D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Spastik]

So your position seems to be that in the above, the sentence in blue refers to the case in which the damage is sufficient to take both the Wild Shape and the druid to 0 HP. But that case is completely obvious and not controversial; no one would bother asking about that case, let alone answering it. So your position leads to the conclusion that not only did Crawford spend the time to explain in a tweet something that didn't need explaining, but he also chose to put that completely useless explanation in the SA Compendium. Do you really believe that?

Umm, yeah! I'll put his RAI quote below because people were not understanding the answer.

Jeremy Crawford
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford
The intent is that a druid using Wild Shape is disintegrated if the druid, not the beast form, drops to 0 hp. #DnD
3:10 PM - 17 Sep 2015

He obviously read it in it's literal form as if the DRUID hits 0 and answered it as such. He had to clarify as there are people that are interpreting it as the wild shape form and not DRUID. The Sage Advice reads DRUID and not wild shape so I don't how there can be any more misunderstanding. Even if you argue that disintegrate says as soon as a creature hits 0 hp, the wildshape is not a separate creature but a form and the DRUID still has HP. You cannot be disintegrated unless you hit 0 hp, which the creature in this case being the druid, is not at 0 hp. It's not RAW or RAI to do so! It's like saying that someone with false life casted on them will be disintegrated when their temp hp reaches 0 because it doesn't specify what kind of hp.

RAW and RAI it just doesn't do it. You cannot be turned to dust while still having HP.

 

[Spastik]

It also completely ignores the second portion of the question, "Does the druid simply leave beast form?" which means that without a doubt, his response is about the animal form being dropped to 0 by disintegrate. If the answer meant after reversion, then the answer would completely fail to answer that question and it would not been included in the Sage Advice.

Which I would have to concede that you may have an argument there if not for the part where he then said this!

Jeremy Crawford
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford
The intent is that a druid using Wild Shape is disintegrated if the druid, not the beast form, drops to 0 hp. #DnD
3:10 PM - 17 Sep 2015

He clarified the issue! It shouldn't matter about the second part of the question anyway if you are reading the first part and looking at it literally. How can you read the spell as literal and then not the answer to a literal question and then the quote from the designer clarifying it for you even further? You aren't arguing with me here at all, which is the funny part. All I am doing is quoting the designer and showing multiple places where he says how it works. You can say that because the form does this and you have to check for that or whatever else you want to bring as an argument. Doesn't matter when there is a literal ruling and clarification on the matter. A creature does not turn to dust until it hits 0 hp, it just doesn't. A druid has 2 pools of hp when it is wildshaped, that is also a fact. If the druid has hp, it can't be disintegrated, which is where you are having an issue.

No worries! Homebrew what you like, play however you see fit! Ignore RAW and RAI if you like, people do it all the time (surprise rounds, encumbrance, tracking spell components, random encounters....). You aren't going to be able to sway people that have read the spell, the druid wild shape page, the sage advice, and the explanation on top of that while not being a game designer yourself. Sorry, but I will take the word of Crawford over you 100% of the time.

 

[epithet]

... Dust is not a change of form. Just like you can be a paralyzed druid elf, you can be a dusted druid elf.
...
There is no nonsense result. A pile of elven druid dust makes perfect sense.
...

It seems that no mental contortion is too ridiculous for you, as long as it supports your position in this ridiculous argument. I mean, hell... a paralyzed elf can't move. A elf that has been disintegrated into dust can't be an elf.

With regard to the ambiguity of the written rule (for which you clearly have a great deal of passion,) perhaps you would consider this: if the rule unambiguously stated an outcome other than what they intended for it to say, then Jeremy et al would have rewritten it. The fact that it was released in the form in which it was printed, contrary to the intent of its writer, necessarily means that there is entirely possible for it to be interpreted in accordance with that author's intent. Ergo, ambiguous.

Ah, what am I even thinking? If you have reached a point where you've convinced yourself that you can point at a pile of ash and say "that's an elf" with a straight face, you're well past considering reasonable counter-points.

To respond to a point you made a bit upthread, it doesn't matter much that this particular, narrow scenario won't come up very often. This isn't really an argument about an elf druid and a spell read with a fanatical devotion to the letter of the rules. This is fundamentally, for me, a discussion of how we should approach rules in general for D&D. I think the bottom line is that if you will nail an unsuspecting player with the disintegration of his druid despite having plenty of elf hit points left, you will almost certainly pull a bunch of other chicken[excrement] moves from behind the DM screen. This is about the broad assertion that you and others have made that, in a situation where the rule can be reasonably interpreted more than one way, that the "literal interpretation" has more validity that the obvious intent of the writer, even (or especially) if it accrues to the detriment of the player's character. It is my opinion that that broad assertion is a load of crap.

 

[epithet]

Umm, yeah! I'll put his RAI quote below because people were not understanding the answer.

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
The intent is that a druid using Wild Shape is disintegrated if the druid, not the beast form, drops to 0 hp. #DnD
3:10 PM - 17 Sep 2015

He obviously read it in it's literal form as if the DRUID hits 0 and answered it as such. He had to clarify as there are people that are interpreting it as the wild shape form and not DRUID. The Sage Advice reads DRUID and not wild shape so I don't how there can be any more misunderstanding. Even if you argue that disintegrate says as soon as a creature hits 0 hp, the wildshape is not a separate creature but a form and the DRUID still has HP. You cannot be disintegrated unless you hit 0 hp, which the creature in this case being the druid, is not at 0 hp. It's not RAW or RAI to do so! It's like saying that someone with false life casted on them will be disintegrated when their temp hp reaches 0 because it doesn't specify what kind of hp.

