets look at that.
Saving Throws
A saving throw is an instant response to a harmful effect and is almost never done by choice. A save makes the most sense when something bad happens to a character and the character has a chance to avoid that effect. An ability check is something a character actively attempts to accomplish, whereas a saving throw is a split-second response to the activity of someone or something else.
Most of the time, a saving throw comes into play when an effect — such as a spell, monster ability, or trap — calls for it, telling you what kind of saving throw is involved and providing a DC for it.
Other times, a situation arises that clearly calls for a saving throw, especially when a character is subjected to a harmful effect that can’t be hedged out by armor or a shield. It’s up to you[DM] to decide which ability score is involved. The Saving Throws table offers suggestions..........
Note three important points.
1.saving throws are not optional (unless there is an exception) Now a dm is allowed per the exception to remove it from unimportant monsters and NPCS.
2. this applies to characters not just player characters but also non-player characters.
3. The dm decides which ability is involved. not "if" an ability is involved. not if a save type is needed. So for death saves none of the abilities apply but the save still happens. so, this implies, saves not stated by default means no ability bonus applies but that save still happens.
Not sure where you're going with this rambling post or what kind of relevance it has to what I or anyone else said but now we know what you think. So, thanks, I guess?
You were the one talking about others ignoring rules. I just gave the basic general rule from which all saving throws stem. If you don't see the relevance, I now am pretty sure what you think. winning the debate is more important than being right or accurate to the game. and don't actually care to hear what others have to say. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Any time something is claimed to be a hard and fast rule that starts with something like “Most DMs…” is not a rule it’s an allowance. The rules for creatures making death saving throws upon reaching zero hit points is clearly stated previously in that very section.
It's in the book, it's a rule. The fact that you don't like that rule doesn't change that. The fact that you try to move the goalposts as to what counts as a rule doesn't change that.
Call it what you like. But you are wrong. There are thousands of words in the rule books that aren’t rules. This is a rule of allowance, certainly. But to assume it is the baseline default is ignorant. To assume it applies to companions is ignorant.
So it is a rule, glad you settled that once and for all.
Excellent! Then by using the rules, the DM could have a PC die when it reaches zero hit points as well.
Did you forget about the part where it says that "monsters" die the instance they drop to 0 HP or did you just conviently ignore that part?
But its dosen't state it as an absolute. its states it as a option available to the dm not an always applicable situation or game default.
That's not a problem unique to monsters rolling death saves. In fact, it shouldn't affect PC actions at all. PCs don't know what a "death save" is.
I am not sure you can prove a beast companion isn't a PC. it is a class feature and directly part of the class. it is one of the only creatures in the Game where the player determines its actions and personal motivations because of this they are PCs too. Note: the wording changed for tasha's ranger and artificer making it a friendly creature so not a pc.
Also I would like to point out monster is a defined game term and people in this thread are assuming what it is without actually looking at definitions.
an npc, a monster, and beast companion, creature, and type tags(beast, humanoid, shapechanger ect.) are all independent terms and must be applied accordingly. Which means a thing can be several at once.
Here is the definition of a monster from the monster manual:
A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters. Most of the monsters that haunt the D&D world, however, are threats that are meant to be stopped: rampaging demons, conniving devils, soul-sucking undead, summoned elementals — the list goes on.
Here is the interesting bit an npc traveling with the party takes a share of the xp. since a beast companion traveling with the party does not get xp It is actually a pc.
DMG: NPC party members: Any NPC that accompanies the adventurers acts as a party member and earns a full share of experience points.
Of course the beast companion is not a PC. It's a companion, you said so yourself. A class feature is not a player character. A Paladin's divine sense is also not a PC.
So a familiar is a PC? Any summons? What about a warhorse?
Obviously that's a bad way to try to define it.
Any time something is claimed to be a hard and fast rule that starts with something like “Most DMs…” is not a rule it’s an allowance. The rules for creatures making death saving throws upon reaching zero hit points is clearly stated previously in that very section.
As a DM and a player, I’ve never had a companion not make death saving throws. I’ve heard of it, and each time I have, the general consensus by the players was that particular DM was a jerk for that and other things.
It's up to the DM overall.
Some DMs coup de grace and some don't.
Some don't use feats.
Everyone has an opinion on these but it's how it goes
It's in the book, it's a rule. The fact that you don't like that rule doesn't change that. The fact that you try to move the goalposts as to what counts as a rule doesn't change that.
Now we know what your opinion is, completely irrelevant to the actual rules though.
You gave absolutely no mechanical justification for that point. I am willing to listen but you need to give something in the mechanics to support that.
The term companion is not incompatible with the term PC. Just like how you can have a "monstrous pc" you can also have a beast companion PC.
