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?
It doesn't say that.
It doesn't say monsters? because that's the only part I was quoting, the rest was just paraphrasing, which would be clear from the context. You should probably read the whole thing instead of just assuming things which aren't true. I was specifically replying to a claim falsely equating "monsters" and PCs.
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.
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.
Is there any one else who can give a game anecdote where there was an issue because of death saves?
Has anyone claimed that this is an issue? If not, why the strawman?
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.
In this case there is a stated exception allowed by the rule.
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.
Exactly, this rule allows for the exception.
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.
Class abilities are not player characters, no.
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.
Sidekicks are sidekicks and companions are companions, they are not player characters.
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.
Not sure how this is even relevant. A lot of game don't even use XP.
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)
Again, quite unclear what this "loophole" should be or what it has to do with anything?
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.
I hate to tell you this. But the Venn diagram example your trying to use is wrong. Both a Draft Horse and a War Horse are a horse. They are nothing but a horse. They are found entirely and only within the horse circle. They are only different when they are seperated out by specific criteria (such as the purpose they are bred and trained for to the point that War Horse is technically a misnomer because War Horses are of many kinds based upon the work that they were bred for and not even close to only one kind of horse, They are simply horses bred for a type of job and trained to do that type of job in a combat setting, Draft Horses were commonly used as War Horses in Europe from the Middle Ages onward for example) . However. Characters are Called out specifically as separate from monsters no matter how much you try to argue otherwise. they are something made by players. They may have overlap with some things that are monsters called NPC's that can use the same rules for building. But that is a subset of Monsters that overlaps with Characters. Characters are in fact their separate and their own stand alone thing and are not monsters. No matter how hard you try to shoe horning them into being Monsters.
In a Ven Diagram you would have Two seperate Circles listed Characters and MOnsters. Their overlapping area would consist of Non-Player Characters that use rules specifically to Characters that are presented in the PHB to be made but not made by a Character, and Monsters made by Players but not by the rules presented in the PHB for player Characters or monsters made by Players but not by Player Character rules. The Section of the Characters Circle that is outside of the Overlap would Firmly be the Player Characters. The section for Monsters would be all the other Creatures that are not made by Players and are not done using Player Character Rules. Which is why the books are specifically called the PLAYER HANDBOOK and the MONSTER MANUAL is a Separate book that does not ACTUALLY COVER anything for PLAYER CHARACTERS in general but might apply very limited things in Specific only by rules exception. This is also why the Creature's Statistics portion of the Players Handbook states they are only included in the book that doesn't really pertain to them for easy convenience reference and All rules governing how they work and how to read their stat-blocks is actually in the Book Designed to deal with them which is the Monster Manual.
"Spells and class features allow characters to transform into animals, summon creatures to serve as familiars, and create undead. Statistics for such creatures are grouped in this appendix for your convenience. For information on how to read a stat block, see the Monster Manual."
This is the very first thing stated in Apendix D and even it blatantly states that they are different and Separate from Player Characters. Further Outright Separation is in the Section that is outright Quoted by Quindraco in Chapter 9, Under a Section heading of Monsters and Death. Making an Exception to the normal rules and how Player Characters actually work that DM's can follow. It would not need this Rules Specificity stated in this fashion if Player Characters and Monsters were indeed the same thing. You would actually need an exception made for Player Characters as a subset of Monsters Allowing for Death Saving Throws instead. Because Having most DM's have them Drop Dead instead of the book keeping of death saving throws would be the Standard and Rolling would be the exception rather than the other way around. But this section is presented from the Viewpoint of the Standard for Player Characters and how Many DM's can instead handle the same thing for the separate grouping that is Monsters.
All the rest of your argument about them having to be monsters is Pedantic misdirection and major misinterpretation to both the definitions we are given, and the way that the information is presented to us.
The Monster Manual for Example does cover various things that are not necessarily enemies. It Covers basic stat blocks for all kinds of potential Non Player Characters that don't technically go to the extent of using player character rules. But the True technicality is that they are not actually Non-Player Characters if they don't use the Player Character Rules to be built. They are actually just friendly creatures/monsters that we interact with. And most that we interact with have no need to actually be anything more than that.
