D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Arial Black]

The more you make up new rules and new systems of how rules would be constructed, the more obvious it is that you haven't got an argument from the actual rules text, which is why you keep adding new rules.

Wait, are you telling me that when the spell description says, 'the spell does 10d6+40 damage' that you can do whatever amount you like, whatever the roll?

If you roll and get 80 points, are you saying that this is not a rule; that you can do less or more just by 'wanting to'?

Are you saying that I'm 'making up new rules' when I quote '10d6+40'? That I 'haven't got an argument from the actual rules text' when I print the rules text which says '10d6+40' and I claim that this is how much damage the rules say is done?

I'm saying that the rules tell you how much damage is done, and you cannot change that without another rule which says you can.

This is a rules discussion. Although anyone can point to 'rule 0' to say that DMs can change anything they want, this is of no value when discussing what the rules are.

I've admitted that the wording is ambiguous. Maxperson and others have claimed that it isn't. My point is that when you think both interpretations through, one stands up and the other falls down.

 

[Maxperson]

The 'amount of damage done by an attack' is a related but different thing than 'the amount of hit points lost from that attack'.

You don't get to have it both ways. Either the full damage has to be done before the effect can happen, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then your earlier claim that disintegrate must deal full damage before its effect can happen is wrong and it can have an effect with only partial damage.

If a raging barbarian gets hit by an attack that deals 30 points of damage, you apply all 30, even though the target's hp only get reduced by 15.

No you don't. You can only reduce a target to 0, so no more damage is applied once the target hits rock bottom. You are fabricating rules again.

If you deal 80 hp of damage to someone with 50 hit points, you must apply all of those 80 points, and the fact that the target's hp are only reduced by 50 doesn't change the damage that the attack dealt.

There is no damage reduction rule that says that once you hit 0 all further damage is dealt, but reduced. 50 - 80 = -30. That's the only result that can happen from full damage being dealt. Since you can't go to -30 and there is no damage reduction rule, damage must stop once you hit 0.

As for showing you the rules that say you cannot do less damage: the rules tell you what they are, they do not tell you what the rules are not! If the rules tell you that 'this attack' does 80 damage, this is the rule that tells you that you do exactly 80 damage! Unless you can point to another rule which lets you alter that, then you must do that amount of damage; you have no permission to do a different amount.

I showed you the rule. Once you hit 0 any damage that hasn't been applied is now "remaining damage". It has to be unused or it couldn't be "remaining." Remaining damage is only used for massive death.

 

[seebs]

Wait, are you telling me that when the spell description says, 'the spell does 10d6+40 damage' that you can do whatever amount you like, whatever the roll?

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that your ludicrous examples of "ignore the rules and make stuff up" are not really related to how the rules work.

If you roll and get 80 points, are you saying that this is not a rule; that you can do less or more just by 'wanting to'?

No, and since I never said anything even a tiny bit similar to that in any way, what I see here is that you're having to make up straw men to attack, which is sort of a concession that you've got nothing against the actual arguments advanced.

Are you saying that I'm 'making up new rules' when I quote '10d6+40'? That I 'haven't got an argument from the actual rules text' when I print the rules text which says '10d6+40' and I claim that this is how much damage the rules say is done?

No. And since I told you exactly which things you said were not actually rules, the fact that you're ignoring the actual things I told you you made up, and instead going after a thing which no one disagrees with or disputes, suggests that you are not exactly arguing in good faith.

I've admitted that the wording is ambiguous. Maxperson and others have claimed that it isn't. My point is that when you think both interpretations through, one stands up and the other falls down.

Except you've done it by inventing new rules that are not actually in the text. And I already told you which ones, and this is your third time at least ignoring a thing I actually said in order to be incredulous towards a thing I didn't say, and I simply cannot sustain the belief that you are arguing in good faith at this point. You are persistently dishonest, and I don't know why, but it is not entertaining enough to justify continued interaction.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah. The major difference between my interpretation and Arial's is that mine are based on rules that are written, where his are not based on rules that are written. His are based on rules that he fabricated to support his position.

