If you keep rolling after 3 of a kind, you could potentially survive many rounds beyond that by cumulating success, which i don't think it's intended to make 7+ death saving throws. While Suffocation rules are unclear about 3 success result, the Death saving throws are clear that you keep track until you roll 3 of a kind.
RAW while dying you make Death saving throw untill you have;
3 success: You become stable
3 failures: You die.
So in light of this, you either have the creature die by being unable to become stable or keep rolling Death saves even if the rules say you don't keep track after 3 of a kind.
Is there some problem with having the creature rolling 7+ death saves other than you not liking it?
It is certainly better than having creatures die for invented, non-textual reasons other than failing death saves -- simply because someone can't figure out that continuing to roll would be the most straightforward option.
Is there some problem with having the creature rolling 7+ death saves other than you not liking it?
It is certainly better than having creatures die for invented, non-textual reasons other than failing death saves -- simply because someone can't figure out that continuing to roll would be the most straightforward option.
I don't have a problem other than the fact it run contrary to what's written that's all.
The reason i say you die is because it's not intended for you to track 4+ success or remain dying indefinitly.
RAW Suffocation is unclear what happen upon reaching 3 successso at this point DM must adjucate one way or another.
Is there some problem with having the creature rolling 7+ death saves other than you not liking it?
It is certainly better than having creatures die for invented, non-textual reasons other than failing death saves -- simply because someone can't figure out that continuing to roll would be the most straightforward option.
I don't have a problem other than the fact it run contrary to what's written that's all....
But you are fine with dying before reaching 3 failures, even though that is exactly contrary to what is written? Your opinion means that if you roll 3 successes in a row, you die. That is a dumb conclusion.
You are taking that sentence that tells you how to track too literally. It is certainly plainly obvious that the rules want you to collect them until either you stabilize or you die. Usually, that would be at 3 of either.
If collecting three of one kind doesn't do anything, then the most obvious thing is to continue collecting until you collect 3 of the kind that will have some effect.
From PHB, Chapter 9: Combat, Death Saving Throws, Stabilizing a Creature
A stable creature doesn't make death saving throws, even though it has 0 hit points, but it does remain unconscious. The creature stops being stable, and must start making death saving throws again, if it takes any damage. A stable creature that isn't healed regains 1 hit point after 1d4 hours.
Treat being unconscious and unable to breath due to drowning the same way as taking any damage, then the Death Saving Throw process begins all over again to be resolved until success or failure.
This is a case where the specific rule in suffocating (i.e. can't regain hit points or be stabilized until it can breathe again) overrides the more general rule on death saving throws (i.e. on your 3rd success you become stable)
Since you cannot become stable then the death save counter never resets. The death saving throw rules clearly state "The number of both is reset to zero when you regain any hit points or become stable."
There is no support in the rules for dying as a result of passing death saving throws. It is illogical to have someone be better off passing twice and failing once compared to 3 successes.
Per the rules "you keep track of both until collect three of a kind". A fourth success is only relevant in that it is not a failure, the success count remains at 3. However, if the drowning person is removed from the water they will stabilize as they have 3 successes.
As long as the person remains suffocating they will continue to make death saving throws but nothing resets. Once they hit a 3rd failure they die.
Treat being unconscious and unable to breath due to drowning the same way as taking any damage, then the Death Saving Throw process begins all over again to be resolved until success or failure.
Drowning doesn't deal damage, i'd be more incline to continue to track them rather than restart the process as it extend the process by another 5+ more rounds
And if you reach 3 success before 3 failure again, you would go another 5+ rounds etc... and so so. It's certainly not intended.
Is there some problem with having the creature rolling 7+ death saves other than you not liking it?
It is certainly better than having creatures die for invented, non-textual reasons other than failing death saves -- simply because someone can't figure out that continuing to roll would be the most straightforward option.
I don't have a problem other than the fact it run contrary to what's written that's all....
But you are fine with dying before reaching 3 failures, even though that is exactly contrary to what is written? Your opinion means that if you roll 3 successes in a row, you die. That is a dumb conclusion.
You are taking that sentence that tells you how to track too literally. It is certainly plainly obvious that the rules want you to collect them until either you stabilize or you die. Usually, that would be at 3 of either.
I take it literally as it literally says that because you normally stabilize after 3 success.
Nothing say that you don't die when you're dying and you can't stabilize at the end of the Death saving throw tracking process so it's not contrary to it. It just doesn't say what happen in this corner case so at this point DM must adjucate one way or another.
Right. nothing says that, it also doesn't say that you die if you haven't reached 3 failures. It is obvious that you wouldn't die until you get to 3 failures.
