So I'm the DM running a session with two players. They are a married couple and are playing orcs. Last session we had a great game where they were on a long journey and set up camp for the night when they heard a strange sound. They decided the male character would stay back and set up camp while the female character went to investigate, because the male character was wearing armor that gave him disadvantage on stealth. The female character discovered a goblin shaman doing a ritual in the woods. He had a little Kobald in a cash hanging from a tree, and was summoning a shadow entity in his ritual fire. The female character decided to try to save the kobold, and accidentally alerted the goblin shaman. She ran back to camp, the goblin shaman followed, and then both the male and female PCs fought the goblin shaman until he died.
After the shaman was dead, they looted his body, found various enchanted items, his armor, his gri-gri, and a bag of salts the Shaman was using in the ritual. They also talked with the kobald they rescued. Learned what he had to share, gave him some leather armor, cooked meat on the fire, and decided to salt it using the bag of salt they found. Then, they decided to take a long rest for the night, and we ended the session.
After the session everyone agreed it was a fun session. And I explained to the PCs that they had many options concerning the shaman. They could have waited and let him carry out the full ritual to see what happened, and they could have befriended him, which would have been beneficial because he could enchant items for them. They expressed regret in fighting him, saying they wished they would have known that, because they wanted him to enchant some items. Then, we all left it at that.
HERE'S WHERE THE CONTROVERSY BEGINS:
Later that day I receive a phone call from the male PC saying that when we start the next session, it should be before they take their long rest, because they have a plan and have come with an idea they want to try. Since we hadn't necessarily played out their long rest yet, and just ended on saying they were about to take the long rest, I said that would be fine.
Well, we begin the next session, and the PCs announce their plan: The female PC has Spare the Dying as a cantrip. Their plan is to bring the shaman back to life, and force him to enchant items for them. They say, even if he doesn't agree, they are going to imprison him, torture him, kill him and bring him back to life as many times as they have to, until eventually he enchants the items they want.
I then explain that the shaman is not just unconscious, he's dead. The male PC asks if I rolled the death rolls to confirm that. I say no, I haven't, but all six death saves would have passed after only a minute. They have already waited much longer than it would have taken to do the death saves, so he's dead. I'm not going to rewind time and roll the death rolls, to see if he would have actually survived, when in the timeline we're playing up until now, he's dead.
The male PC then accuses me of Meta Gaming, saying I'm just "making a decision" not actually rolling the dice for the death saves, because I don't want to let them do what they want. In truth, I when I ruled that he was dead and well passed death rolls, I thought they were talking about a resurrection spell. I didn't even know it was going to mess up their plan.
Then we got into an argument in which the male PC claimed that when he is DMing he ALWAYS rolls all the death saves for EVERY NPC monster that EVER dies in his campaigns. I have played in his campaigns, and this is ridiculous nonesense. I have no evidence he's actually rolling death saves for every monster we kill.
So my questions are thus: 1) Are DMs rolling death saves for every monster their PCs kill? 2) If PCs wait until minutes after a monster is dead, and the DM hasn't rolled death saves for the monster, isn't it just considered dead at that point? 3) Am I meta gaming for not going back in time and rolling the death rolls, or are they meta gaming for coming up with this plan after I told them above board that the shaman could have enchanted items for them?
3) The big problem is they came up with the idea after the game was over. They need to do it during the game. Not only that, but their plan wouldn't work under the rules for many reasons. Suggest maybe they can try to take prisoners next time.
After doing a bit more research, and considering what the PHB says, it seems like it's ultimately up to the DM, but the generally accepted convention is that NPCs die instantly at 0 HP.
I think I am going to clarify going forward that in my games all monsters, enemies, and NPCs auto-fail death saves, so players have three rounds to stabilize if they want to, and then they are dead. I'm not rolling death saves for every NPC that dies. And if you waited more than 30 seconds in game to stabilize, it's too late.
First - Don't tell them the other possible outcomes. Maybe after the campaign is over, but don't do it just after the encounter. That keeps situations like this from coming up and allows you to use similar material in the future without having someone else trying to guess what you doing because you've mentioned it before. However, it's too late for that so to your questions:
1: No DM I know is rolling for every monster. That's just crazy. Usually it's only the PCs that get death saves and maybe some important NPCs or something to do with a plot point.