 

[seebs]

I can make a case for any of several things from the written rules, but I can't make a strong enough case for any given case to rule out the others, in general. Jeremy's answer is the simplest; just tell people what the intent is, and everything's solved. (I think this applies equally to any and all other polymorph effects, too.)

Interesting related note, I believe one of the designers said that the intent was that if you hold a True Polymorph long enough for it to become "permanent", you lose the revert-at-0 thing; it's just your new form now.

 

[Arial Black]

I can make a case for any of several things from the written rules, but I can't make a strong enough case for any given case to rule out the others, in general. Jeremy's answer is the simplest; just tell people what the intent is, and everything's solved. (I think this applies equally to any and all other polymorph effects, too.)

Interesting related note, I believe one of the designers said that the intent was that if you hold a True Polymorph long enough for it to become "permanent", you lose the revert-at-0 thing; it's just your new form now.

Seebs, you have stated a position in this debate, but your posts actually undercut your own stated intent.

Your stated position is that the rules in question, the words that are written, could reasonably be interpreted either way. Given this, you should be arguing against those who claim the words can only be understood one way and support (or at least not counter) those who agree that they could be understood in two ways.

Nothing wrong so far.

But Maxperson continues to assert that the words can only be interpreted one way, but you say nothing to him.

I agree with you that the words could, on their face, be understood either way. But which way is the right way? They cannot both be correct, even if the wording leads to ambiguity

So I then explore both interpretations, and reach, through reason, that only one of the interpretations stand up to scrutiny. And yet you criticise me (erroneously) by accusing me of denying that the words could have two interpretations.

Using reason to explore each interpretation to get an answer is the only way forward in cases where the text is ambiguous like this (unless you ask the writer-which we did!). It is not 'making up new rules' when you use logic to understand that a rule 'cannot' mean A, therefore B, however unlikely, must be true.

We know that Wild Shape rules that, when you take damage, you revert to druid form at 0 hp. We know that, at 0 hp, you fall unconscious/die. The game includes effects that remove their own trigger, like shield or the orc/barbarian abilites, that mean the trigger condition is replaced by a different condition. But is Wild Shape like that? If it isn't, then the beast form dropping to zero would cause unconsciousness/death by massive damage, and also revert the druid. But this does not happen. So, logically, it must be that the reversion to druid happens instead of, rather than in addition to, falling to 0 hp. The druid doesn't actually die and then heal to his druid hp total; his beast form goes away and his true form gets damaged. There is no healing involved.

The logical extrapolation of existing rules is a different thing than 'just making stuff up'.

 

[Maxperson]

So I then explore both interpretations, and reach, through reason, that only one of the interpretations stand up to scrutiny. And yet you criticise me (erroneously) by accusing me of denying that the words could have two interpretations.

Using reason to explore each interpretation to get an answer is the only way forward in cases where the text is ambiguous like this (unless you ask the writer-which we did!). It is not 'making up new rules' when you use logic to understand that a rule 'cannot' mean A, therefore B, however unlikely, must be true.

Yes. Yes it is making new rules. When your reason results in anything that is not written, it is not RAW and is a house rule. You are coming up with a ruling, but your ruling is not RAW, which makes it not a rule in the book.

We know that Wild Shape rules that, when you take damage, you revert to druid form at 0 hp. We know that, at 0 hp, you fall unconscious/die.

So far, so good.

The game includes effects that remove their own trigger, like shield or the orc/barbarian abilites, that mean the trigger condition is replaced by a different condition.

Yep. Those abilities have wording that says or implies such.

But is Wild Shape like that?

No. There are no words or implications that it does that, and direct statements that it is in fact sequential.

If it isn't, then the beast form dropping to zero would cause unconsciousness/death by massive damage, and also revert the druid.

Because.....follow me here.....specific beats general and there is specific language that prevents that from happening.