The fact you two have written a small book on the subject is definitely proof there is NOT a clear answer and it should likely be left up to the DM on how to handle...which is exactly as we have stated from page 1.
Bottom line is if you do not like the idea of your companion not getting death saves make sure to ask your DM how they would rule it BEFORE picking the subclass and make your decision about the subclass and the game from there.
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).
The fact you two have written a small book on the subject is definitely proof there is NOT a clear answer and it should likely be left up to the DM on how to handle...which is exactly as we have stated from page 1.
Bottom line is if you do not like the idea of your companion not getting death saves make sure to ask your DM how they would rule it BEFORE picking the subclass and make your decision about the subclass and the game from there.
False Equivalency argument. Proof of something is not always something that can be stated in a quick easy sentence with a maximum word requirement.
Often even "clear answers" can require quite a bit of text. it's actually one of the fundamental flaws of things like Communication of many concepts through Twitter and why Message boards fundamentally allow for a lot more words to be used.
Though the sentiment of asking the DM how they choose to handle a particular aspects like animal companions is a fair assessment regardless of that fact. Which may lead to a much longer discussion for further understanding despite being a "clear answer".
The fact you two have written a small book on the subject is definitely proof there is NOT a clear answer and it should likely be left up to the DM on how to handle...which is exactly as we have stated from page 1.
Bottom line is if you do not like the idea of your companion not getting death saves make sure to ask your DM how they would rule it BEFORE picking the subclass and make your decision about the subclass and the game from there.
False Equivalency argument. Proof of something is not always something that can be stated in a quick easy sentence with a maximum word requirement.
Often even "clear answers" can require quite a bit of text. it's actually one of the fundamental flaws of things like Communication of many concepts through Twitter and why Message boards fundamentally allow for a lot more words to be used.
Though the sentiment of asking the DM how they choose to handle a particular aspects like animal companions is a fair assessment regardless of that fact. Which may lead to a much longer discussion for further understanding despite being a "clear answer".
5e is cluttered with half-answers or simply no answers. This is an example of either of the two depending on how you look at it.
Overall I know what JC would say on the subject....."ASK YOUR DM" which is what everyone should be doing anyway.
That means, by RAW, we all HAVE to use actual real physical dice in order to play the game AND we can find them at game stores and many book stores. So no more digital dice rollers or we are breaking the rules. That’s a rule in the books. RAW. And rules are rules that we have to follow blindly and interpret in the most simplistic way imaginable. It does say we “can” find them, so that might be optional according to RAW, but if we do choose to find them in book stores we have to find them in many book stores, not just one, or we are cheating.
Hehe polyhedral dice can be physical or virtual, the rules quoted never specify the dice have to be one of them specifically.
This entire run away thread is because of how several of us interpret what is standard or not, RAW or not, and allowed or not.
I'm telling you all that UNLESS a DM says otherwise, companions make death saving throws. By default. Period. I said that in the starting post. A DM has to go out of their way to use the power that they have (and have over everything in the game all of the time anyway, regardless of what little info drop the book gives us) to take that away from the companion. The burden of that being known is on the DM telling it to the player, not on the player asking the DM.
That means, by RAW, we all HAVE to use actual real physical dice in order to play the game AND we can find them at game stores and many book stores. So no more digital dice rollers or we are breaking the rules. That’s a rule in the books. RAW. And rules are rules that we have to follow blindly and interpret in the most simplistic way imaginable. It does say we “can” find them, so that might be optional according to RAW, but if we do choose to find them in book stores we have to find them in many book stores, not just one, or we are cheating.
Hehe polyhedral dice can be physical or virtual, the rules quoted never specify the dice have to be one of them specifically.
Incorrect. The rules clearly state (RAW) that the game uses polyhedral dice with different numbers of sides. Virtual dice dice have no sides. They are virtual. Ergo, we HAVE to use physical dice or break the rules of the game.
Ask your DM what dice you should use.
Bottomline that is ALWAYS the best answer.....ask your DM.
That means, by RAW, we all HAVE to use actual real physical dice in order to play the game AND we can find them at game stores and many book stores. So no more digital dice rollers or we are breaking the rules. That’s a rule in the books. RAW. And rules are rules that we have to follow blindly and interpret in the most simplistic way imaginable. It does say we “can” find them, so that might be optional according to RAW, but if we do choose to find them in book stores we have to find them in many book stores, not just one, or we are cheating.
