D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

Rules clearly say druid reverts, you haven't provided any evidence but your own interpretations. Please provide evidence that clearly follows the rules RAW that shows the druid is disintegrated. I've shown you it does not but you disagreed, so please provide your own proof.

And Crawford provided a direct ruling that ash wasn't a change in form. Further, the reversion rules don't cure death, ash or anything other than unconscious. That's explicit. Disintegrate triggers upon the druid hitting 0 hit points, which he does in wild shape form prior to reversion. That's also explicit.

I have provided evidence. It's your side that has failed to prove that A) disintegrate needs to do full damage before the trigger happens, B) that the trigger is somehow invalidated if the druid reverts, and C) that reversion undoes ashing even though it explicitly lays out the very few things it undoes and ash isn't one of them.

RAW just doesn't support RAI.

 

[seebs]

Rules clearly say druid reverts, you haven't provided any evidence but your own interpretations. Please provide evidence that clearly follows the rules RAW that shows the druid is disintegrated. I've shown you it does not but you disagreed, so please provide your own proof.

You haven't shown that it doesn't. You've offered a line of argument which other people didn't find persuasive.

I think there's a very serious philosophical divide here. Maxperson appears to be trying to understand other viewpoints and talk about how the different models work. You appear to be trying to win and ignoring anything people say that you don't agree with, and making no effort whatsoever to comprehend other viewpoints.

If you want to persuade people, you have to start by making an effort to understand what they believe and how someone could believe that. If you don't do that first, there is no possible way to make progress.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

last night this got brought up as we are getting to the end of one campaign, and people are talking about druids for the next...

SO I'm down to 4 players on Tuesday night plus myself (current DM most likely next DM as well)

SO my take was "It depends how deadly I want the campaign to be, I can see both ways of reading it..."
One player was crazy screaming nut ball over how it would be unfair to the druid player... the example he gave was "If my druid is a wolf with 30hp, and I am in human form still has 70hp, and your disintegrate is 65 damage that should never kill me"
two players said the other way, that 0 is 0, and brought up that power words have an issue too. If you shift from 110hp druid to a 18hp does that make you vunrable to all power words, when you are immune to the others...
the 4th player just left the table to do other things because he hates rules arguments that haven't come up in play...

so that first player asked if I were a PC druid and got disintegrated how I would feel... my answer was "Why would the DM use disintegrate if he wasn't trying to kill me... in any form? It's the use of the spell..."

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[GMforPowergamers]

On a charitable interpretation, one could say that the first player was arguing for a modified version of Rawl's Veil of Ignorance to solve game disputes.

On a less charitable interpretation, one could say that, "How does it feel?" is a poor substitute for interpretation.

That said, while I enjoyed your response, it would have been perfectly acceptable to just say, "But the DM is always trying to kill you. Just because you're paranoid, don't mean the DM isn't after you."

I agree... sort of... the monster or NPC or what ever the DM is playing is trying to kill me, the DM (if done right) is probably giving it a good go but still rooting for me to win... but none of that changes the fact that you choose the spell.

If I throw a fireball, odds of it killing are VERY slim, but it could force you into death saves... spells like disintegrate though take away a good portion of the buffer between the PC and death (all you need do is reduce to 0) and as such when you fire a disintegrate you are ready to kill a PC (even if you don't want to, you have to know it is possible)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Pssthpok]

This is one way of running it, but there's nothing there saying "left with 0 hit points after the hit".



It may seem clear to you.

I put it to you that when you have a thread with many people offering wildly different interpretations of a thing, it may be reasonable to conclude that it is not "clear" after all.

I don't think it's clear. I think that the designers have confirmed that their intent was that wildshape's form-reversion would win out in this case, but that doesn't seem to me at all the same as it being "clear".

That's the only way to run it without making things up, tho. Disintegrate does not - nor does anything else, for that matter - administer its damage one point at a time. It deals its damage all at once, druid wildshape interrupts/reacts to the damage in its own way, and the result is that the druid's real hit points aren't leapfrogged by disintegrate's reduction effect.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Pssthpok]

One point at a time .... woah ....

Did you know that, like, 30 or so comments ago someone (was it Arial Black) was arguing the exact opposite extrapolation from Zeno's movement paradoxes to support the same end interpretation you are arguing for?

I can't tell if this thread is awesome, or the awesomest thread ever. I do know that it has taught me very little about the rules in question,* but quite a bit about the nature of arguments.

*FWIW, I'm with the fourth player. Schrodinger's Druid is neither dust nor reverted until it happens at my table.

Curious. I hadn't read the entire thread before hopping in.

Also, I really like the term "Schrodinger's Druid". Leads me to think that all white-room/theorycrafting conversations are equally "Schrodinger's Game."