D&D (2024) Disintegrate Reverted to Old Wording

[Selas]

The fact that in the 2024 books we have multiple monsters that have abilities or effects that completely kill you outright makes me think that this was reverted intentionally. A perfect example of this is the Solar bow attack that kills you if you have 100 hp or less, or the Blob's Engulf ability

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And once we have keywords it'll be way better!

Nope, can't do that, it will be too much like the Edition That Must Not Be Named.

 

[nevin]

The errata to the 2014 book didn't. Since taking 70 damage would still leave you with 0 (there's no negative HP in 5E) it would disintegrate you. It's a dumb quirk of 'natural language' that it doesn't with the original and 2024 PHB wording.

yes it said you were disentigrated if you went to 0 hp. while that my conflict with the new death save mechanic it was quite clear. you become a pile of ashes. even back then. Nothing I've ever read about death saves made me think they were for situations like that. This is simply getting so far into the weeds that you can't see the forest.

 

[nevin]

No, I don't agree. I don't even agree that that's the formal intent of errata or rules changes. I think those kinds of changes happen for people that specifically demand them. I think WotC only does it to shut up that very small, extremely vocal minority of people. I don't think most DMs bother with errata. I think most DMs do what the game already tells them to do: Make a ruling, move on, figure it out later.... and then most of them never do the follow-up. The night is over and it doesn't matter anymore. The ruling made in the moment works fine.

No TTRPG that's made from 900 pages of rules is going to be totally consistent. Most people understand that and don't expect it. The game costs $50-$150, not $15,000. It took a year for 12 people to make. It's not Baldur's Gate III, with over 2000 people, six years of development, and a budget of $100 million USD. TTRPGs don't pull that kind of money.

---

Yes.

I think the DM knowing the context of the moment is going to have a better idea for what should happen in the game world. Better than designers that aren't at the table. Certainly better than a rulebook.

I don't think it's particularly difficult to make the easy ruling and just side with the PCs.

I am someone that enjoys talking about or arguing rules. I don't think there's anything particularly sacred or virtuous in adhering to RAW. I think the rules are primarily talking about general cases, and that the game is explicitly already written and intended by the developer for you to waive or overrule them.

The rules do not run the game. The DM and players do.



I think DMs need to learn that TTRPGs are zebras, not horses. In most games, the objective of the game is to execute the rules prescriptively to reach the end where a winner is determined. To follow the procedure. To put your time and dice into a box, shake them up for a couple hours, and fun comes out the other side.



Keywords just prevent confusion and design errors all over the place. There's never any need for a simple statement of what the designer's intent was. It's all crystal clear from the keywords. What an immediate improvement.

to be fair we had those discussions when keywords were in the picture. Some people have no common sense and some people willfully and intentionally argue the details to the point they want it to be even when it's clear to the 90% that it was never intended to be that way. And some people just skim the rules and get confused or upset when a situation they never anticipated occurs.