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?
Monsters are everything by the rules. "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."
Excellent! Then by using the rules, the DM could have a PC die when it reaches zero hit points as well.
the Monsters and Death rule refers to monsters, but a DM could indeed decide there's no death saving throw in his game.
Monsters are all creatures. "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." So by the rules they can apply this no the PCs easy.
Technically by game mechanics all pc's are monsters because they can interact and fight with each other.
But if you read memes about pc and murder hobos you already should know "all pcs are monsters"
Since some people are ignoring the actual rules I brought to the table discussion. Any comments or viable flaws in either of my arguments frank?
No.
People are taking one statement of one rule and applying it, without the context of the related rules, to this subject and ruling. That is not how these game rules are written. They are attempting to justify a “free parking” cultural norm by cherry picking a single rule that works in their favor. Devaluing an entire category of subclasses in the process. By applying other rules written in the game you’ve made it even clearer that both the words, spirit, and intent is clear on how, when, and why a DM would have a monster die upon reaching zero hit points.
We are now dealing with a predisposed ranger hater where any reason thrown their way will fall on deaf ears.
I think assuming a predisposed ranger hater is harsh. There does seem to be a specific weight the no death save crowd has given to what appears to be an optional ruling.
Also I find it hard to believe I made no mistakes with the radical interpretationsI proposed. Oh well there's always grammar or spelling errors someone can yell at me for.
With the wording of stuff so unclear and at times, contradictory on who and what things fall under (Monster, PC, NPC, and so on) I, when I DM, follow a similar guideline as the DM I play with. Any enemy of the PC's is a "monster" and, UNLESS the party says they are trying for non-lethal, is DEAD at 0HP. PC's and long-term companions go to 0 and start saving throws, as per the full outline. This covers pets we sometimes buy, class specific companions like the Ranger's and homebrewed companions, of which we have had only one and he died anyway, so....
I think the most important part of all this discussion is to make sure it's discussed with the DM in session 0 to know all the guidelines and rules that will apply in that game. If the DM's rules don't suit your fancy, roll on to the next game and see if that DM has a similar opinion to you on specific rules. I can understand it coming up and having not been discussed earlier as being surprising and maybe upsetting, but essentially that is the time to hammer out all the finer points of how those rules will apply and to whom.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The way i view it monster is a game format. Both a human or goblin can be either a monster, an NPC or a PC, depending on how it is portrayed mechanically (statblock vs character sheet). Either can be ally or enemy this has nothing to do with that. In the world, even your goblin PC or NPC not being technically a monster could still be viewed by others as a monster, just like a human villan will not be viewed by others in the game world as a monster even though it is.
As i said, a ranger companion's beast is a monster type creature. It doesn't necessarily mean it would be viewed by everyone as such if say a mastiff dog is chosen for companion. But mechanically speaking, it's a monster according to it's statistics. DM is free to say it doesn't or have it make death saving throw if it wants.
I think assuming a predisposed ranger hater is harsh. There does seem to be a specific weight the no death save crowd has given to what appears to be an optional ruling.
Also I find it hard to believe I made no mistakes with the radical interpretationsI proposed. Oh well there's always grammar or spelling errors someone can yell at me for.
I’ll be honest, I didn’t make an exhaustive study of you arguments. But the idea of how the game operates and assigns terms to things, all either specific or general, hold true in my mind.
With the wording of stuff so unclear and at times, contradictory on who and what things fall under (Monster, PC, NPC, and so on) I, when I DM, follow a similar guideline as the DM I play with. Any enemy of the PC's is a "monster" and, UNLESS the party says they are trying for non-lethal, is DEAD at 0HP. PC's and long-term companions go to 0 and start saving throws, as per the full outline. This covers pets we sometimes buy, class specific companions like the Ranger's and homebrewed companions, of which we have had only one and he died anyway, so....
I think the most important part of all this discussion is to make sure it's discussed with the DM in session 0 to know all the guidelines and rules that will apply in that game. If the DM's rules don't suit your fancy, roll on to the next game and see if that DM has a similar opinion to you on specific rules. I can understand it coming up and having not been discussed earlier as being surprising and maybe upsetting, but essentially that is the time to hammer out all the finer points of how those rules will apply and to whom.
Good points. Although I find that with proper rules review most "contradictions" are actually opinions on open ended topics. There are several of these open ended topics in game but inconsistent expectations are the cause of most fights and at least having the baseline established resolves a great number of them.
