Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TiQuinn" data-source="post: 9593436" data-attributes="member: 4871">Yeah, these little shifts in terminology and sentence structure can lead you down a rabbit hole but if you're part of an ongoing campaign or group of players from 5e, there's a pretty good chance you've already locked this down and settled upon a certain outcome if Disintegrate hits your character, and honestly, I don't see anything there that should dissuade a group from playing the way they've been playing. What really matters is how you handle it going forward, but I'm always one for erring on the side of caution with players and so I'm never going to parse &quot;leaves with&quot; versus &quot;reduces to&quot; to deny a PC who has an ability like Death Ward from getting that benefit. Other DMs may not agree, and that's really what it comes down to. I guess maybe the problem is that if you are in this situation, you didn't think to ask your DM in your session zero &quot;Well...how are you gonna handle disintegration&quot; if you were even aware there was a terminology change. And to that, I say, you have to have some level of trust in your DM and their willingness to see your character continue in the game. To my mind, I wouldn't let a wording shift be the difference between whether a PC was killed automatically or not, but I cannot say that's the way it is for everyone.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TiQuinn, post: 9593436, member: 4871"] Yeah, these little shifts in terminology and sentence structure can lead you down a rabbit hole but if you're part of an ongoing campaign or group of players from 5e, there's a pretty good chance you've already locked this down and settled upon a certain outcome if Disintegrate hits your character, and honestly, I don't see anything there that should dissuade a group from playing the way they've been playing. What really matters is how you handle it going forward, but I'm always one for erring on the side of caution with players and so I'm never going to parse "leaves with" versus "reduces to" to deny a PC who has an ability like Death Ward from getting that benefit. Other DMs may not agree, and that's really what it comes down to. I guess maybe the problem is that if you are in this situation, you didn't think to ask your DM in your session zero "Well...how are you gonna handle disintegration" if you were even aware there was a terminology change. And to that, I say, you have to have some level of trust in your DM and their willingness to see your character continue in the game. To my mind, I wouldn't let a wording shift be the difference between whether a PC was killed automatically or not, but I cannot say that's the way it is for everyone. [/QUOTE]

Verification