D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Maxperson]

And what you're bringing up now is irrelevant to the discussion...

Of course it's "irrelevant"! It completely destroys your argument, so you have to dismiss it since you can't counter it. Your entire stance is that the reality of what is written isn't real and therefore can be what you change it into. You're trying to use Jedi mind tricks on us to get us to ignore what is clearly written and believe what you are trying to change reality into.

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

You not only didn't understand my post but you also claim something that contradicts both RAW and RAI. A druid reverting from wildshape CANNOT proc disintegrate. Both JEremy Crawford and the rules for the game tell you so.... And yet here you are claiming it does.. There is no mess at all, refusal to read doesn't mean that the content is messy.

I could care less about what is fair for the purposes of this discussion. That's not what is important since fairness is completely relative to each individual. I care about what the RAI is (we know it for a fact) and what the RAW (which can be read in the rulebook for this game). Bias has no place here.

OK. As a DM. If a rule, written in a book, and it doesn't pass the "makes sense/logical" step in my mind, I modify it so it does or I remove that skill/spell/ability completely. Stoneskin, as written in 1st and 2nd Edition rules was such a rediculously powerful spell that there was ZERO fear at higher levels at wading into combat as each of the characters had multiple "skins". Just to make combat at least come with a modicrum of risk we - as a group - had no choice but to dramatically change the spell to just being an increase in AC. If a skill that a Druid has can so over-balance it's chance of survival, as opposed to the rest of the party's inherent, natural abilities, it's over-powered. If I may ask, what's your dog in this fight? Was it your Druid that got disintegrated? Was it inter-party conflict and another player targetted the Druid? Was it a nasty baddie wizard NPC in a dungeon the party encountered? A Trap? A petty killer DM?

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

Furthermore, in every single version of the game since Advanced Dungeons and Dragon (1st Edition) to now, the rules do give the DM/Group the ability to modify their game, the rules, et al, to fit their needs. So, coming to a public forum with a ton of experienced players and DMs and asking our advice, then telling us to not be biased? Really?

 

[Noctem]

Absolutely! the sense that DM's can houserule, modify their game to their liking, is not only ok but also fully endorsed by WOTC. I think there's multiple places where this is stated between the PHB, MM and DMG. I've never said otherwise. It's the prerogative of each DM to run the game and make rulings or modify existing game elements to suit the game they are running (I would just add that getting player approval before making these kinds of changes is a very good idea instead of springing them in the middle of a session!).

However, when discussing game elements like these on a forum where the rules are being discussed it's important to make sure that the houserules of one DM aren't going to be used as if it were rules text or the RAW/RAI. That's a big problem everywhere.

To be clear, I'm not saying and have never said that people can't houserule if they want to.

 

[Zaruthustran]

The disintegrate spell says "If this damage reduces the target to 0 hit points, it is disintegrated."

The Wild Shaped druid is hit with disintegrate. Takes damage that reduces his animal form to 0 hit points, and is disintegrated.
A disintegrated creature is dead. "Die" is one of the things that triggers reversion. So, the dust is Druid dust, not animal dust. Hooray! As a result of reversion, at least the Druid's magic items are recoverable.

Think of the order of operations like this:

Work At Disneyland: while you work at Disneyland, put on a Mickey Mouse costume. You have to take off the Mickey Mouse costume and get back into your regular clothes if your costume gets wet. If your costume gets dirty, your boss fires you. Someone throws a bucket of mud on you. Now you're wet. So you have to change out of your Mickey Mouse costume. But you're also dirty, so you're totally fired immediately.

Work at Disneyland = wildshape ability. Wear costume = animal form. Get wet = Reach 0 hit points. Get fired = disintegrate.

In other words, in the above example getting wet and getting dirty both happen--they're inextricably linked--and both consequences apply.

Same with reaching zero hit points from disintegrate. The spell's damage reduces taget's HP to zero, so the target is disintegrated. That happens. The target was a wildshaped druid, and wildshaped druids revert when they die. So the (dead, pile-of-ash) druid reverts. That happens.

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

The Target was a wild shaped Druid. WAS A WILD SHAPED DRUID. The wild shape IS the Druid. There is NO FORM LEFT, as the wild shaped form, which is now dust, was the Druid. The wild shape is not a shield, it is not a battery of hit points FOR THIS EFFECT, the damage itself is what is irrelevent - if the disintegrate does enough damage to make the wild shape reach zero, then as per the spell description, the form turns to DUST, there is nothing left to revert to a Druid. DUST will not revert to anything.

 

[AriochQ]

I can't believe this is 13 pages. Druid is dusted and dead. You could quibble over whether the dust is druid dust or bear dust, but does it really matter? Any other interpretation is just creative semantics.

It reminds me of that investigation where Bill Clinton had his own definition for the word "is".

 

[epithet]

Whatever.

Look, Crawford has spelled out the way the rule should be read. Trying to parse what he said along some ridiculous distinction like "RAI" vs "RAW" is just silly. You can certainly rule, at your table, that disintegrate will perma-kill a wild shaped druid if the spell knocks him out of his wild shape, but let's be clear: that's your house rule. It is contrary to the "official" interpretation. Now, I'm all in favor of DMs having their own set of house rules (although a house rule that insta-kills a PC on a technicality is chicken excrement,) but don't go pretending that your house rule is somehow the "rule as written" in the published book.

No one is telling you you can't be a rotten DM, but don't expect the rest of us to smile and nod when you carry on about how you're playing the game as it was meant to be played.

 

[Noctem]

I can't believe this is 13 pages. Druid is dusted and dead. You could quibble over whether the dust is druid dust or bear dust, but does it really matter? Any other interpretation is just creative semantics.

It reminds me of that investigation where Bill Clinton had his own definition for the word "is".

Your lack of understanding of how two game elements interact by the rules and by the intent of the lead designer of the game you're playing doesn't mean the correct way to play = creative semantics. You should put that paint brush away before you hurt yourself.

 

[Noctem]

Whatever.

Look, Crawford has spelled out the way the rule should be read. Trying to parse what he said along some ridiculous distinction like "RAI" vs "RAW" is just silly. You can certainly rule, at your table, that disintegrate will perma-kill a wild shaped druid if the spell knocks him out of his wild shape, but let's be clear: that's your house rule. It is contrary to the "official" interpretation. Now, I'm all in favor of DMs having their own set of house rules (although a house rule that insta-kills a PC on a technicality is chicken excrement,) but don't go pretending that your house rule is somehow the "rule as written" in the published book.

No one is telling you you can't be a rotten DM, but don't expect the rest of us to smile and nod when you carry on about how you're playing the game as it was meant to be played.

Thank you for posting