2: Yes they would be considered dead
3: They are most certainly meta gaming because the only reason they want to change the outcome is because they know the other possibilities. Player choices should matter.
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.
What the players are asking for (rather petulantly, it seems), is a retcon. If they were new to D&D and were unaware that non-lethal damage was an option until after the session ended, I might have allowed it. Yet one of your players is an experienced DM. That caveat doesn't apply - he should know better after having run multiple campaigns.
Regardless, the pushback from the player that monster death saves are what should happen based on his own rulings is irrelevant and disrespectful. You are the DM, not him. Your table, your rules. Your way also happens to be the norm, as was mentioned above.
This sounds more to me like players regretting their choices and trying to finagle you into giving them their way, but it may also be a mismatch of expectations. Could be helpful to lay out how you intend to run combat from now on.
NPCs typically die at 0 HP unless the GM specifically wants them not to.
A player demanding that a GM change the outcome of an event for meta reasons and accusing the GM of somehow metagaming (which is not possible for a GM to do) falls under things that at the very least deserve a warning from the GM that this sort of behavior is not acceptable or possibly just an outright ejection from the game, depending on how bad they're being and how much you actually want keep playing with them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
…and then both the male and female PCs fought the goblin shaman until he died.
After the shaman was dead, they looted his body, found various enchanted items, his armor, his gri-gri, and a bag of salts the Shaman was using in the ritual.
If they made no attempt to say they want to capture the creature they are fighting, or knock it unconscious, or the next player characters in turn order made no attempt to heal or stabilize the creature then it is dead.
if it is a reasonably significant NPC I might ask on the killing blow “how do you want to do this?”, it gives them a chance to rethink it if they want it to survive
if the player describes dealing a coup de grâce then the creature is dead, no retcon
”we loot the body” also infers death at my table
the Player-DM is wrong and is wrong to have a go at you over the decision at your table. If they have an issue with it, a polite message afterward of “I might have DM’d that different” might be acceptable, but it isn’t their right
i had a group want to do similar with a were-creature. They knocked it unconscious and specifically said they held back the killing blow. They kept trying to force an intimidation check after healing it, it kept attacking rabidly tearing at its bonds, in the end they realized that bar using Speak with Dead they were getting nothing, there was absolutely nothing they could do to force the creature into submission.
the thing I am getting at is bar actual role playing simply saying they are going to torture something into submission is going down a dark path that I would say no to.
Death saves aren't really a thing for monsters at all. You can rule one in in exceptional circumstances, but it's insane to have them as standard (as well as contrary to RAW). I've had fights against 20+ enemies...trust me, by the time you start knocking them down, you really want them to just die and not slow things down by continuing to have rolls. Normally, you don't have death saves for monsters, and there are no circumstances where, by the rules, you do them (by which I mean, there is no rule of "if X happens, roll death saves for monsters). Same for NPCs, although the manuals are more explicit about the possibility.
You do have the power to grant them at your discretion. If you feel it would improve the game, you can just say that they do, even as one-offs. That's your power as DM. Of you think it would be better to allow them...go ahead. I will not comment on whether that is a good idea in terms of the game itself, since there are too many factors to account for. However, the player's "request" is something you can do, if that's what you think is best.
Now, admittedly, I'm only getting part of the story, but it feels like there is a table problem. Players and DMs should respect each other. Players should be free to discuss rulings and present their cases (so long as it won't drag out the session), but there is a correct tone. Accusations of metagaming because they didn't like your ruling is the wrong side of that line. It's not metagaming (regardless of whether you were right or wrong) and that's mudslinging in an attempt to shame you into reversing your decision, which is wrong and disrespectful. Unless they recognise that how they handled it was unfair, I'd recommend not reversing your call, because otherwise they may well end up seeing it as a victory and use that tactic again. I'm always reasonable and willing to bend RAW if it improves the game, but not when players are being unreasonable.
I don't have access to it right now, but the PHB talks about monsters not getting Death Saving Throws. I'll look it up and post the location later so you can read it for yourself and show the player in case you have the physical copy, but the tooltip link I just posted wil take you to the basic rules that explains a bit about it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
While I would allow Spare the Dying to be used on an NPC for roleplaying purposes on occasion ("they're bleeding out, but if you drop everything to cast the cantrip they might pull through"), I wouldn't allow it in this instance. The NPC has been killed and is dead. If they want to spend the 300 GP in diamonds to Revivify the target (note how Revivify does not require the soul's consent), I'm fine with them doing so. I just hope they're prepared for the consequences of using magic in that manner like alignment changes and divine scorn (and intrigue from less savoury parties).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
First rule of Fight Club is, you don’t talk about Fight Club. The second rule if Fight Club is, You Don’t Talk About Fight Club.
telling players what could have been can lead to analysis paralysis causing delays in games because they now have to think of all the things they could do and the repercussions.