Hehe polyhedral dice can be physical or virtual, the rules quoted never specify the dice have to be one of them specifically.
Incorrect. The rules clearly state (RAW) that the game uses polyhedral dice with different numbers of sides. Virtual dice dice have no sides. They are virtual. Ergo, we HAVE to use physical dice or break the rules of the game.
Virtual polehydral dice have virtual sides at a rate of 1 per number. You can even see them on some online dice roller , like Roll20 ☺
That means, by RAW, we all HAVE to use actual real physical dice in order to play the game AND we can find them at game stores and many book stores. So no more digital dice rollers or we are breaking the rules. That’s a rule in the books. RAW. And rules are rules that we have to follow blindly and interpret in the most simplistic way imaginable. It does say we “can” find them, so that might be optional according to RAW, but if we do choose to find them in book stores we have to find them in many book stores, not just one, or we are cheating.
Well, at least we've confirmed you've been trolling the whole time...
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.
I hate to tell you this. But the Venn diagram example your trying to use is wrong. Both a Draft Horse and a War Horse are a horse. They are nothing but a horse. They are found entirely and only within the horse circle. They are only different when they are seperated out by specific criteria (such as the purpose they are bred and trained for to the point that War Horse is technically a misnomer because War Horses are of many kinds based upon the work that they were bred for and not even close to only one kind of horse, They are simply horses bred for a type of job and trained to do that type of job in a combat setting, Draft Horses were commonly used as War Horses in Europe from the Middle Ages onward for example) . However. Characters are Called out specifically as separate from monsters no matter how much you try to argue otherwise. they are something made by players. They may have overlap with some things that are monsters called NPC's that can use the same rules for building. But that is a subset of Monsters that overlaps with Characters. Characters are in fact their separate and their own stand alone thing and are not monsters. No matter how hard you try to shoe horning them into being Monsters.
In a Ven Diagram you would have Two seperate Circles listed Characters and MOnsters. Their overlapping area would consist of Non-Player Characters that use rules specifically to Characters that are presented in the PHB to be made but not made by a Character, and Monsters made by Players but not by the rules presented in the PHB for player Characters or monsters made by Players but not by Player Character rules. The Section of the Characters Circle that is outside of the Overlap would Firmly be the Player Characters. The section for Monsters would be all the other Creatures that are not made by Players and are not done using Player Character Rules. Which is why the books are specifically called the PLAYER HANDBOOK and the MONSTER MANUAL is a Separate book that does not ACTUALLY COVER anything for PLAYER CHARACTERS in general but might apply very limited things in Specific only by rules exception. This is also why the Creature's Statistics portion of the Players Handbook states they are only included in the book that doesn't really pertain to them for easy convenience reference and All rules governing how they work and how to read their stat-blocks is actually in the Book Designed to deal with them which is the Monster Manual.
"Spells and class features allow characters to transform into animals, summon creatures to serve as familiars, and create undead. Statistics for such creatures are grouped in this appendix for your convenience. For information on how to read a stat block, see the Monster Manual."
This is the very first thing stated in Apendix D and even it blatantly states that they are different and Separate from Player Characters. Further Outright Separation is in the Section that is outright Quoted by Quindraco in Chapter 9, Under a Section heading of Monsters and Death. Making an Exception to the normal rules and how Player Characters actually work that DM's can follow. It would not need this Rules Specificity stated in this fashion if Player Characters and Monsters were indeed the same thing. You would actually need an exception made for Player Characters as a subset of Monsters Allowing for Death Saving Throws instead. Because Having most DM's have them Drop Dead instead of the book keeping of death saving throws would be the Standard and Rolling would be the exception rather than the other way around. But this section is presented from the Viewpoint of the Standard for Player Characters and how Many DM's can instead handle the same thing for the separate grouping that is Monsters.
All the rest of your argument about them having to be monsters is Pedantic misdirection and major misinterpretation to both the definitions we are given, and the way that the information is presented to us.