I mean, why do you keep insisting that you do something the rules don't tell you to do, rather than doing what the rules tell you to do or making the obvious conclusion from what apparently you don't think makes sense?
If you even take the time to read the first half of the sentence, it tells you why it says what it does: you don't need to make the passes or failures consecutively, so the rest of the sentence is explaining the normal circumstances of what to do. Drowning changes only the part on stabilizing.
Right. nothing says that, it also doesn't say that you die if you haven't reached 3 failures. It is obvious that you wouldn't die until you get to 3 failures.
It doesn't say that it says you dont keep track though, which is what tells you you die. If you dont keep track past 3 success, you can make a 3rd failure and die.
I mean, why do you keep insisting that you do something the rules don't tell you to do, rather than doing what the rules tell you to do or making the obvious conclusion from what apparently you don't think makes sense?
If you even take the time to read the first half of the sentence, it tells you why it says what it does: you don't need to make the passes or failures consecutively, so the rest of the sentence is explaining the normal circumstances of what to do. Drowning changes only the part on stabilizing.
The rules dont tell you to keep rolling after 3 of a kind. You are the one saying that despite the rules saying you dont keep track past that pojnt.
RAW you can't stabilize after 3 success but doesn't roll Death saves anymore. Suffocating leaves you do die as a sensible conclusion.
I mean, why do you keep insisting that you do something the rules don't tell you to do, rather than doing what the rules tell you to do or making the obvious conclusion from what apparently you don't think makes sense?
If you even take the time to read the first half of the sentence, it tells you why it says what it does: you don't need to make the passes or failures consecutively, so the rest of the sentence is explaining the normal circumstances of what to do. Drowning changes only the part on stabilizing.
The rules dont tell you to keep rolling after 3 of a kind. You are the one saying that despite the rules saying you dont keep track past that pojnt.
RAW you can't stabilize after 3 success but doesn't roll Death saves anymore. Suffocating leaves you do die as a sensible conclusion.
Yes it does. If you start your turn with 0 hp and you are not stable - you make death saving throws. It's the very first sentence of the rule.
If you're drowning and your reach 3 successes - you can't stabilise. So you're still at 0hp and you still start your turn - so you still need to make death saving throws.
Right. nothing says that, it also doesn't say that you die if you haven't reached 3 failures. It is obvious that you wouldn't die until you get to 3 failures.
It doesn't say that it says you dont keep track though, which is what tells you you die. If you dont keep track past 3 success, you can make a 3rd failure and die.
I mean, why do you keep insisting that you do something the rules don't tell you to do, rather than doing what the rules tell you to do or making the obvious conclusion from what apparently you don't think makes sense?
If you even take the time to read the first half of the sentence, it tells you why it says what it does: you don't need to make the passes or failures consecutively, so the rest of the sentence is explaining the normal circumstances of what to do. Drowning changes only the part on stabilizing.
The rules dont tell you to keep rolling after 3 of a kind. You are the one saying that despite the rules saying you dont keep track past that pojnt.
RAW you can't stabilize after 3 success but doesn't roll Death saves anymore. Suffocating leaves you do die as a sensible conclusion.
You might think it is sensible, but the problem is that it is entirely your invention. The only way to die from death saves is only by collecting 3 failures. Or are you telling me that the rules say something different?
So you are saying that At most a player underwater/unable to breathe and taking death saves, at most can survive 5 rounds? i.e 2 fails, 2 successes and then a final 5th nail in the coffin, regardless of whether ultimately that's a successful set or failed set of death saves?
Thanks M
No. You die at three failed death saves, and you drown until you accumulate them.
So it's as I initially answered you. You can survive indefinitely while suffocating (if you keep making successes), but you die at 3 death save failures.
Yes it does. If you start your turn with 0 hp and you are not stable - you make death saving throws. It's the very first sentence of the rule.
If you're drowning and your reach 3 successes - you can't stabilise. So you're still at 0hp and you still start your turn - so you still need to make death saving throws.
You don't keep track of Death saves after 3 success, so you won't ever have a 3rd failure to die according to the Death saving throw rules as written.
I mean, if you want to read the rules literally, then exactly. But at least that conclusion is one you could make from the rules actually presented. There is no rule that says that if you can’t stabilize, you automatically die. There is no rule that caps the number of death saves that you make. There is no rule that says that you die while making death saves from anything other than collecting three failures.
But if you don’t get hung up on that turn of phrase that explains the previous part of the sentence, then it is clear what happens. You don’t need to collect your successes or failures consecutively, you keep track until you gain 3 of a kind. Which kind? the kind that ends the situation where you have 0hp and not stable at the start of your turn but also aren’t dead (having not collected 3 failures yet). Usually that would be either kind, unless, of course, something prevented you from stabilizing after 3 successes. Then the only kind of 3 that matters is failures.