I still think its mechanically justifiable to say all creatures get death saves unless otherwise stated and if a dm states early they will not be providing death saves to phb pet companions I have an 80% chance of choosing to not play with that dm. They better have good justification or some other allowance to hold that Opinion.
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?
Monsters are everything by the rules. "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."
OK, so you do purposefully ignore the parts of the rules that distinguish monsters from PCs. Gotcha.
OK, so you do purposefully ignore the parts of the rules that distinguish monsters from PCs. Gotcha.
Go a head and feel free to actually reference a single part of the game that has said distinction. It doesn't exist. PC is not a defined term as far as I can tell. But monster is and it is so open that its basically anything with stats including other pc's. In fact there are several spots where an adventure suggests dms should take player control away because they did a thing and are now npcs and enemies of the party. PCs can be monsters. See Curse of strahd for spoilers. PCS are and can be enemies of other PCs. (Although I do not allow pc contests at my table. PCS must work together. That is a homebrew rule But I would never try to pass it off as raw)
You mentioned how important ignoring rules are but then state opinions without any real rules reference. You just highlight and focus on a specific emphasis as if it supports a point that doesn't exist. That is borderline gaslighting. I just cant figure what you gain from denying this general rule of death saves. Is it you are sick of people questioning your dming? have you played a game where a ranger companion broke the fun or outshined other players?
What balance or table issues result from said death saves for these class features? What reason do you think wizards had for rules that operate the way you intend?
OK, so you do purposefully ignore the parts of the rules that distinguish monsters from PCs. Gotcha.
Go a head and feel free to actually reference a single part of the game that has said distinction.
I just did. Maybe you should actually read the posts you reply to?
You mentioned how important ignoring rules are but then state opinions without any real rules reference. You just highlight and focus on a specific emphasis as if it supports a point that doesn't exist. That is borderline gaslighting. I just cant figure what you gain from denying this general rule of death saves. Is it you are sick of people questioning your dming? have you played a game where a ranger companion broke the fun or outshined other players?
I love how you whine about how it is gaslighting to point out the rules and then you try to gaslight by making things up and straight out lying. You're funny! XD
What balance or table issues result from said death saves for these class features? What reason do you think wizards had for rules that operate the way you intend?
Why are you making up ridiculous strawmen? Is it because you feel inadequate as a player and a person or is it that you just don't want to admit that you don't know what you're talking about?
Is there any one else who can give a game anecdote where there was an issue because of death saves?
Is there any one who can actually point out my misinformation? or show faulty logic in any of my stances?
a summary of my stances
1.monster ,pc, npc party NPC, Special NPC are all separate Tag terms and may be applied individually and have no effect on each other.
2. saving throws are not optional Unless there is a stated exception.
3. the default for all characters (pcs and NPCs) is to make death saves and the dm must claim DM fiat to take them away. wizards suggests taking them away from unimportant enemies and creatures as a time saving device.
4. This is the big one. Any character that the player is responsible for motivations (ideals, bonds and flaws) Is a PC and not an NPC.
5. A player is not limited to one PC Per wizards of the coast. Via beast master or sidekick or some other rules. Each table or dm decides how many PCS a player has via what rules and social contracts are included.
6. NPCs traveling with the party that are not a spell or class feature take away combat xp from the rest of the group if they participate.
7. There are no loopholes or game breaking issues that make instant death to classes with feature based creatures necessary or show it as an intended design. ruling no deathsaves in such situation seems to be the opposite of game intent. (in fact instant death makes the pet death loophole more likely to happen)
[REDACTED]
9. I am terrible at spelling and grammar.
Notes: Please be civil and do not engage in personal attacks. Thank you
Monsters are not required to instantly die, the PHB just says that most DMs have that happen for most monsters. There's no rule in the game that monsters die the instant they drop to 0 HP.
Thank you envoy. I appreciate your comments in the thread as your insight and understanding seems to be well thought out. even on the occasion we disagree.
Monsters are not required to instantly die, the PHB just says that most DMs have that happen for most monsters. There's no rule in the game that monsters die the instant they drop to 0 HP.
Yes. This is much clearer than all of the posts I've made in this thread to date. 100% accurate.
I'd just like to point out that a Character is actually specially defined as something other than a monster.
"In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). Working together, the group might explore a dark dungeon, a ruined city, a haunted castle, a lost temple deep in a jungle, or a lava-filled cavern beneath a mysterious mountain. The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure."
This is something like the third paragraph (not including some mock ups of DM/Player interactions) in the PHB. And the first thing it does is define what a character is. it is specifically something made by a Player and basically teams up with others made by other players (in this case it says friends but that is a little too narrowly defined to always be accurate).