RAW and RAI it just doesn't do it. You cannot be turned to dust while still having HP.

While I wish Jeremy Crawford would have written his Sage Advice differently, in a way which was closer to your interpretation, he did not. What you're doing with that sentence is in essence the same thing that Max is doing with the text of the disintegrate spell: you're being too literal and ignoring the intent of the writer. Jeremy's intent is made clear by the fact that his very next sentence describes a different outcome (the one for which you argue) based on the intent (RAI) from the one in his previous sentence (characterised as RAW.)

Basically, his sage advice on this issue may be paraphrased as "If you get really technical with a literal reading of the rule here, it does say the disintegration is triggered when the beast form reaches 0 hit points. That's not what we intended, and I'm specifically pointing out that it isn't what we intended."

It is rare for JC to say "yeah, the rule says this, but it isn't what we want you to do with it." I'm at a loss as to why he wouldn't errata the rule to match the design intent, but then there's a lot of things I don't understand, and I'm getting used to it.

 

[Maxperson]

Umm, yeah! I'll put his RAI quote below because people were not understanding the answer.

We know the RAI. RAI is not a rule and doesn't affect how RAW is read.

He obviously read it in it's literal form as if the DRUID hits 0 and answered it as such. He had to clarify as there are people that are interpreting it as the wild shape form and not DRUID. The Sage Advice reads DRUID and not wild shape so I don't how there can be any more misunderstanding.

Again dude, because you are deliberately not getting it and I like watching you do this to yourself, the wildshape IS the druid. Druid isn't a separate thing, so of course it will say druid. The Sage Advice is absolutely speaking about turning to ash when the wildshape hits 0 hit points, though. The questions it responds to, and you deliberately continue to ignore because it sinks you, prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You said you would accept how the designers ruled the ability, and you continue to avoid that. RAI doesn't change the ruling they made. Are you ready to prove your statement to be truthful, or will you continue to dodge?

P.S. I already know the answer to that question.

 

[Maxperson]

It seems that no mental contortion is too ridiculous for you, as long as it supports your position in this ridiculous argument. I mean, hell... a paralyzed elf can't move. A elf that has been disintegrated into dust can't be an elf.

I hope for your sake that the next time you have a skeleton of an elf and the players want to know what kind skeleton it is, you don't tell them elf. That skeleton would be as much an elf as the pile of druid elf dust is.

With regard to the ambiguity of the written rule (for which you clearly have a great deal of passion,) perhaps you would consider this: if the rule unambiguously stated an outcome other than what they intended for it to say, then Jeremy et al would have rewritten it. The fact that it was released in the form in which it was printed, contrary to the intent of its writer, necessarily means that there is entirely possible for it to be interpreted in accordance with that author's intent. Ergo, ambiguous.

This is.......hilarious. First false statement in there. "if the rule unambiguously stated an outcome other than what they intended for it to say, then Jeremy et al would have rewritten it.". That's simply not true. There are a number of reasons why they wouldn't re-write it. The easiest being that they don't want to have to re-print all those PHBs. It's far easier to just rule what RAW says and then say what RAI is so that DM's can make up their minds. Second false statement in there. "The fact that it was released in the form in which it was printed, contrary to the intent of its writer, necessarily means that there is entirely possible for it to be interpreted in accordance with that author's intent.". Um, no. The fact that it was released contrary to intent means that someone screwed up. It does not mean that what is written can be interpreted as what was intended. Interpreting the wildshape rules as RAI is like interpreting that dog over there as a bear.

To respond to a point you made a bit upthread, it doesn't matter much that this particular, narrow scenario won't come up very often. This isn't really an argument about an elf druid and a spell read with a fanatical devotion to the letter of the rules. This is fundamentally, for me, a discussion of how we should approach rules in general for D&D. I think the bottom line is that if you will nail an unsuspecting player with the disintegration of his druid despite having plenty of elf hit points left, you will almost certainly pull a bunch of other chicken[excrement] moves from behind the DM screen.

And I know this is a joke. You can't seriously be saying, after I've said multiple times in this thread that I house rule the hell out this game, that if I read RAW that I'm going to always go with what is written over what I think is best.

 

[Harzel]

Which I would have to concede that you may have an argument there if not for the part where he then said this!

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
The intent is that a druid using Wild Shape is disintegrated if the druid, not the beast form, drops to 0 hp. #DnD
3:10 PM - 17 Sep 2015

He clarified the issue!

Are you unaware of how time works? The SA Compendium was written after the tweet (which he subsequently deleted) that you keep quoting. By definition, something written prior (the tweet) can't possibly be a clarification of something written subsequently (the SA Compendium).

 

[Harzel]

Umm, yeah!

Ok, that does it for me. We have definitely launched into Crazy Land.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ok, that does it for me. We have definitely launched into Crazy Land.

That's why I remain impressed by this first-post necro

 

[Maxperson]

Are you unaware of how time works? The SA Compendium was written after the tweet (which he subsequently deleted) that you keep quoting. By definition, something written prior (the tweet) can't possibly be a clarification of something written subsequently (the SA Compendium).

He's aware of that. Just like he's aware that druids hit 0 hit points, and that the druid in animal form only has that form's hit points, and that the druid gets dusted when it hits 0, etc. He knew all of that before he created that account to troll us.