D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Spastik]

Fact: It's D. D: 0 as wildshape per RAW, then a reversion without losing consciousness, also per RAW.
You've repeatedly ignored where wildshape says explicitly in multiple places that it goes to 0 in animal form before reversion, and ignored the official ruling in Sage Advice that came after the tweet you listed. At this point you are doing nothing but arguing in bad faith which makes you a troll. Stop trolling me and go troll somewhere else.

There is no sage advice that states that nor does it state there is a step between them. I am just trying to help you see how the math works in this instance, which isn't obviously working at all. Agree to disagree! Next time you have a Druid that has 1 hp left in wild shape and 50 in druid and he takes 10 damage, explain to him why he now has 42 instead of 41 which directly contradicts the RAW. There was no D answer, I even gave you a hint that it was A, it was really that simple.

I won't call you any names, as that would be trollish. I will wish you a good evening and hope you have a great weekend! We are all here to have a good time, no reason to revert to bullying or name calling.

 

[Spastik]

You seem to conveniently keep ignoring this, which was in an actual Sage Advice article subsequent to the supposed tweet that you keep quoting that doesn't seem to any longer exist. (Can you provide a valid link?)
The context makes it very clear that if disintegrate drops a creature to 0, it turns to dust, other effects notwithstanding.
Personally, I'm not entirely sure that's the way I would like it to work, but the RAI seems to be quite clear.

Context is the issue there, you are correct. He said if the druid gets to 0 hp, not the wild shaped form. That is why he clarified in RAI as in the case of a druid still having remaining hp, he would not be dust. If the spill over of damage reduces the druid form to 0, it's dust. The post Crawford made I can't find, just the discussion of it and why it was misunderstood.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/quest...d-creature-is-reduced-to-0-hp-by-disintegrate

 

[CapnZapp]

Oh. No. Not this thread again.

[MENTION=60210]jaelis[/MENTION] has already, and correctly, noted that this was addressed in Sage Advice, so there's that.

The more interesting question is WHAT POWERS OF NECROMANCY DOES IT TAKE TO BRING BACK THE DUSTED DRUID AFTER TWO YEARS??!!??!!

Great for the users first post to bring this one back. I should go and give him XP.

Wow. I'm impressed. Few necromancers have the epic ability to not only raise a thread from the dead, but also to instantly set it on fire. This is especially impressive given the fact the issue is long resolved.

And to do it as your first post too! Kudos to the threadsurrector!

 

[epithet]

...This is especially impressive given the fact the issue is long resolved.

...

I think the last few pages would suggest that the issue isn't as "long resolved" as some folks thought.

I have always thought this was a simple matter of looking at how druid feature actually worked, rather than try to get overly technical with the specific wording. Your beast hit points add to your druid hit points to make you tougher, not to make you more vulnerable. Clearly in the now-deleted tweet Jeremy indicated that it was never the intent for the disintegrate spell to bypass that and turn a strength into a weakness, but a technical reading of the rules made it apparent that the written words did not faithfully capture the intent of the designers.

Rather than correct the rule with errata, Jeremy included the incorrect (per intent) rule interpretation in the Sage Advice document, because the design team bends over backwards to avoid issuing errata for the books.

At the end of the day, this remains a "death by technicality." If you are the kind of DM that would destroy a character using a technicality, then either your players have bought in to that in advance or you're very likely running the game as an antagonistic DM, which many (myself included) consider to be Doing It Wrong. I mean, if your players have signed up for a "meat grinder" experience, then by all means - that can be a good time. If you're in a situation, however, where beast + druid have enough combined hit points to soak the damage from the spell and you kill him anyway, that's kind of a phallic move.

 

[MarkB]

I think the last few pages would suggest that the issue isn't as "long resolved" as some folks thought.

I have always thought this was a simple matter of looking at how druid feature actually worked, rather than try to get overly technical with the specific wording. Your beast hit points add to your druid hit points to make you tougher, not to make you more vulnerable. Clearly in the now-deleted tweet Jeremy indicated that it was never the intent for the disintegrate spell to bypass that and turn a strength into a weakness, but a technical reading of the rules made it apparent that the written words did not faithfully capture the intent of the designers.

Rather than correct the rule with errata, Jeremy included the incorrect (per intent) rule interpretation in the Sage Advice document, because the design team bends over backwards to avoid issuing errata for the books.

At the end of the day, this remains a "death by technicality." If you are the kind of DM that would destroy a character using a technicality, then either your players have bought in to that in advance or you're very likely running the game as an antagonistic DM, which many (myself included) consider to be Doing It Wrong. I mean, if your players have signed up for a "meat grinder" experience, then by all means - that can be a good time. If you're in a situation, however, where beast + druid have enough combined hit points to soak the damage from the spell and you kill him anyway, that's kind of a phallic move.