I believe the actual definitions are both important and unimportant. I agree there is a lot of pedantic-ness to this whole conversation that's what happens when two lawyers a have to determine what a legal document says. The only reason it matters is because some people are stating that rules exist for certain types but not others. This is why we need the definitions to show that they are not really separate except in their specialized stat blocks and access. A player gets a Race a class and a set of features all to make up their stat block. Monsters have their own stat blocks. That is the only difference.
now for the ven diagram. The definitions on it are not just character and monster. The horse example shows my point of non-player characters (NPC) and player characters (pcs) being both part of characters. The game also specifically mentions NPCs who do not have stats (NPC section of dmg) those are not monsters because they have "no stats" for fighting or interacting with. There is also the term adventurer. this is loose and used limited through out the game. 3.5 specifically calls out this term.(i know 3.5 not 5e so it shows a past standard definition but since we dont actually have a definition only tied descriptors this is the best we have)
adventuring party
A group of characters who adventure together. An adventuring party is composed of player characters plus any followers, familiars, animal companions, associates, cohorts, or hirelings they might have.
by several 5E modules the term adventurer is directly used as a profession not always a player character. and this seems in line with the concept that character just defines the importance to the story/campaign. because both npcs and pcs are characters(aka important actors in the narrative). when all of this is put together it indicates that death at zero is unintended for Adventuring party members.
"Spells and class features allow characters to transform into animals, summon creatures to serve as familiars, and create undead. Statistics for such creatures are grouped in this appendix for your convenience. For information on how to read a stat block, see the Monster Manual." This is the exact opposite of a division of rules for monsters and pcs. It is literally saying that a PC can be a monster(via transformation) they are still a PC though. The only difference between a PC and an NPC is whether a dm or player is responsible for the actions. and a monster is a thing with stats that is all nothing more nothing less. Monsters have no special rules for them (beyond their stat blocks).
Look at the sidekick rules for PCS you literally take a monster stat block and turn it into a player character? if the changes made to the stat block for sidekick use move it from one category to the other (opposed to being part of both) Then you must conclude that The PHB beast companion is A PC.
A dm can use fiat to instant kill anything but when they do they are not following the general rules set out making it equivalent to homebrew.
The fact you two have written a small book on the subject is definitely proof there is NOT a clear answer and it should likely be left up to the DM on how to handle...which is exactly as we have stated from page 1.
Bottom line is if you do not like the idea of your companion not getting death saves make sure to ask your DM how they would rule it BEFORE picking the subclass and make your decision about the subclass and the game from there.
False Equivalency argument. Proof of something is not always something that can be stated in a quick easy sentence with a maximum word requirement.
Often even "clear answers" can require quite a bit of text. it's actually one of the fundamental flaws of things like Communication of many concepts through Twitter and why Message boards fundamentally allow for a lot more words to be used.
Though the sentiment of asking the DM how they choose to handle a particular aspects like animal companions is a fair assessment regardless of that fact. Which may lead to a much longer discussion for further understanding despite being a "clear answer".
This is why I appreciate your input. Even when we disagree you approach it from "look at the rules" not the debate tactics. I believe we are both trying to get to the way the game was intended to be played. You focus on the game and the rules not how much you like or agree with the speaker.
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?
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?
It doesn't say that.
It doesn't say monsters?
It 100% does say "monsters".
because that's the only part I was quoting,
Alright.
the rest was just paraphrasing, which would be clear from the context.
Yes, it was very clear. But your paraphrase was inaccurate, and I replied appropriately.
You should probably read the whole thing instead of just assuming things which aren't true. I was specifically replying to a claim falsely equating "monsters" and PCs.
What are you claiming I assumed which wasn't true?
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?
It doesn't say that.
It doesn't say monsters?
It 100% does say "monsters".
because that's the only part I was quoting,
Alright.
the rest was just paraphrasing, which would be clear from the context.
Yes, it was very clear. But your paraphrase was inaccurate, and I replied appropriately.
No it wasn't, so you reply was a complete non sequitur.
You should probably read the whole thing instead of just assuming things which aren't true. I was specifically replying to a claim falsely equating "monsters" and PCs.
What are you claiming I assumed which wasn't true?
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.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It doesn't say monsters? because that's the only part I was quoting, the rest was just paraphrasing, which would be clear from the context. You should probably read the whole thing instead of just assuming things which aren't true. I was specifically replying to a claim falsely equating "monsters" and PCs.