PC just means a character assigned to the player that they are the person responsible for their actions (assuming no charm or willpower overrides)
so after the first time a monster comes back to life after 18 seconds, the PCs need to become slightly evil, and go around stabbing anything unconscious? Or tie everything up and take them to some form of court for justice?
A familiar or summon is an NPC not an NPC party member.
Here is the difference between Npc and NPC party member. who is responsible for their action control and personality? The dm or the player? How was said creature brought to the party? spells are temporary, class features are "permanent". are they willing companions or was some form of coercion, compelling, bribery or exchange of money or items? will they try and analyze orders for the party interest or their own?
things like charms don't make them "party members." summons are by default run by the dm not the player. Here is another part of that same DMG quote: NPCs might join the adventuring party because they want a share of the loot and are willing to accept an equal share of the risk, or they might follow the adventurers because of a bond of loyalty, gratitude, or love. Such NPCs are controlled by you, or you can transfer control to the players. Even if a player controls an NPC, it’s up to [the DM] make sure the NPC is portrayed as a character in his or her own right, not just as a servant that the players can manipulate for their own benefit.
Now, who determines how the Companion is portrayed and has say on the Beasts companions ideas of Self. This is not the dm. A player has full control because they determine what "United in focus" means. The player determines what Training the beast has. So the only the player can determine what "the beast acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself" means. protecting its self may include tactical retreat or aggressive action or even seeking help(animals are actually known to do this on occasion). only training and personal ideals can make the deciding factor for how the companion decides.
also note: how all summons define what happens when they hit zero HP directly overriding any form of death save.
if a party that buys warhorses to manipulate combat the dm has every right to adjust enemies and count them in the CR calculation. if the dm say added wyvern mounts for free without accounting for it to every combat wouldn't the players be upset? There are several places where official adventures have animals supporting a handler and they are treated as part of the encounter CR. However, summons via spells are directly not part of the CR and instead part of the base creatures CR. A dm doesn't adjust the CR for things like animate objects or conjure woodland beings.
Now, where does the CR balance portion come from for a beast companion? Its not a spell, its the ranger Players character sheet. where is the stat block for a companion? Its a change from the original making it a unique creature and is directly recorded and kept with the players character information.
Call it what you like. But you are wrong. There are thousands of words in the rule books that aren’t rules. This is a rule of allowance, certainly. But to assume it is the baseline default is ignorant. To assume it applies to companions is ignorant.
So it is a rule, glad you settled that once and for all.
Excellent! Then by using the rules, the DM could have a PC die when it reaches zero hit points as well.
but as you stated earlier.... opinions don't matter only rules. I don't care if your opinions agree with franks phrase of it being a "rules allowance" it still may be wrong. lets get back to actual game content instead of debate games and verbal sparing.
so . The question is how do you define your terms PC, NPC, Party NPC and special NPC. Are they given game mechanical definitions or are they supposed to be natural Language? Monster is a defined term in game. Saving throws are defined game terms. so lets look at that.
Saving Throws
A saving throw is an instant response to a harmful effect and is almost never done by choice. A save makes the most sense when something bad happens to a character and the character has a chance to avoid that effect. An ability check is something a character actively attempts to accomplish, whereas a saving throw is a split-second response to the activity of someone or something else.
Most of the time, a saving throw comes into play when an effect — such as a spell, monster ability, or trap — calls for it, telling you what kind of saving throw is involved and providing a DC for it.
Other times, a situation arises that clearly calls for a saving throw, especially when a character is subjected to a harmful effect that can’t be hedged out by armor or a shield. It’s up to you[DM] to decide which ability score is involved. The Saving Throws table offers suggestions..........
Note three important points.
1.saving throws are not optional (unless there is an exception) Now a dm is allowed per the exception to remove death from unimportant monsters and NPCS but not important ones.
2. this applies to characters not just player characters but also non-player characters. Monsters are characters.
3. The dm decides which ability is involved. not "if" an ability is involved. not if a save type is needed. So for death saves none of the abilities apply but the save still happens. so, this implies, saves not stated by default means no ability bonus applies but that save still happens.
Not sure where you're going with this rambling post or what kind of relevance it has to what I or anyone else said but now we know what you think. So, thanks, I guess?
the Monsters and Death rule refers to monsters, but a DM could indeed decide there's no death saving throw in his game.
Did you forget about the part where it says that "monsters" die the instance they drop to 0 HP or did you just conviently ignore that part?
You were the one talking about others ignoring rules. I just gave the basic general rule from which all saving throws stem. If you don't see the relevance, I now am pretty sure what you think. winning the debate is more important than being right or accurate to the game. and don't actually care to hear what others have to say. Please correct me if I am wrong.
But its dosen't state it as an absolute. its states it as a option available to the dm not an always applicable situation or game default.