And I have never played a D&D game where monsters or NPC’s got death saves. Once they are at 0 they are dead.
Just explain it to them and let them know that’s how it is going forward. Giving three round ms to stabilize will cause delays in your game.
When the monsters/opponents reach zero I'd consider them dead, otherwise it slows combat down even more and 5E combat is slow enough.
Doesn't mean that as a DM you couldn't have a particularly interesting opponent somehow surviveor be brought back) for some later revenge, re-appearance scenario but don't everdo it!
I would not allow death saves for monsters. But then I don't allow them for player characters either. It feels to me as if the concept entered the game to appease or to attract those who had grown accustomed to the way characters in video games have multiple lives at their disposal.
So in your campaigns, there is no such thing as unconsciousness? You know that is, itself, a video game trope, right?
I did think the -10 HP for player death was always a reasonable rule, I'm toying with bringing that back in my game but there is a certain drama around the player death saves so may do some combination of the two. I have inexperienced players so don't want to kill them off too soon.
what if the party needs to capture someone or something alive? 'Oh, sorry, there is no way to do that?'
What? This is in the rules (the player declares that they're attacking non-lethally before making a melee attack), it was addressed in my post (paragraph two) and I even included a tooltip which explained that you can give death save if you want to...I'm not even sure where this is even coming from.
Why would it only be heroes who can stabilize?
Who said no one else could? I didn't. I even write a paragraph explaining that it's a possibility, at DM's discretion.
Even stable, creatures stay unconscious.
Again, what?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I would not allow death saves for monsters. But then I don't allow them for player characters either. It feels to me as if the concept entered the game to appease or to attract those who had grown accustomed to the way characters in video games have multiple lives at their disposal.
So in your campaigns, there is no such thing as unconsciousness? You know that is, itself, a video game trope, right?
There is. Because a character can be knocked unconscious if the character is fighting an enemy who has chosen to inflict non-lethal damage.
Death saves—other than those against poison and death rays—really only entered the game with 4e. Remember that edition of the game notoriously designed to resemble a video game in order to appease and to attract players of MMORPGs? Although a character reduced to 0 hit points in 3e/3.5e did get a Fortitude save, failing that meant the character was dying. Failing the next one meant death. I much prefer the lethality of earlier (1977-1999) editions. Personal preference. I find it awfully unrealistic that a character will only fall unconscious when struck down with a sword then have every chance of getting back on its feet. That is very, very video-gamey. Because in real life if a sword hits you hard enough that you go down it's probably because you're dead.
As for your question, one might just as easily as ask you if, in your own campaigns, NPCs belonging to exactly the same species as the characters are for some odd reason unable to experience unconsciousness like the characters do because they don't get to make death saves like the characters do. What you're suggesting is much more like a video game because the characters are then afforded a level of invulnerability not afforded to the things they might fight.
Dropping dead at 0 HP is also something based on video games and not real life. In the real world, it could take hours or even days for someone to die of a stab wound, and often it was a secondary infection that did the person in rather that the injury itself. Many ancient armies had people who's task was to go onto the field after the battle and finish off the dying in order to spare them from drawn out agony.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As a DM, I will roll death saves for NPCs if it's dramatically appropriate, but that's mostly for the case of "friendly NPC was collateral damage", not for whether monsters make it.
As a DM, I will roll death saves for NPCs if it's dramatically appropriate, but that's mostly for the case of "friendly NPC was collateral damage", not for whether monsters make it.
I'm similar. If the table as a whole shows that they don't want a certain character to die or if I don't want them to die, then I'll do saves. The vast majority just die. I don't want to spend precious time rolling saves for someone that came just to have characters give them a coupe-de-grace anyhow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Are you forgetting that characters in D&D, like people in combat in real life once did, get hit and sustain wounds, from which they then have to heal, and that in earlier editions, without the use of magic, this could indeed take days?