Agree to that part.
There is a rule that allows that, yes.
Has anyone claimed that this is an issue? If not, why the strawman?
In this case there is a stated exception allowed by the rule.
Exactly, this rule allows for the exception.
Class abilities are not player characters, no.
Sidekicks are sidekicks and companions are companions, they are not player characters.
Not sure how this is even relevant. A lot of game don't even use XP.
Again, quite unclear what this "loophole" should be or what it has to do with anything?
Irrelevant but true. ;)
I hate to tell you this. But the Venn diagram example your trying to use is wrong. Both a Draft Horse and a War Horse are a horse. They are nothing but a horse. They are found entirely and only within the horse circle. They are only different when they are seperated out by specific criteria (such as the purpose they are bred and trained for to the point that War Horse is technically a misnomer because War Horses are of many kinds based upon the work that they were bred for and not even close to only one kind of horse, They are simply horses bred for a type of job and trained to do that type of job in a combat setting, Draft Horses were commonly used as War Horses in Europe from the Middle Ages onward for example) . However. Characters are Called out specifically as separate from monsters no matter how much you try to argue otherwise. they are something made by players. They may have overlap with some things that are monsters called NPC's that can use the same rules for building. But that is a subset of Monsters that overlaps with Characters. Characters are in fact their separate and their own stand alone thing and are not monsters. No matter how hard you try to shoe horning them into being Monsters.
In a Ven Diagram you would have Two seperate Circles listed Characters and MOnsters. Their overlapping area would consist of Non-Player Characters that use rules specifically to Characters that are presented in the PHB to be made but not made by a Character, and Monsters made by Players but not by the rules presented in the PHB for player Characters or monsters made by Players but not by Player Character rules. The Section of the Characters Circle that is outside of the Overlap would Firmly be the Player Characters. The section for Monsters would be all the other Creatures that are not made by Players and are not done using Player Character Rules. Which is why the books are specifically called the PLAYER HANDBOOK and the MONSTER MANUAL is a Separate book that does not ACTUALLY COVER anything for PLAYER CHARACTERS in general but might apply very limited things in Specific only by rules exception. This is also why the Creature's Statistics portion of the Players Handbook states they are only included in the book that doesn't really pertain to them for easy convenience reference and All rules governing how they work and how to read their stat-blocks is actually in the Book Designed to deal with them which is the Monster Manual.
This is the very first thing stated in Apendix D and even it blatantly states that they are different and Separate from Player Characters. Further Outright Separation is in the Section that is outright Quoted by Quindraco in Chapter 9, Under a Section heading of Monsters and Death. Making an Exception to the normal rules and how Player Characters actually work that DM's can follow. It would not need this Rules Specificity stated in this fashion if Player Characters and Monsters were indeed the same thing. You would actually need an exception made for Player Characters as a subset of Monsters Allowing for Death Saving Throws instead. Because Having most DM's have them Drop Dead instead of the book keeping of death saving throws would be the Standard and Rolling would be the exception rather than the other way around. But this section is presented from the Viewpoint of the Standard for Player Characters and how Many DM's can instead handle the same thing for the separate grouping that is Monsters.
All the rest of your argument about them having to be monsters is Pedantic misdirection and major misinterpretation to both the definitions we are given, and the way that the information is presented to us.
The Monster Manual for Example does cover various things that are not necessarily enemies. It Covers basic stat blocks for all kinds of potential Non Player Characters that don't technically go to the extent of using player character rules. But the True technicality is that they are not actually Non-Player Characters if they don't use the Player Character Rules to be built. They are actually just friendly creatures/monsters that we interact with. And most that we interact with have no need to actually be anything more than that.
The fact you two have written a small book on the subject is definitely proof there is NOT a clear answer and it should likely be left up to the DM on how to handle...which is exactly as we have stated from page 1.
Bottom line is if you do not like the idea of your companion not getting death saves make sure to ask your DM how they would rule it BEFORE picking the subclass and make your decision about the subclass and the game from there.
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).
False Equivalency argument. Proof of something is not always something that can be stated in a quick easy sentence with a maximum word requirement.
Often even "clear answers" can require quite a bit of text. it's actually one of the fundamental flaws of things like Communication of many concepts through Twitter and why Message boards fundamentally allow for a lot more words to be used.