It's a nasty thing to spring on a player, certainly. How many of us considered the technicalities of this combination before seeing this thread?

 

[Harzel]

Context is the issue there, you are correct. He said if the druid gets to 0 hp, not the wild shaped form. That is why he clarified in RAI as in the case of a druid still having remaining hp, he would not be dust. If the spill over of damage reduces the druid form to 0, it's dust. The post Crawford made I can't find, just the discussion of it and why it was misunderstood.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/quest...d-creature-is-reduced-to-0-hp-by-disintegrate

Ah. A comment in the forum entry that you linked to in turn provides a link to the Sage Advice Compendium in which Crawford explicates the 'whole story' pretty clearly.

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

So it would appear that you are correct about RAI, but incorrect about RAW (or at least Crawford's reading thereof, which seems like it should count for something).

It is interesting that he does not make the same RAW vs RAI comment about the analogous question and answer about Relentless Endurance, which appears just above the Q&A about Wild Shape.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the last few pages would suggest that the issue isn't as "long resolved" as some folks thought.

I have always thought this was a simple matter of looking at how druid feature actually worked, rather than try to get overly technical with the specific wording. Your beast hit points add to your druid hit points to make you tougher, not to make you more vulnerable. Clearly in the now-deleted tweet Jeremy indicated that it was never the intent for the disintegrate spell to bypass that and turn a strength into a weakness, but a technical reading of the rules made it apparent that the written words did not faithfully capture the intent of the designers.

Rather than correct the rule with errata, Jeremy included the incorrect (per intent) rule interpretation in the Sage Advice document, because the design team bends over backwards to avoid issuing errata for the books.

Not really. Other than a few trolls completely ignoring the rules that explicitly say the animal form hits 0, the rest of those in this thread seem to have resolved it. Whatever the reason behind it, the designers put out Sage Advice that matches RAW.

At the end of the day, this remains a "death by technicality." If you are the kind of DM that would destroy a character using a technicality, then either your players have bought in to that in advance or you're very likely running the game as an antagonistic DM, which many (myself included) consider to be Doing It Wrong. I mean, if your players have signed up for a "meat grinder" experience, then by all means - that can be a good time. If you're in a situation, however, where beast + druid have enough combined hit points to soak the damage from the spell and you kill him anyway, that's kind of a phallic move.

Depends. I laid out the rather significant number of steps it takes to actually run afoul of this as a PC. If you have to make that save once every 5-10 campaigns(assuming you play a druid in all of them), then it's not really a dick move if it happens. Sometimes bad luck strikes, and it's not like you can't bring the druid back. If you're high enough level for this to happen, a true resurrection or wish should be attainable. If the DM is frequently aiming it at the druid as a kill tactic, then I'd agree with you.

 

[Spastik]

And again with the name calling to arttept to strengthen your position instead of pointing to factual data and quoting exact rules. Although you have yet to answer the simple math of what 51-10 would be and ignoring the fact they clarified that it’s been based on the Druid HP and not wild shape HP. Rule how you like, it’s DM discretion in your case and that’s completely fine. I’ll use the PHB and the game designer’s interpretation on the ruling. Have fun gaming and try to keep the insults out of discussions.

 

[Dausuul]

Here are the conditions that cause you to revert from wild shape:

You can stay in a beast shape for a number of hours equal to half your druid level (rounded down). You then revert to your normal form unless you expend another use of this feature. You can revert to your normal form earlier by using a bonus action on your turn. You automatically revert if you fall unconscious, drop to 0 hit points, or die.

Which of these conditions is causing you to revert when hit by disintegrate?

 

[Maxperson]

Here are the conditions that cause you to revert from wild shape:

Which of these conditions is causing you to revert when hit by disintegrate?

Well. If we ignore the fact that the rules explicitly say that animal forms can hit 0 hit point. And then ignore the fact that the rules say you assume the beast hit points, then after hitting 0 revert to your original hit points, which creates two separate pools of hit points. And then ignore the Sage Advice which says that the rules make the druid turn to dust rather than revert. Well, if you do all of that, then you can use magic math to say that when the druid is at 1 hit point and takes damage, it never hits 0. Yet somehow, you can count down from 1, without hitting 0 mind you, and then revert, while still at 1 hit point, then take damage minus that 1 hit point you never took so that the math "works out".

Or you revert when the animal form hits 0, you decide.