But this does not happen. So, logically, it must be that the reversion to druid happens instead of, rather than in addition to, falling to 0 hp.

No. That's not logic. That's inventing rules to have things go your way. Logically, wild shape does exactly what it says it does and nothing more. It doesn't need to do anything more in order to avoid unconsciousness or death by massive damage. It is both sequential and avoids both of those things. There is no trigger that has to be removed, because the specific beats general rule doesn't require that to happen.

 

[Arial Black]

There is no trigger that has to be removed, because the specific beats general rule doesn't require that to happen.

The general rules are what they are (0 hp = unconscious/dead).

Specific rules alter certain general rules.

Wild Shape is a specific rule that alters what happens to a creature when it reaches 0 hp; the beast form reverts to druid form instead of obeying the general rule, not in addition to the general rule. Not 'unconscious AND reverted', but 'reverted instead of unconscious'.

Disintegrate is also a specific rule, where 0 hp = dust. Since the druid is reverted, he has been reduced to, say, 27 hp. The spell doesn't dust those reduced to 27 hp.

You seem to think that Wild Shape is a 'general rule' which disintegrate trumps because it is a 'specific rule', or somehow more specific than Wild Shape. But they are both equally specific rules; one doesn't have 'right of way' over the other on that basis. They both could happen, if they could both apply at the same time, as with a druid whose hp are reduced to 0 after reversion. But the specifics of Wild Shape mean that, when the damage is applied, the druid has been reduced to 27 hp, not 0, therefore the dust part never happens.

 

[Arial Black]

Druid has 50 hp. He is Wild Shaped into a creature with 57 hp.

DM: You are hit with a ray that does *rolls* 80 points of damage.

Player: Boo. *creature is gone, druid's 50 hp is reduced to...27*

DM: Do you have any hp left, or are you at 0?

Player: My druid has been reduced to 27 hp.

DM: Boo.

 

[Maxperson]

The general rules are what they are (0 hp = unconscious/dead).

Specific rules alter certain general rules.

Wild Shape is a specific rule that alters what happens to a creature when it reaches 0 hp; the beast form reverts to druid form instead of obeying the general rule, not in addition to the general rule. Not 'unconscious AND reverted', but 'reverted instead of unconscious'.

This is wrong as you have stated it. It does not do that at all. First, when you hit 0 you simply do not fall unconscious at all at 0 hit points if you revert due to damage unless the amount of damage dealt is enough to reduce the reverted form to 0. There is no "instead" happening. Also, unconsciousness is not undone if it is the cause of reversion. The sleep spell is a good example of that. It also specifically ONLY applies to unconscious and not dead, ash or any other condition but unconscious.

Disintegrate is also a specific rule, where 0 hp = dust. Since the druid is reverted, he has been reduced to, say, 27 hp. The spell doesn't dust those reduced to 27 hp.

This triggers prior to reversion, though. It happens at 0, which the druid hit. There is never a point where a druid can revert from a disintegrate spell where that spell did not cause the druid to hit 0.

You seem to think that Wild Shape is a 'general rule' which disintegrate trumps because it is a 'specific rule', or somehow more specific than Wild Shape. But they are both equally specific rules; one doesn't have 'right of way' over the other on that basis.

You seem to have not read my posts. I've said more than once that they are both specific rules, and that they both trigger at 0. There is no rule that prevents disintegrate from triggering, so whether you revert and then turn to ash, or turn to ash and then revert, you still end up a reverted pile of ash. There is no rule you can point to that says that I am wrong with that.

They both could happen, if they could both apply at the same time, as with a druid whose hp are reduced to 0 after reversion. But the specifics of Wild Shape mean that, when the damage is applied, the druid has been reduced to 27 hp, not 0, therefore the dust part never happens.

The bolded part is a house rule. Disintegrate's ash effect has already triggered. Gaining hit points later does not undo that as there is nothing in the spell to say that it does. Without being able to show me where it explicitly says that disintegrate's trigger is undone by reversion, it does not get undone by reversion.