Though the sentiment of asking the DM how they choose to handle a particular aspects like animal companions is a fair assessment regardless of that fact. Which may lead to a much longer discussion for further understanding despite being a "clear answer".
5e is cluttered with half-answers or simply no answers. This is an example of either of the two depending on how you look at it.
Overall I know what JC would say on the subject....."ASK YOUR DM" which is what everyone should be doing anyway.
Hehe polyhedral dice can be physical or virtual, the rules quoted never specify the dice have to be one of them specifically.
More of the game is NOT defined than is.
This entire run away thread is because of how several of us interpret what is standard or not, RAW or not, and allowed or not.
I'm telling you all that UNLESS a DM says otherwise, companions make death saving throws. By default. Period. I said that in the starting post. A DM has to go out of their way to use the power that they have (and have over everything in the game all of the time anyway, regardless of what little info drop the book gives us) to take that away from the companion. The burden of that being known is on the DM telling it to the player, not on the player asking the DM.
Ask your DM what dice you should use.
Bottomline that is ALWAYS the best answer.....ask your DM.
Virtual polehydral dice have virtual sides at a rate of 1 per number. You can even see them on some online dice roller , like Roll20 ☺
The rules as written NEVER make the allowance for anything but dice. Virtual dice are, as their name implies, not dice.
Strikethrough emphasis mine
Well, at least we've confirmed you've been trolling the whole time...
I believe the actual definitions are both important and unimportant. I agree there is a lot of pedantic-ness to this whole conversation that's what happens when two lawyers a have to determine what a legal document says. The only reason it matters is because some people are stating that rules exist for certain types but not others. This is why we need the definitions to show that they are not really separate except in their specialized stat blocks and access. A player gets a Race a class and a set of features all to make up their stat block. Monsters have their own stat blocks. That is the only difference.
now for the ven diagram. The definitions on it are not just character and monster. The horse example shows my point of non-player characters (NPC) and player characters (pcs) being both part of characters. The game also specifically mentions NPCs who do not have stats (NPC section of dmg) those are not monsters because they have "no stats" for fighting or interacting with. There is also the term adventurer. this is loose and used limited through out the game. 3.5 specifically calls out this term.(i know 3.5 not 5e so it shows a past standard definition but since we dont actually have a definition only tied descriptors this is the best we have)
A group of characters who adventure together. An adventuring party is composed of player characters plus any followers, familiars, animal companions, associates, cohorts, or hirelings they might have.
Source: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_adventuringparty&alpha=
by several 5E modules the term adventurer is directly used as a profession not always a player character. and this seems in line with the concept that character just defines the importance to the story/campaign. because both npcs and pcs are characters(aka important actors in the narrative). when all of this is put together it indicates that death at zero is unintended for Adventuring party members.
"Spells and class features allow characters to transform into animals, summon creatures to serve as familiars, and create undead. Statistics for such creatures are grouped in this appendix for your convenience. For information on how to read a stat block, see the Monster Manual." This is the exact opposite of a division of rules for monsters and pcs. It is literally saying that a PC can be a monster(via transformation) they are still a PC though. The only difference between a PC and an NPC is whether a dm or player is responsible for the actions. and a monster is a thing with stats that is all nothing more nothing less. Monsters have no special rules for them (beyond their stat blocks).
Look at the sidekick rules for PCS you literally take a monster stat block and turn it into a player character? if the changes made to the stat block for sidekick use move it from one category to the other (opposed to being part of both) Then you must conclude that The PHB beast companion is A PC.
A dm can use fiat to instant kill anything but when they do they are not following the general rules set out making it equivalent to homebrew.
This is why I appreciate your input. Even when we disagree you approach it from "look at the rules" not the debate tactics. I believe we are both trying to get to the way the game was intended to be played. You focus on the game and the rules not how much you like or agree with the speaker.
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?
I think this thread has failed 3 death saves by now.
It 100% does say "monsters".
Alright.
Yes, it was very clear. But your paraphrase was inaccurate, and I replied appropriately.
What are you claiming I assumed which wasn't true?
No it wasn't, so you reply was a complete non sequitur.
I'm not claiming anything.
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.
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.