Constitution is will power? No it's not....

[Sunseeker]

And?

And typically players don't get to change the rules for their benefit whenever they feel like it?

EDIT: on that note though, if you were playing a game with FATE points or some other sort of player ability to bend the will of the rules, I would happily allow a player to spend a Fate point to add whatever stat they wanted to their death save.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And?

Not capable of making a ruling, reasonable or otherwise.

 

[BookBarbarian]

And?

If I showed up to a game you were DMing would you be happy if I started implementing house rules for my character only? Or would you as the DM want to be the adjudicator of the rules?

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I rule that CON does not help death saves, because it has *already helped*, by increasing Hit Points. Adding CON to the death check is a sort-of double-dipping.

 

[rlor]

Speak in a sincere and calm voice:
"I'm not willing to argue with you further, but this is the way I'm ruling on death saving throws. It is the way it is written in the book, but even if it was not it is how it is going to be played at this table. If it was reversed and you were the DM then I'd be happy to play it using your method. As it is though you should either play by the rules and rulings presented or find another table. I hope you'll continue playing but if not then it would probably be best for everyone involved if you bow out of the game."

I'll be honest, I'd rather not play D&D than play with people who pull antagonistic whether they sit in the DM's seat or the player's so even if this resulted in the group falling apart I'd still feel it was the best decision.

 

[Shasarak]

If I showed up to a game you were DMing would you be happy if I started implementing house rules for my character only? Or would you as the DM want to be the adjudicator of the rules?

Sounds fine, lets try out the rule and see how it goes.

That is, after all, the whole philosophy of 5e.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shasarak]

I'm fairly certain that the whole philosophy of 5e isn't, "All players make their own rules, and that's the way it goes. Good luck with that!"

Admittedly, I may have skimmed a few pages in the DM's Guide. And don't get me started about using the index ...

Surely I am not the only one who spent two years play testing this game?

If I wanted to be a slave to RAW then I would be playing 4e.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Surely I am not the only one who spent two years play testing this game?

If I wanted to be a slave to RAW then I would be playing 4e.

So, then, let's be crystal clear. You think that not letting players make up their own personality applicable rules and rulings is being a slave to RAW?

 

[rlor]

I guess there are two parts to this:

1. House ruling con to death saving throws.

Me personally I don't care one way or the other and could easily be talked into ruling in favor of it.

2. The DM has ruled one way and the player is choosing not to follow it.

This seems pretty clear cut to me. As a player I can make my case during the game for maybe a minute or two, or bring it up after the game for a more extended discussion. If the DM listens to it but is still set to ruling a certain way then I should either play by that ruling or if it bothers me that much cease playing with the DM. Being antagonist about it by saying "I'm going to ignore your rules" is a jerk tactic a DM shouldn't have to put up with. Players should have outgrown the Cops and Robbers "I killed you" "No you didn't" stuff many years ago.