D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Maxperson]

No, I'm saying you shouldn't rule that way because it is taking a class strength and turning into a stupid nonsensical vulnerability, thereby killing a character based on a technicality. To kill a character based on a "literal" reading of a rule in clear, knowing contravention of the intent of that rule is asinine, and if you do it you should feel bad about it. Unless, as I said upthread, your players have signed up for a meat grinder experience and know ahead of time that you're going to kill their characters... then feel free to use "rocks fall, you die" rule interpretations.

A few things. First, the game has gotten reaaaaaaaally easy to play and death happens far less frequently, with far less consequence since 3e. The game was amazingly fun(still is) in 1e and 2e, despite it being much easier to die from many more things than disintegrate/druid. Second, as I pointed out above, this is a rare experience at best. First, you have to have a druid in the party. Then that druid has to be in wildshape. Then that wildshape druid has to encounter a wizard of high level or powerful creature with disintegrate. Then the wizard has to have the spell memorized, rather than another one. Then that wizard/creature has to recognize the druid as a wildshaped druid, rather than mistaking it for a normal animal of that type. Then the wizard/creature has to target the druid, instead of one of the other threats in the group. Then the druid has to fail the save. Lastly, at that level wishes and true resurrection are not terribly difficult to find. It's a set of circumstances that will come up every 5-10 campaigns at worst, so I'm not really worried about it.

I'll go one further, in fact: Jeremy Crawford was wrong to delete his tweet interpreting the rule according to its intent, and to post an "official" interpretation supporting the "literal reading." If the book came out with wording for a spell or class ability that contravenes the designer's intent, and that contravention will cause player characters to be killed in the most difficult to undo way they can be killed, then they should have issued errata to correct the rule in the book. It might not be such a big deal, really, since one might expect a DM to simply rule the way it was meant to work (that being the reasonable reading,) but no... there are clearly plenty of folks who get all exercised over the "literal" reading, reason be damned, so it should have been corrected.

He didn't get rid of what he said, though. He just moved it from tweets to the Sage Advice document. People who look up the Sage Advice and read the document, as opposed to the article he said it in, will see that it's not the intent for disintegrate to kill the druid.

I remember this argument from back when the thread was young, Max. Unless I'm very much mistaken, you admitted back then that you wouldn't rip up someone's character sheet over a technicality, a mis-statement of the intended rule. I really do not understand why you have anointed yourself the champion of the literal rule, but regardless...

It really depends on the technicality. One which makes sense and happens so rarely that it might never be seen in several years of play is not one that I really have to worry about.

I have no hesitation in saying that the literal interpretation, as described by Jeremy Crawford, is bad wrong (un)fun.

For you. Again, you should stay away from One True Way statements like that. I know plenty of people who want added danger placed into games of 3e and up. This particular one doesn't even really do that. It's so rare that the amount of added danger is so miniscule that it won't even be noticed in the vast majority of game play.

 

[Maxperson]

Also, let's clear up some terminology: if the designers say "it was intended to work this way" (which both Crawford and Mearls have done on this issue) and you rule, at your table, that it works the way that the designers intended, you're not creating a "house rule." You cannot, as you put it "house rule the ability to conform with design intent." That's just not what a house rule is.

This is flat out wrong. The rule is what is written, period. Intent that is not in a rule, is not a rule and never will be. When someone to changes wildshape from what is written to match the intent, they have changed the rule. That makes it a house rule.

Both a literal reading and the intended interpretation are faithful to the published rule. Neither one is making up your own rule. By dismissing the intended interpretation of a rule in the book as a "house rule," you are making your own "One True Way" assertion.

This is also flat out wrong. By saying that it requires a house rule to match intent, I am not engaging in One True Way at all. It would require me to tell people that playing that way is wrong, wrong fun, or that they shouldn't do it.......like you did.