What you've posted there suggests characters must be either in a perfect state of woundlessness or dead. That between a character's maximum number of hit points and 0 there is just some weird abstraction between life and death that involves no wounds and no need to be in the infirmary. What do you think happens to a character who has been struck with a sword multiple times but at the end of the encounter remains among the living? It's as if it was never hit? Just wait until that long rest and all will be well? I don't think you thought through what you've posted. Many ancient armies did have people tasked with what you described. But those people would also have encountered the countless dead on that field after battle.
No dude, you're the one who's proposing that characters are either woundless or dead.
And I remember those rules, they're just completely irrelevant to my point because those were wounds that you recover from. I'm talking about wounds that you don't recover from, like internal bleeding or a perforated bowel. Things that kill people slowly. That's not and never has been simulated in D&D, the only time you took days to die from something it was a curse or a magical disease like Slimy Death or Mummy Rot. Being beaten down to 0 HP and recovering back up to full with no lingering effects on your health? Yeah, that's a video game thing, not reality.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You are clearly in the right here. Your player is doing some pretty problematic things. I would honestly recommend quitting the group and finding a new one if it becomes something you don't enjoy and things keep going wrong even after you've told your players to knock it off.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I'm the DM running a session with two players. They are a married couple and are playing orcs. Last session we had a great game where they were on a long journey and set up camp for the night when they heard a strange sound. They decided the male character would stay back and set up camp while the female character went to investigate, because the male character was wearing armor that gave him disadvantage on stealth. The female character discovered a goblin shaman doing a ritual in the woods. He had a little Kobald in a cash hanging from a tree, and was summoning a shadow entity in his ritual fire. The female character decided to try to save the kobold, and accidentally alerted the goblin shaman. She ran back to camp, the goblin shaman followed, and then both the male and female PCs fought the goblin shaman until he died.
After the shaman was dead, they looted his body, found various enchanted items, his armor, his gri-gri, and a bag of salts the Shaman was using in the ritual. They also talked with the kobald they rescued. Learned what he had to share, gave him some leather armor, cooked meat on the fire, and decided to salt it using the bag of salt they found. Then, they decided to take a long rest for the night, and we ended the session.
After the session everyone agreed it was a fun session. And I explained to the PCs that they had many options concerning the shaman. They could have waited and let him carry out the full ritual to see what happened, and they could have befriended him, which would have been beneficial because he could enchant items for them. They expressed regret in fighting him, saying they wished they would have known that, because they wanted him to enchant some items. Then, we all left it at that.
HERE'S WHERE THE CONTROVERSY BEGINS:
Later that day I receive a phone call from the male PC saying that when we start the next session, it should be before they take their long rest, because they have a plan and have come with an idea they want to try. Since we hadn't necessarily played out their long rest yet, and just ended on saying they were about to take the long rest, I said that would be fine.
Well, we begin the next session, and the PCs announce their plan: The female PC has Spare the Dying as a cantrip. Their plan is to bring the shaman back to life, and force him to enchant items for them. They say, even if he doesn't agree, they are going to imprison him, torture him, kill him and bring him back to life as many times as they have to, until eventually he enchants the items they want.
I then explain that the shaman is not just unconscious, he's dead. The male PC asks if I rolled the death rolls to confirm that. I say no, I haven't, but all six death saves would have passed after only a minute. They have already waited much longer than it would have taken to do the death saves, so he's dead. I'm not going to rewind time and roll the death rolls, to see if he would have actually survived, when in the timeline we're playing up until now, he's dead.
The male PC then accuses me of Meta Gaming, saying I'm just "making a decision" not actually rolling the dice for the death saves, because I don't want to let them do what they want. In truth, I when I ruled that he was dead and well passed death rolls, I thought they were talking about a resurrection spell. I didn't even know it was going to mess up their plan.
Then we got into an argument in which the male PC claimed that when he is DMing he ALWAYS rolls all the death saves for EVERY NPC monster that EVER dies in his campaigns. I have played in his campaigns, and this is ridiculous nonesense. I have no evidence he's actually rolling death saves for every monster we kill.
So my questions are thus: 1) Are DMs rolling death saves for every monster their PCs kill? 2) If PCs wait until minutes after a monster is dead, and the DM hasn't rolled death saves for the monster, isn't it just considered dead at that point? 3) Am I meta gaming for not going back in time and rolling the death rolls, or are they meta gaming for coming up with this plan after I told them above board that the shaman could have enchanted items for them?