Anything Else is a Monster, PC's might become monsters temporarily or permanently by other more specific rules. But that does not actually change the definition bolded and underlined here. it also does not preclude that some monsters might technically be made or be partly controlled by Players, and they are not made in the same fashion as characters are. But it does outright make a distinction between the two. And in the Strictest Sense not even animal companions are actually supposed to be controlled by the player. Wizards accepts and makes allowances for the player to do so without any real fuss and most DM's allow it to make it easier on them as well. But in the strictest sense. The Player gives direction to such things and then the DM has them respond to those direction within certain rules frameworks. Having the player simply do it all just simply eases the burden. particularly since certain things about their specific stat-blocks tend to be at least partly based upon the character they are attached to which the character is already keeping track of, and the DM has much more to pay attention to outside of them. Not to mention that such things are usually partial class features as part of their very nature to begin with.
I'd just like to point out that a Character is actually specially defined as something other than a monster.
"In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). Working together, the group might explore a dark dungeon, a ruined city, a haunted castle, a lost temple deep in a jungle, or a lava-filled cavern beneath a mysterious mountain. The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure."
This is something like the third paragraph (not including some mock ups of DM/Player interactions) in the PHB. And the first thing it does is define what a character is. it is specifically something made by a Player and basically teams up with others made by other players (in this case it says friends but that is a little too narrowly defined to always be accurate).
Anything Else is a Monster, PC's might become monsters temporarily or permanently by other more specific rules. But that does not actually change the definition bolded and underlined here. it also does not preclude that some monsters might technically be made or be partly controlled by Players, and they are not made in the same fashion as characters are. But it does outright make a distinction between the two. And in the Strictest Sense not even animal companions are actually supposed to be controlled by the player. Wizards accepts and makes allowances for the player to do so without any real fuss and most DM's allow it to make it easier on them as well. But in the strictest sense. The Player gives direction to such things and then the DM has them respond to those direction within certain rules frameworks. Having the player simply do it all just simply eases the burden. particularly since certain things about their specific stat-blocks tend to be at least partly based upon the character they are attached to which the character is already keeping track of, and the DM has much more to pay attention to outside of them. Not to mention that such things are usually partial class features as part of their very nature to begin with.
I don't think that paragraph defines a character, it describes one which is slightly different.. Adventurer and character are made equal sure but that's like saying this thing is a horse and that thing is a horse. when one is a warhorse and the other is a draft horse. In a venn diagram there is overlap. later in the same paragraph it says "The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters" is this just player characters or are non-player characters included? both are characters.
Again we were given an exact definition of a monster. Still that intro paragraph gives us some traits of a character which is interesting. I still see nothing that says they have to be separate from the term monsters.
Now for animals. I agree with you most things players think they own npcs but don't. Familiars are one of the biggest areas where players assume they control them. Tashas beast and steal defenders specifically call out them as friendly, so I don't believe they are PCS because the game and the dm need to decide what that means. There is a whole section about how if the dm lets players control an npc the dm is still responsible to make sure the npc is treated as a thinking creature.
so why do i think different about T beast companions?
Now the PHB says that A beast companion is "United in focus" and says it is "trained to fight alongside you" all other standard behavior language is removed. Only the ranger player can determine what actions a beast would take. They are the ones responsible not the dm. So I believe the only way to have two PCS is the PHB Beast master.
Later in the PHB it says "Your character is a combination of game statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination. You choose a race (such as human or halfling) and a class (such as fighter or wizard). You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character. Once completed, your character serves as your representative in the game, your avatar in the Dungeons & Dragons world." So i propose that because the PHB beast is a creature that is solely dependent on your game statistics, class and personality they both are your game avatar contained in one character sheet.(which is defined as a way to track "your character")
I will however admit it should make almost no difference whether its a PC or an NPC and the only reason I brought it up was because some one made a direct statement death saves were only tied to PCs. I tried to address saves by going through the first stage of thought.
Monsters are everything by the rules. "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."
Monsters are all creatures. "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." So by the rules they can apply this no the PCs easy.
Technically by game mechanics all pc's are monsters because they can interact and fight with each other.
But if you read memes about murder hobos you already should know "all pcs are monsters"
Since some people are ignoring the actual rules I brought to the table discussion, Any comments or viable flaws in either of my arguments frank?
No.