 

[Maxperson]

Such as deliberately OVERLOOKING certain phrases: "You automatically revert if you fall unconscious, drop to 0 hit points or die". The key word here is automatically. This implies that reversion cannot be prevented, disrupted, or interrupted. I.e. the instant the animal form hits zero you revert to human form and are no longer on zero hp. Then the residual damage is applied.

The wording of the Disintegrate spell is "the target takes 10d6+40 force damage. If this damage reduces the target to 0 hit points the target is disintegrated". "If" in this case implies that the check for zero hp applies after the whole of the damage has been applied. Not part way through.

It implies no such thing. It says straight out that hitting 0 triggers the dusting. Nowhere is there an implication or statement that the damage must be fully applied to dust the target. In fact, if you require that, you will almost never encounter it turning ANYONE to dust. In the vast majority of instances, there will be extra damage beyond 0 that never gets applied since 5e doesn't have negative hit points. If the spell is waiting for the full damage to be applied before checking if someone is at 0, then it will almost never trigger. It's very unlikely that the spell will do exactly the number of hit points required to drop the target to 0. Instead, it checks the instant the target hits 0 and the remaining damage never happens.

The druid per RAW has two chances to hit 0, though I wouldn't require two saves if the spell caused the druid to hit 0 twice.

Crawford is well qualified to rule on RAI. As an English teacher I am just as well qualified to interpret RAW. Crawford is misinterpreting RAW in this case.

Then you're familiar with Appeals to Authority. I've spent time correcting the grammatical errors on homework that the honors English teacher sent home with my ex's daughter. Being an English teach doesn't mean that you are infallible, or that you are correct here and Crawford is not.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"If this damage" specifically refers to the 10d6+40 force damage. It does not say "if this, or any part of this damage". If you where coding it, you would apply the damage, then check for the 0hp condition. You would not apply the first hp of damage, then check for 0hp, then apply the second hp and check for 0hp, then the third, etc... Thus if for whatever reason, the target passed through 0hp but did not end on that total the disintegrate effect is not applied. That's the spell, RAW. Any other interpretation is just a sadistic DM looking for an excuse to kill druids.

 

[seebs]

Also, let's clear up some terminology: if the designers say "it was intended to work this way" (which both Crawford and Mearls have done on this issue) and you rule, at your table, that it works the way that the designers intended, you're not creating a "house rule." You cannot, as you put it "house rule the ability to conform with design intent." That's just not what a house rule is.

Both a literal reading and the intended interpretation are faithful to the published rule. Neither one is making up your own rule. By dismissing the intended interpretation of a rule in the book as a "house rule," you are making your own "One True Way" assertion.

I'd consider this a rulings-not-rules thing. The rules as written have an ambiguity which is not consistently resolved.

 

[seebs]

"If this damage" specifically refers to the 10d6+40 force damage. It does not say "if this, or any part of this damage". If you where coding it, you would apply the damage, then check for the 0hp condition. You would not apply the first hp of damage, then check for 0hp, then apply the second hp and check for 0hp, then the third, etc... Thus if for whatever reason, the target passed through 0hp but did not end on that total the disintegrate effect is not applied. That's the spell, RAW. Any other interpretation is just a sadistic DM looking for an excuse to kill druids.

I don't see how your speculation on what a hypothetical programmer would do is related to the way the rule works. According to the very people who stated that the intent was not to kill druids, the rules as written say the druid gets dusted. We know the druid was reduced to 0hp, because if they hadn't been, they wouldn't be reverting in the first place. Therefore, they did get reduced to 0hp.

 

[seebs]

I do think there is a bit of mischievous deliberate miss-reading going on here.

Such as deliberately OVERLOOKING certain phrases: "You automatically revert if you fall unconscious, drop to 0 hit points or die". The key word here is automatically. This implies that reversion cannot be prevented, disrupted, or interrupted.

... It does?

Is this a general rule about "automatically"? Does it generally carry that implication, or only when you're arguing about disintegrate and druids?