1 and 2) No, DMs usually don't do death saves for creatures or even most NPCs. They're considered dead at 0 hp. It's mentioned in the PHB.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#MonstersandDeath
3) The big problem is they came up with the idea after the game was over. They need to do it during the game. Not only that, but their plan wouldn't work under the rules for many reasons. Suggest maybe they can try to take prisoners next time.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#KnockingaCreatureOut
They should probably read all of Chapter 9: Combat and their spells to learn what they can do.
After doing a bit more research, and considering what the PHB says, it seems like it's ultimately up to the DM, but the generally accepted convention is that NPCs die instantly at 0 HP.
I think I am going to clarify going forward that in my games all monsters, enemies, and NPCs auto-fail death saves, so players have three rounds to stabilize if they want to, and then they are dead. I'm not rolling death saves for every NPC that dies. And if you waited more than 30 seconds in game to stabilize, it's too late.
My take on this:
First - Don't tell them the other possible outcomes. Maybe after the campaign is over, but don't do it just after the encounter. That keeps situations like this from coming up and allows you to use similar material in the future without having someone else trying to guess what you doing because you've mentioned it before. However, it's too late for that so to your questions:
1: No DM I know is rolling for every monster. That's just crazy. Usually it's only the PCs that get death saves and maybe some important NPCs or something to do with a plot point.
2: Yes they would be considered dead
3: They are most certainly meta gaming because the only reason they want to change the outcome is because they know the other possibilities. Player choices should matter.
Official Rules
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#MonstersandDeath
Monsters and Death
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.
What the players are asking for (rather petulantly, it seems), is a retcon. If they were new to D&D and were unaware that non-lethal damage was an option until after the session ended, I might have allowed it. Yet one of your players is an experienced DM. That caveat doesn't apply - he should know better after having run multiple campaigns.
Regardless, the pushback from the player that monster death saves are what should happen based on his own rulings is irrelevant and disrespectful. You are the DM, not him. Your table, your rules. Your way also happens to be the norm, as was mentioned above.
This sounds more to me like players regretting their choices and trying to finagle you into giving them their way, but it may also be a mismatch of expectations. Could be helpful to lay out how you intend to run combat from now on.
NPCs typically die at 0 HP unless the GM specifically wants them not to.
A player demanding that a GM change the outcome of an event for meta reasons and accusing the GM of somehow metagaming (which is not possible for a GM to do) falls under things that at the very least deserve a warning from the GM that this sort of behavior is not acceptable or possibly just an outright ejection from the game, depending on how bad they're being and how much you actually want keep playing with them.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If they made no attempt to say they want to capture the creature they are fighting, or knock it unconscious, or the next player characters in turn order made no attempt to heal or stabilize the creature then it is dead.
if it is a reasonably significant NPC I might ask on the killing blow “how do you want to do this?”, it gives them a chance to rethink it if they want it to survive
if the player describes dealing a coup de grâce then the creature is dead, no retcon
”we loot the body” also infers death at my table
the Player-DM is wrong and is wrong to have a go at you over the decision at your table. If they have an issue with it, a polite message afterward of “I might have DM’d that different” might be acceptable, but it isn’t their right
i had a group want to do similar with a were-creature. They knocked it unconscious and specifically said they held back the killing blow. They kept trying to force an intimidation check after healing it, it kept attacking rabidly tearing at its bonds, in the end they realized that bar using Speak with Dead they were getting nothing, there was absolutely nothing they could do to force the creature into submission.
the thing I am getting at is bar actual role playing simply saying they are going to torture something into submission is going down a dark path that I would say no to.
Ok, first, the bit that's already been said:
Death saves aren't really a thing for monsters at all. You can rule one in in exceptional circumstances, but it's insane to have them as standard (as well as contrary to RAW). I've had fights against 20+ enemies...trust me, by the time you start knocking them down, you really want them to just die and not slow things down by continuing to have rolls. Normally, you don't have death saves for monsters, and there are no circumstances where, by the rules, you do them (by which I mean, there is no rule of "if X happens, roll death saves for monsters). Same for NPCs, although the manuals are more explicit about the possibility.
