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

[delericho]

What do I do?

When he's DMing, he can institute whatever house rules he wants. If you want to play, you should respect them. (Obviously, if the house rules are sufficiently bad that they make you not want to play, you know what to do!)

When you're DMing...

He's taking it to a point where he is adding his constitution to death saves when I DM, how am I suppose to convince him?

Don't. Tell him he's wrong, point to the rule in the text, and advise him that if he doesn't play by the rules of the game, he's not welcome. He's free to think the rule is as stupid as he likes, but that doesn't matter - if he wants to play at your table, he has to respect the rules you're using.

 

[Li Shenron]

So I have a friend, who thought that death saves were a constitution save, when they are not. I told him this, his answer was "That's stupid! They are now." When I asked him why he thought this way, he said that constitution was the "Will to keep going" I told him Constitution was bodily health, but he refused to believe me. What do I do?

I would just tell him that this is the current rule, period, and it could be another rule but the game wouldn't change much so why bother changing it? (if all your players want to change it, do it without worry... it truly doesn't change the game much!)

He's taking it to a point where he is adding his constitution to death saves when I DM, how am I suppose to convince him?

Well that's really immature and annoying. Does he change the rules of chess or a game of cards? My guess is not, for some reason RPGs have always been the ground for immature people to unleash their "know-it-all" repressed attitude, but if he wants to do that he should take the DM's role.

I would just force him to choose between fair play or no play.

 

[Ezequielramone]

He can't, under any circumstance, pass over you and decide to implement his own houserule.
The book says that there are no bonus or proficiencies: you are in the hands of fate.
If you, as a DM, want to use con as a bonus that's OK. But no one has power over the rules. Only you. What I do is speak with my players when I'll use some houserule that fits ME. They know they can propose houserules but also that I'm the referee.

IMHO he is stupid and he'll bring new problems in the future. I believe my time is the most valuable resource I have and will not waste it having a bad time. You as the DM are putting a lot to make everybody happy. I kicked out two players, one because of bad gaming attitudes things and the other because he didn't show up for no reason many times, he was wasting a player slot. Also an entire group because they disrespected me after I clearly showed they were crossing the line.
Don't be afraid of being mean. He deserves it and you deserve to have a good time, not waste it discussing things you should not.

 

[Darkmantle26]

Is this one of the same people you were having trouble with in the "Did I do something wrong?" thread?

If so, you really need to find a new gaming group. No, I'm not joking.

Life is too short to waste time gaming with people this dim.

This is a different group

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

This is a different group

Sorry to hear your rotten luck continues.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

In situations like this, I find putting it to a vote of all the other players in the group is the best way forward. You both can explain your case and let them decide how to run it.

If you lose the vote you may have a bigger problem than one troublesome player.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Sorry to hear your rotten luck continues.

Or wrong place to search for people to play with.

I'm personally pretty strict on the rules up to the point where I control everything (like checking if the character who says he lights a torch really did have a torch), so I would never allow a player to change anything about it. I'd pretty much just ignore him. If he adds his con modifier, I substract it again. If he rolls 3 times a 9, he dies no matter what he says. Then he can either make a new character or leave.

 

[BoldItalic]

Allow it, but since he so obviously enjoys making death save rolls, give him ample opportunity to do it. Keep killing him.

But you can kill his PC without him getting the chance to roll at all, so it's irrelevant anyway. No, not the massive damage rule. A bunch of particularly vindictive kobolds should do it.

They go for the toughest-looking PC first, you know. Stands to reason, doesn't it? They're nasty. Their plan is to manoeuvre to isolate him from his friends, wrestle him to the ground, knock him unconscious with non-lethal blows (so he is stable and doesn't make death saves) and keep hitting him while he's down. Yes, that's very unsporting of them, isn't it? They're evil. Since he's unconscious and they are gathering round him, they get advantage on their attacks (though they get that anyway, from pack tactics) and every hit is an autocrit. Every crit is two automatic death save failures, no roll allowed. Then the next kobold gets a turn and ... oops. And they all act on the same initiative count, so the other PCs don't have a chance to intervene until it's all over ...

That's him out of the game until next session, when he can bring a new character.

The gods will back you up. They don't like mortals who argue with their rules.

 

[Noctem]

Trying to resolve this problem by killing the player's character won't solve anything. It'll just make things worse, especially if you use that kind of targeted stuff. Now he's under attack by an evil DM, he's the victim. This is an out of character problem.

From what the OP described the problem is about a lack of respect. Respect for the rules being used at the table. For the DM position OP occupies. Respect for the social contract of group play. Because the issue is about respect, the best solution imo is to bring the problem into the open. At the beginning of the next session, OP should begin by saying that a houserule has been suggested by the player in question and that you want everyone to vote on it. Explain that you do / don't like the houserule and why and then let the group vote. Majority wins. If everyone at the table agrees to use his houserule, then there is no issue. If the player won't abide by the basic social contract of group play, if the vote is no and he refuses to follow the result of the vote, then I would ask him why he expects to play by different rules than everyone else. If he's unable to understand the inherent problem with that point, I would explain that if he's not willing to play by the same rules as everyone else and so on, that I unfortunately will no longer be able to have him participate.

 

[BoldItalic]

Trying to resolve this problem by killing the player's character won't solve anything. It'll just make things worse, especially if you use that kind of targeted stuff. Now he's under attack by an evil DM, he's the victim.

No. The player in question is exhibiting hubris. He thinks he is entitled to change the rules to benefit his character. Nemesis inevitably follows. His character is the first victim.

The tactics I described are entirely legitimate. Monsters are supposed to try to kill the PCs. That's what they are there for. If the monsters pull their punches and don't try as hard as they can, using the most evil tactics they can, the game is a mockery.

After dealing with the tough guy, the kobolds (if they survive the next round) will move on to the next PC and try to overwhelm that one in a similar way. That's not being unfair on any particular player. That's what kobolds do. They use pack tactics to gang up on individuals, one at a time. And when a PC is down, these kobolds make sure he stays down and can't get healed by his buddies and spring back up next round. They make sure he is totally dead. They do that. They are nasty, sneaky, evil critters who don't play fair.

Nothing like a few PC deaths to put the players in fear of kobolds round every corner.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.