D&D 5E Is rolling a death save a valid trigger for contingency?

[Clint_L]

Spells are written in a way that is easy to read ambiguously - whether "you" in the description refers to the player or the character.

I generally take the latter, which means that the spell must use an in game, in-narrative event as its trigger. Death saves are not events in the narrative, they are game abstractions, and I wouldn't rule them to be a valid trigger.

I don't quite follow the nuance, here. Yes, death saves are game abstractions, but so are hit points, and I presume we would all be okay with "falling to 0 hit points" as an acceptable trigger for contingency. Hit points are how we track character health when conscious, death saves how we track it when unconscious and struggling between life and death.

 

[Mannahnin]

I don't quite follow the nuance, here. Yes, death saves are game abstractions, but so are hit points, and I presume we would all be okay with "falling to 0 hit points" as an acceptable trigger for contingency. Hit points are how we track character health when conscious, death saves how we track it when unconscious and struggling between life and death.

Dropping to zero HP is a mechanical representation of being knocked unconscious by violence, right?

What's the discrete in-world event the character could describe which is represented by a failed death save?

 

[jmartkdr2]

G

Dropping to zero HP is a mechanical representation of being knocked unconscious by violence, right?

What's the discrete in-world event the character could describe which is represented by a failed death save?

Good question: in fiction, what is a death save?

Offhand, I would guess it's the body's attempt to deal with extreme injury - could be a shock response, some clotting, a burst of adrenaline or other hormones... and that assumes a human or otherwise same-as-human biology. A dragonborn might have a very different biological response.

The die roll is because the body's response is a desperate gambit that might or might not work. The one roll doesn't represent a discreet event.

 

[Umbran]

I don't quite follow the nuance, here. Yes, death saves are game abstractions, but so are hit points, and I presume we would all be okay with "falling to 0 hit points" as an acceptable trigger for contingency.

Maybe don't presume?

Again, I'm not out to screw my players. When they give me a metagame consideration like that, I'll work with them to find the narrative version that gets the basic intent.

If I find the basic intent is about highly specific game mechanics result, then we'll have a discussion about metagaming, like I already mentioned in Session Zero, and how I'm not running a game that's focused on rules minutiae.

 

[Deset Gled]

I'm playing a Bladesinger with a Death Cleric dip. I'm thinking of putting Cure Wounds at 5th level on a Contingency and have it trigger if I roll a death save.

I'd allow it.

Metagaming is not inherently bad, nor does this example cause any real problems. I can't find see any reason why this Contingency trigger is any more of an issue for immersion, balance, or story than the per se existence of the death save or the Contingency spell.

Sometimes, forcing things like this into "in world" speach can actually promote metagaming more than minimizing it, by making players hyperfocus on the translation rather than the game.

 

[James Gasik]

It comes down to the fact that we want to maintain the illusion that the player characters aren't aware of the abstract game mechanics that govern their world, but the problem with that is that they are always dealing with them. Even if they aren't aware of what a "death save" is (or any saving throw for that matter), they should be aware of the in-universe explanation for why sometimes people stabilize instead of bleeding out, or how sometimes, someone pops back up when they were knocked down, whatever that explanation is.

Griping that player characters should not be aware of things outside the narrative when the narrative has to account for those things being observable seems a bit suspect. And the game is already full of things like this; a Wizard knows whether or not their Shield spell will deflect an attack before they cast it, despite not knowing what "Armor Class" is. This implies that there is something in the narrative that a "miss by 5 or less" attack looks like that they can respond to.

So I have to believe that there has to be something similar for when saving throws occur that the characters can observe as happening. If you cast Hold Person, you have to have some sense of how long someone remains paralyzed before they can break out at a minimum, just from using the spell often (as an example). So perhaps we shouldn't look at it like fourth wall awareness for characters to be aware of the game mechanics that bind their universe, but instead consider what game mechanics look like to them.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I would allow it.

Or rather, I would allow it without requiring the player to imagine whatever narrative description of the same thing exists in my head.

"Failing a saving throw," is how players understand the event, but given that that is actually how the world works in-game there must be some language to accurately describe it. Mandating the player invent such language which the character should already know is a level of semantic carcass-whipping that is not an interesting use of game time.

 

[ichabod]

Spells are written in a way that is easy to read ambiguously - whether "you" in the description refers to the player or the character.

I generally take the latter, which means that the spell must use an in game, in-narrative event as its trigger. Death saves are not events in the narrative, they are game abstractions, and I wouldn't rule them to be a valid trigger.

In the case of contingency, the first sentence is "Choose a spell of 5th level or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you." I would say in this case you is clearly meant to be the character. Players don't cast spells and aren't targeted by them, characters are.

But in the end, I'm a big fan of "It's your table, run it your way."

 

[Maxperson]

the text is much vaguer than this. Its literally "when a certain circumstance occurs".

That the PC has to specify. It's not possible for the PC to specify a circumstance that doesn't exist within the fiction. The PC literally cannot know about those things that are outside the fiction.

Considering we have things that trigger on hitpoitns, which is very much a mechanical aspect and not a "in-fiction circumstance" I think the interpretation as wide or narrow as you want to make it.

Allowing it to trigger on hit points is equally invalid. What are valid triggers would be things like being hit, being hurt, being knocked uncounscious, etc. Those are in-fiction things.

Ultimately triggering it on one game mechanic seems as reasonable as triggering it on another imo.

I agree, which is why I don't allow it on anything that exists outside the fiction. A PC has to pick some in-fiction event.

 

[Deset Gled]

In the case of contingency, the first sentence is "Choose a spell of 5th level or lower that you can cast, that has a casting time of 1 action, and that can target you." I would say in this case you is clearly meant to be the character. Players don't cast spells and aren't targeted by them, characters are.

OTOH, does a character know what a 5th level spell, 1 action, or a spell slot (mentioned in the next sentence) is? More importantly, does it take anything away from the narrative if they do?