You do have the power to grant them at your discretion. If you feel it would improve the game, you can just say that they do, even as one-offs. That's your power as DM. Of you think it would be better to allow them...go ahead. I will not comment on whether that is a good idea in terms of the game itself, since there are too many factors to account for. However, the player's "request" is something you can do, if that's what you think is best.
Now, admittedly, I'm only getting part of the story, but it feels like there is a table problem. Players and DMs should respect each other. Players should be free to discuss rulings and present their cases (so long as it won't drag out the session), but there is a correct tone. Accusations of metagaming because they didn't like your ruling is the wrong side of that line. It's not metagaming (regardless of whether you were right or wrong) and that's mudslinging in an attempt to shame you into reversing your decision, which is wrong and disrespectful. Unless they recognise that how they handled it was unfair, I'd recommend not reversing your call, because otherwise they may well end up seeing it as a victory and use that tactic again. I'm always reasonable and willing to bend RAW if it improves the game, but not when players are being unreasonable.
I don't have access to it right now, but the PHB talks about monsters not getting Death Saving Throws. I'll look it up and post the location later so you can read it for yourself and show the player in case you have the physical copy, but the tooltip link I just posted wil take you to the basic rules that explains a bit about it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
While I would allow Spare the Dying to be used on an NPC for roleplaying purposes on occasion ("they're bleeding out, but if you drop everything to cast the cantrip they might pull through"), I wouldn't allow it in this instance. The NPC has been killed and is dead. If they want to spend the 300 GP in diamonds to Revivify the target (note how Revivify does not require the soul's consent), I'm fine with them doing so. I just hope they're prepared for the consequences of using magic in that manner like alignment changes and divine scorn (and intrigue from less savoury parties).
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
First rule of Fight Club is, you don’t talk about Fight Club.
The second rule if Fight Club is, You Don’t Talk About Fight Club.
telling players what could have been can lead to analysis paralysis causing delays in games because they now have to think of all the things they could do and the repercussions.
And I have never played a D&D game where monsters or NPC’s got death saves. Once they are at 0 they are dead.
Just explain it to them and let them know that’s how it is going forward. Giving three round ms to stabilize will cause delays in your game.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
When the monsters/opponents reach zero I'd consider them dead, otherwise it slows combat down even more and 5E combat is slow enough.
Doesn't mean that as a DM you couldn't have a particularly interesting opponent somehow surviveor be brought back) for some later revenge, re-appearance scenario but don't everdo it!
I did think the -10 HP for player death was always a reasonable rule, I'm toying with bringing that back in my game but there is a certain drama around the player death saves so may do some combination of the two. I have inexperienced players so don't want to kill them off too soon.
What? This is in the rules (the player declares that they're attacking non-lethally before making a melee attack), it was addressed in my post (paragraph two) and I even included a tooltip which explained that you can give death save if you want to...I'm not even sure where this is even coming from.
Who said no one else could? I didn't. I even write a paragraph explaining that it's a possibility, at DM's discretion.
Again, what?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Dropping dead at 0 HP is also something based on video games and not real life. In the real world, it could take hours or even days for someone to die of a stab wound, and often it was a secondary infection that did the person in rather that the injury itself. Many ancient armies had people who's task was to go onto the field after the battle and finish off the dying in order to spare them from drawn out agony.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
As a DM, I will roll death saves for NPCs if it's dramatically appropriate, but that's mostly for the case of "friendly NPC was collateral damage", not for whether monsters make it.
I'm similar. If the table as a whole shows that they don't want a certain character to die or if I don't want them to die, then I'll do saves. The vast majority just die. I don't want to spend precious time rolling saves for someone that came just to have characters give them a coupe-de-grace anyhow.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
No dude, you're the one who's proposing that characters are either woundless or dead.
And I remember those rules, they're just completely irrelevant to my point because those were wounds that you recover from. I'm talking about wounds that you don't recover from, like internal bleeding or a perforated bowel. Things that kill people slowly. That's not and never has been simulated in D&D, the only time you took days to die from something it was a curse or a magical disease like Slimy Death or Mummy Rot. Being beaten down to 0 HP and recovering back up to full with no lingering effects on your health? Yeah, that's a video game thing, not reality.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You are clearly in the right here. Your player is doing some pretty problematic things. I would honestly recommend quitting the group and finding a new one if it becomes something you don't enjoy and things keep going wrong even after you've told your players to knock it off.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.