You might think it is sensible, but the problem is that it is entirely your invention. The only way to die from death saves is only by collecting 3 failures. Or are you telling me that the rules say something different?
It is not my invention but what the rules literally says; RAW you don't keep track of Death saves after 3 of a kind and you can't stabilize while Suffocating.
The invention is to have Death saves run after getting 3 of a kind. You normally die at 3 failure but you also normally stabilize after 3 success. Suffocating preventing you from becoming stable doesn't change the fact that you don't keep track of Death saves after 3 of a kind. Or are you telling me that the rules say something different?
Since you only track Death saves until you get 3 of a kind and that the only possible outcome is to die or become stable, which you can't while Suffocating, the logical outcome left is to die from a rule stand point.
But it doesn't say so explicitly, only that you can't become stable. The Suffocating rules doesn't address the fact that you don't keep track of Death saves after 3 of a kind. It's what Dan you and i would possibly do, but it's not what the rules are telling you to do.
I mean, if you want to read the rules literally, then exactly. But at least that conclusion is one you could make from the rules actually presented. There is no rule that says that if you can’t stabilize, you automatically die. There is no rule that caps the number of death saves that you make. There is no rule that says that you die while making death saves from anything other than collecting three failures.
But if you don’t get hung up on that turn of phrase that explains the previous part of the sentence, then it is clear what happens. You don’t need to collect your successes or failures consecutively, you keep track until you gain 3 of a kind. Which kind? the kind that ends the situation where you have 0hp and not stable at the start of your turn but also aren’t dead (having not collected 3 failures yet). Usually that would be either kind, unless, of course, something prevented you from stabilizing after 3 successes. Then the only kind of 3 that matters is failures.
The 3 of a kind is 3 success or failure. It doesn't say you keep making Death saves until you die or become stable, but until you get 3 success or 3 failure. It says that because its the outcome that generally occur. But wether it does or not, never does the rule say you keep tracking after 3. In the case of Suffocation, 3 success doesn't give the normal result. But it doesn't change the fact that the Death saving throw rules themselves say to keep track until 3 success or failure.
If they would say you keep track until you die or become stable, we wouldn't even have this exchange.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No. Not at all. The rules on death saves are crystal clear on that. You die when you fail 3 death saves.
If you keep rolling after 3 of a kind, you could potentially survive many rounds beyond that by cumulating success, which i don't think it's intended to make 7+ death saving throws. While Suffocation rules are unclear about 3 success result, the Death saving throws are clear that you keep track until you roll 3 of a kind.
RAW while dying you make Death saving throw untill you have;
3 success: You
become stable3 failures: You die.
So in light of this, you either have the creature die by being unable to become stable or keep rolling Death saves even if the rules say you don't keep track after 3 of a kind.
Is there some problem with having the creature rolling 7+ death saves other than you not liking it?
It is certainly better than having creatures die for invented, non-textual reasons other than failing death saves -- simply because someone can't figure out that continuing to roll would be the most straightforward option.
I don't have a problem other than the fact it run contrary to what's written that's all.
The reason i say you die is because it's not intended for you to track 4+ success or remain dying indefinitly.
RAW Suffocation is unclear what happen upon reaching 3 successso at this point DM must adjucate one way or another.
But you are fine with dying before reaching 3 failures, even though that is exactly contrary to what is written? Your opinion means that if you roll 3 successes in a row, you die. That is a dumb conclusion.
You are taking that sentence that tells you how to track too literally. It is certainly plainly obvious that the rules want you to collect them until either you stabilize or you die. Usually, that would be at 3 of either.
Dan Dillon seems to read it like I do.
If collecting three of one kind doesn't do anything, then the most obvious thing is to continue collecting until you collect 3 of the kind that will have some effect.
From PHB, Chapter 9: Combat, Death Saving Throws, Stabilizing a Creature
A stable creature doesn't make death saving throws, even though it has 0 hit points, but it does remain unconscious. The creature stops being stable, and must start making death saving throws again, if it takes any damage. A stable creature that isn't healed regains 1 hit point after 1d4 hours.
Treat being unconscious and unable to breath due to drowning the same way as taking any damage, then the Death Saving Throw process begins all over again to be resolved until success or failure.
This is a case where the specific rule in suffocating (i.e. can't regain hit points or be stabilized until it can breathe again) overrides the more general rule on death saving throws (i.e. on your 3rd success you become stable)
Since you cannot become stable then the death save counter never resets. The death saving throw rules clearly state "The number of both is reset to zero when you regain any hit points or become stable."
There is no support in the rules for dying as a result of passing death saving throws. It is illogical to have someone be better off passing twice and failing once compared to 3 successes.