People are taking one statement of one rule and applying it, without the context of the related rules, to this subject and ruling. That is not how these game rules are written. They are attempting to justify a “free parking” cultural norm by cherry picking a single rule that works in their favor. Devaluing an entire category of subclasses in the process. By applying other rules written in the game you’ve made it even clearer that both the words, spirit, and intent is clear on how, when, and why a DM would have a monster die upon reaching zero hit points.
We are now dealing with a predisposed ranger hater where any reason thrown their way will fall on deaf ears.
I think assuming a predisposed ranger hater is harsh. There does seem to be a specific weight the no death save crowd has given to what appears to be an optional ruling.
Also I find it hard to believe I made no mistakes with the radical interpretationsI proposed. Oh well there's always grammar or spelling errors someone can yell at me for.
With the wording of stuff so unclear and at times, contradictory on who and what things fall under (Monster, PC, NPC, and so on) I, when I DM, follow a similar guideline as the DM I play with. Any enemy of the PC's is a "monster" and, UNLESS the party says they are trying for non-lethal, is DEAD at 0HP. PC's and long-term companions go to 0 and start saving throws, as per the full outline. This covers pets we sometimes buy, class specific companions like the Ranger's and homebrewed companions, of which we have had only one and he died anyway, so....
I think the most important part of all this discussion is to make sure it's discussed with the DM in session 0 to know all the guidelines and rules that will apply in that game. If the DM's rules don't suit your fancy, roll on to the next game and see if that DM has a similar opinion to you on specific rules. I can understand it coming up and having not been discussed earlier as being surprising and maybe upsetting, but essentially that is the time to hammer out all the finer points of how those rules will apply and to whom.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The way i view it monster is a game format. Both a human or goblin can be either a monster, an NPC or a PC, depending on how it is portrayed mechanically (statblock vs character sheet). Either can be ally or enemy this has nothing to do with that. In the world, even your goblin PC or NPC not being technically a monster could still be viewed by others as a monster, just like a human villan will not be viewed by others in the game world as a monster even though it is.
As i said, a ranger companion's beast is a monster type creature. It doesn't necessarily mean it would be viewed by everyone as such if say a mastiff dog is chosen for companion. But mechanically speaking, it's a monster according to it's statistics. DM is free to say it doesn't or have it make death saving throw if it wants.
I’ll be honest, I didn’t make an exhaustive study of you arguments. But the idea of how the game operates and assigns terms to things, all either specific or general, hold true in my mind.
Good points. Although I find that with proper rules review most "contradictions" are actually opinions on open ended topics. There are several of these open ended topics in game but inconsistent expectations are the cause of most fights and at least having the baseline established resolves a great number of them.
I still think its mechanically justifiable to say all creatures get death saves unless otherwise stated and if a dm states early they will not be providing death saves to phb pet companions I have an 80% chance of choosing to not play with that dm. They better have good justification or some other allowance to hold that Opinion.
OK, so you do purposefully ignore the parts of the rules that distinguish monsters from PCs. Gotcha.
Not ignore. That part does not exclude PCs from being monsters.
Go a head and feel free to actually reference a single part of the game that has said distinction. It doesn't exist. PC is not a defined term as far as I can tell. But monster is and it is so open that its basically anything with stats including other pc's. In fact there are several spots where an adventure suggests dms should take player control away because they did a thing and are now npcs and enemies of the party. PCs can be monsters. See Curse of strahd for spoilers. PCS are and can be enemies of other PCs. (Although I do not allow pc contests at my table. PCS must work together. That is a homebrew rule But I would never try to pass it off as raw)
You mentioned how important ignoring rules are but then state opinions without any real rules reference. You just highlight and focus on a specific emphasis as if it supports a point that doesn't exist. That is borderline gaslighting. I just cant figure what you gain from denying this general rule of death saves. Is it you are sick of people questioning your dming? have you played a game where a ranger companion broke the fun or outshined other players?
What balance or table issues result from said death saves for these class features? What reason do you think wizards had for rules that operate the way you intend?
Yes it does.
I just did. Maybe you should actually read the posts you reply to?
I love how you whine about how it is gaslighting to point out the rules and then you try to gaslight by making things up and straight out lying. You're funny! XD
Why are you making up ridiculous strawmen? Is it because you feel inadequate as a player and a person or is it that you just don't want to admit that you don't know what you're talking about?
[REDACTED]
Is there any one else who can give a game anecdote where there was an issue because of death saves?
Is there any one who can actually point out my misinformation? or show faulty logic in any of my stances?
a summary of my stances
1.monster ,pc, npc party NPC, Special NPC are all separate Tag terms and may be applied individually and have no effect on each other.
2. saving throws are not optional Unless there is a stated exception.