Like, a lot of computers used to have mechanical drive trays for CD-ROMs. These would open automatically under some circumstances. But if you had an object in front of the computer, the drive's attempt to open would be interrupted and disrupted, although not entirely prevented. It seems to me that "automatically" has no such implication. I'm also a bit surprised that an English teacher would omit the quotes around a word when referring to it in a context like that.

 

[Maxperson]

"If this damage" specifically refers to the 10d6+40 force damage. It does not say "if this, or any part of this damage".

And the damage did as soon as the druid in animal form hits 0.

If you where coding it, you would apply the damage, then check for the 0hp condition.

As I pointed out, this would make it extremely hard to reduce anyone to dust. 5e doesn't allow you to apply the full damage unless the hit points of the target are equal to or greater than the damage you did. By your interpretation, you couldn't reduce a real frog to dust with it, since after the first hit point of damage, the rest cannot be applied and the spell fizzles with respect to dusting things. The only way the spell makes sense as 5e hit points and damage are written, is if the spell turns you to dust the instant you hit 0, even if the full damage has not been applied.

You would not apply the first hp of damage, then check for 0hp, then apply the second hp and check for 0hp, then the third, etc...

Yes you would, but being reasonably intelligent people, we fast forward through thsoe steps and just note when the damage actually causes the target to hit 0.

Thus if for whatever reason, the target passed through 0hp but did not end on that total the disintegrate effect is not applied.

Sure if you ignore what is written. When the druid in animal form hits 0, the damage from the spell has reduced the druid to 0. There's no other way to look at it that's rational. The spell did damage, and the damage reduced the victim to 0. That's enough to trigger the "If this damage reduces the target to 0..." portion of the spell. It doesn't say, "If the full damage reduces the target to 0...". English teacher or not, you are mistaken here.

Any other interpretation is just a sadistic DM looking for an excuse to kill druids.

Aaaaaand your bias rears its ugly head. It explains why you aren't seeing RAW for what it is.

 

[Spastik]

[MENTION=6943386]Spastik[/MENTION], since you say you will take the word of the game designer over me, here it is.

"Q:What happens if a druid using Wild Shape is reduced to 0 hit points by disintegrate? Does the druid simply leave beast form?

A:The druid turns to dust, since the spell disintegrates you the instant you drop to 0 hit points.

That’s the literal interpretation of the rules (RAW). In contrast, the intent (RAI) is that a druid isn’t considered to be at 0 hit points for the purposes of an effect like disintegrate until the druid’s normal form is reduced to 0 hit points."

If you didn't lie, your next post will be to agree that the druid turns to dust.

You literally just proved my position, in bold. When the DRUID hit's 0 hit points, not wild shape. If you druid has 50 HP, it's wild shape has 20, get's hit for 40, the wild shape takes 20, the DRUID takes 20 and has 30 HP left. Until the DRUID hits 0 hp, he does not turn to dust. Are you ignoring the DRUID part of that for some reason? It's there in bold and then there is the RAI on top of the clarification multiple times. You can't be turned to dust while still having HP. It's really simple!!! LOL

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's really fishing. You must really really hate that druid. In 5e negative hp do not exist. This does not mean that the whole amount of damage is not applied if it is greater than the amount of hp remaining. It just means the excess damage is meaningless (with the specific exception of the animal form druid).

And the reason you do not apply the damage 1 hp at a time is not because we are "reasonably intelligent people". You cannot invoke "reasonable intelligence" if you are Reading as Written. RAW means reading as a computer would, taking every instruction absolutely literally. The Instruction says apply the damage THEN it says check for zero hp. It explicitly does not say "check for zero hp whilst applying the damage" which is what you would have to instruct a computer to do if you intended for it to disintegrate the animal form.

If you wish to apply "reasonable intelligence" then "reasonable intelligence" means accepting that the written word is often ambiguous and seeking to infer the intent of the writer (in a way a computer is incapable of doing). In which case, RAI means the druid survives. Either way the druid survives.