Per the rules "you keep track of both until collect three of a kind". A fourth success is only relevant in that it is not a failure, the success count remains at 3. However, if the drowning person is removed from the water they will stabilize as they have 3 successes.
As long as the person remains suffocating they will continue to make death saving throws but nothing resets. Once they hit a 3rd failure they die.
Drowning doesn't deal damage, i'd be more incline to continue to track them rather than restart the process as it extend the process by another 5+ more rounds
And if you reach 3 success before 3 failure again, you would go another 5+ rounds etc... and so so. It's certainly not intended.
I take it literally as it literally says that because you normally stabilize after 3 success.
Nothing say that you don't die when you're dying and you can't stabilize at the end of the Death saving throw tracking process so it's not contrary to it. It just doesn't say what happen in this corner case so at this point DM must adjucate one way or another.
Right. nothing says that, it also doesn't say that you die if you haven't reached 3 failures. It is obvious that you wouldn't die until you get to 3 failures.
I mean, why do you keep insisting that you do something the rules don't tell you to do, rather than doing what the rules tell you to do or making the obvious conclusion from what apparently you don't think makes sense?
If you even take the time to read the first half of the sentence, it tells you why it says what it does: you don't need to make the passes or failures consecutively, so the rest of the sentence is explaining the normal circumstances of what to do. Drowning changes only the part on stabilizing.
It doesn't say that it says you dont keep track though, which is what tells you you die. If you dont keep track past 3 success, you can make a 3rd failure and die.
The rules dont tell you to keep rolling after 3 of a kind. You are the one saying that despite the rules saying you dont keep track past that pojnt.
RAW you can't stabilize after 3 success but doesn't roll Death saves anymore. Suffocating leaves you do die as a sensible conclusion.
Yes it does. If you start your turn with 0 hp and you are not stable - you make death saving throws. It's the very first sentence of the rule.
If you're drowning and your reach 3 successes - you can't stabilise. So you're still at 0hp and you still start your turn - so you still need to make death saving throws.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
You might think it is sensible, but the problem is that it is entirely your invention. The only way to die from death saves is only by collecting 3 failures. Or are you telling me that the rules say something different?
No. You die at three failed death saves, and you drown until you accumulate them.
The suffocation rules force you to to be at 0 hit points and dying, and make you immune to being healed or stabilized.
Being at 0 hit points and dying requires you to make death saving throws. You keep track of successes until you have 3 successes and you keep track of failures until you have three failures. Having three failures kills you.
So it's as I initially answered you. You can survive indefinitely while suffocating (if you keep making successes), but you die at 3 death save failures.
You don't keep track of Death saves after 3 success, so you won't ever have a 3rd failure to die according to the Death saving throw rules as written.
I mean, if you want to read the rules literally, then exactly. But at least that conclusion is one you could make from the rules actually presented. There is no rule that says that if you can’t stabilize, you automatically die. There is no rule that caps the number of death saves that you make. There is no rule that says that you die while making death saves from anything other than collecting three failures.
But if you don’t get hung up on that turn of phrase that explains the previous part of the sentence, then it is clear what happens. You don’t need to collect your successes or failures consecutively, you keep track until you gain 3 of a kind. Which kind? the kind that ends the situation where you have 0hp and not stable at the start of your turn but also aren’t dead (having not collected 3 failures yet). Usually that would be either kind, unless, of course, something prevented you from stabilizing after 3 successes. Then the only kind of 3 that matters is failures.
It is not my invention but what the rules literally says; RAW you don't keep track of Death saves after 3 of a kind and you can't stabilize while Suffocating.
The invention is to have Death saves run after getting 3 of a kind. You normally die at 3 failure but you also normally stabilize after 3 success. Suffocating preventing you from becoming stable doesn't change the fact that you don't keep track of Death saves after 3 of a kind. Or are you telling me that the rules say something different?
Since you only track Death saves until you get 3 of a kind and that the only possible outcome is to die or become stable, which you can't while Suffocating, the logical outcome left is to die from a rule stand point.
But it doesn't say so explicitly, only that you can't become stable. The Suffocating rules doesn't address the fact that you don't keep track of Death saves after 3 of a kind. It's what Dan you and i would possibly do, but it's not what the rules are telling you to do.
The 3 of a kind is 3 success or failure. It doesn't say you keep making Death saves until you die or become stable, but until you get 3 success or 3 failure. It says that because its the outcome that generally occur. But wether it does or not, never does the rule say you keep tracking after 3. In the case of Suffocation, 3 success doesn't give the normal result. But it doesn't change the fact that the Death saving throw rules themselves say to keep track until 3 success or failure.
If they would say you keep track until you die or become stable, we wouldn't even have this exchange.