3. the default for all characters (pcs and NPCs) is to make death saves and the dm must claim DM fiat to take them away. wizards suggests taking them away from unimportant enemies and creatures as a time saving device.
4. This is the big one. Any character that the player is responsible for motivations (ideals, bonds and flaws) Is a PC and not an NPC.
5. A player is not limited to one PC Per wizards of the coast. Via beast master or sidekick or some other rules. Each table or dm decides how many PCS a player has via what rules and social contracts are included.
6. NPCs traveling with the party that are not a spell or class feature take away combat xp from the rest of the group if they participate.
7. There are no loopholes or game breaking issues that make instant death to classes with feature based creatures necessary or show it as an intended design. ruling no deathsaves in such situation seems to be the opposite of game intent. (in fact instant death makes the pet death loophole more likely to happen)
[REDACTED]
9. I am terrible at spelling and grammar.
This might be of interest for folks here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/prz1ju/send_your_ask_the_sage_live_questions_for_dd/
It doesn't say that.
Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws. Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions; the DM might have them fall unconscious and follow the same rules as player characters.
Monsters are not required to instantly die, the PHB just says that most DMs have that happen for most monsters. There's no rule in the game that monsters die the instant they drop to 0 HP.
Thank you envoy. I appreciate your comments in the thread as your insight and understanding seems to be well thought out. even on the occasion we disagree.
Yes. This is much clearer than all of the posts I've made in this thread to date. 100% accurate.
I'd just like to point out that a Character is actually specially defined as something other than a monster.
"In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). Working together, the group might explore a dark dungeon, a ruined city, a haunted castle, a lost temple deep in a jungle, or a lava-filled cavern beneath a mysterious mountain. The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure."
This is something like the third paragraph (not including some mock ups of DM/Player interactions) in the PHB. And the first thing it does is define what a character is. it is specifically something made by a Player and basically teams up with others made by other players (in this case it says friends but that is a little too narrowly defined to always be accurate).
Anything Else is a Monster, PC's might become monsters temporarily or permanently by other more specific rules. But that does not actually change the definition bolded and underlined here. it also does not preclude that some monsters might technically be made or be partly controlled by Players, and they are not made in the same fashion as characters are. But it does outright make a distinction between the two. And in the Strictest Sense not even animal companions are actually supposed to be controlled by the player. Wizards accepts and makes allowances for the player to do so without any real fuss and most DM's allow it to make it easier on them as well. But in the strictest sense. The Player gives direction to such things and then the DM has them respond to those direction within certain rules frameworks. Having the player simply do it all just simply eases the burden. particularly since certain things about their specific stat-blocks tend to be at least partly based upon the character they are attached to which the character is already keeping track of, and the DM has much more to pay attention to outside of them. Not to mention that such things are usually partial class features as part of their very nature to begin with.
I don't think that paragraph defines a character, it describes one which is slightly different.. Adventurer and character are made equal sure but that's like saying this thing is a horse and that thing is a horse. when one is a warhorse and the other is a draft horse. In a venn diagram there is overlap. later in the same paragraph it says "The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters" is this just player characters or are non-player characters included? both are characters.
Again we were given an exact definition of a monster. Still that intro paragraph gives us some traits of a character which is interesting. I still see nothing that says they have to be separate from the term monsters.
Now for animals. I agree with you most things players think they own npcs but don't. Familiars are one of the biggest areas where players assume they control them. Tashas beast and steal defenders specifically call out them as friendly, so I don't believe they are PCS because the game and the dm need to decide what that means. There is a whole section about how if the dm lets players control an npc the dm is still responsible to make sure the npc is treated as a thinking creature.
so why do i think different about T beast companions?
Now the PHB says that A beast companion is "United in focus" and says it is "trained to fight alongside you" all other standard behavior language is removed. Only the ranger player can determine what actions a beast would take. They are the ones responsible not the dm. So I believe the only way to have two PCS is the PHB Beast master.
Later in the PHB it says "Your character is a combination of game statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination. You choose a race (such as human or halfling) and a class (such as fighter or wizard). You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character. Once completed, your character serves as your representative in the game, your avatar in the Dungeons & Dragons world." So i propose that because the PHB beast is a creature that is solely dependent on your game statistics, class and personality they both are your game avatar contained in one character sheet.(which is defined as a way to track "your character")
I will however admit it should make almost no difference whether its a PC or an NPC and the only reason I brought it up was because some one made a direct statement death saves were only tied to PCs. I tried to address saves by going through the first stage of thought.