D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Maxperson]

Actually it is an argument for people reading to understand that what he's presenting as facts aren't actually facts. I mean I can say it in a more round-about way if you want?

"What maxperson is presenting as facts aren't facts because of x,y,z (I did this in the earlier post on this thread)." However, it's much more simple to say he's out of touch at this point. The discussion won't move forward because it's 1 person saying everyone else posting is wrong while not doing anything to move the discussion forward himself. I've presented both RAW and RAI, others have as well. We've done our part. If me calling someone out of touch bothers you, then just don't reply to it or move to the next thread. You're presumably an adult, act like one.

You "ripped" it apart by ignoring what was written and inventing rules that say that checks happen at the end of damage.

 

[Maxperson]

Wild Shape deliberately does not use the term "temporary hitpoints" to describe what happens to the Druid, because they are a different game mechanic, that may have unintended interactions with other game mechanics. I think Wild Shape as it is works just fine. But maybe they should have simply called it a "second health pool" instead. The description of Disintegrate should also have been more specific, to at least resolve any rule disputes with the mechanics of the core classes.

This is one of the reasons why I'm favor of clear rules, rather than vague fluff text. D&D 3.5 probably overdid it, by sometimes covering an entire page in examples, just to cover every angle of the rules. But I'd rather have rules that are too detailed, than rules that open up a huge discussion, like this thread perfectly shows.

The problem with ultra clear rules is that they limit imagination and force groups down one path that may be good or bad for that group, rather than opening up many paths and letting the DM or group decide which is best for them.

 

[Imaculata]

The problem with ultra clear rules is that they limit imagination and force groups down one path that may be good or bad for that group, rather than opening up many paths and letting the DM or group decide which is best for them.

I've heard people make this argument before, but I don't agree this is true. I think when you've got a game system, that the rules should be perfectly clear. I prefer to see rules that are concise and clear, and yet don't cover dozens of pages just to get across what a spell or ability does. I don't think anyone's imagination is being constricted by a better description of the Disintegrate spell for example.

 

[Noctem]

Wild Shape deliberately does not use the term "temporary hitpoints" to describe what happens to the Druid, because they are a different game mechanic, that may have unintended interactions with other game mechanics. I think Wild Shape as it is works just fine. But maybe they should have simply called it a "second health pool" instead. The description of Disintegrate should also have been more specific, to at least resolve any rule disputes with the mechanics of the core classes.

This is one of the reasons why I'm favor of clear rules, rather than vague fluff text. D&D 3.5 probably overdid it, by sometimes covering an entire page in examples, just to cover every angle of the rules. But I'd rather have rules that are too detailed, than rules that open up a huge discussion, like this thread perfectly shows.

I agree with you 100%. Temp HP creates more problems because it can't be easily healed, doesn't stack and would make the druid even more resilient since effects that target HP like Power Word Kill would then not even affect the wildshaped druid among other issues.

And I also agree that this is all a symptom of the edition being written with a "laissez faire" kind of attitude toward the rules which has caused them lots of extra work thus far to explains things to a level people can actually follow. This is even worse for Adventure League imo.

 

[Noctem]

I've heard people make this argument before, but I don't agree this is true. I think when you've got a game system, that the rules should be perfectly clear. I prefer to see rules that are concise and clear, and yet don't cover dozens of pages just to get across what a spell or ability does. I don't think anyone's imagination is being constricted by a better description of the Disintegrate spell for example.

Yup, heard that argument before too. Don't agree with it either. It's a fallacious statement.

 

[Pssthpok]

If you were trying to come across as reasonable here, you're not doing a very good job.

Attack the arguments, not the person. If you feel that you've said all that needs to be said about his opinion, then perhaps you are the one who should move along?

How about the plebs stop policing the thread?

 

[Maxperson]

Yup, heard that argument before too. Don't agree with it either. It's a fallacious statement.

Prove it.

 

[Maxperson]

How about the plebs stop policing the thread?

He's right, though. Noctem has a bad habit of posting stuff that doesn't match RAW, and then insulting people who argue against his errors. He is also very hypocritical, because when someone insults him half as much as he insults others, he calls them on it and leaves the argument. If he can't take it, he shouldn't be dishing it out.

 

[Uchawi]

Because any rule interpretation can force a group down one path or limit imagination. But a clear rule offers a better foundation to build more rules or for ad-hoc actions, because the intent is clear. It also lets the game flow smoother and makes it easier to learn.

A creative player will tend to stretch boundaries and it is more likely a DM will shut things down regardless of what the player or rules state.

 

[Uchawi]

I agree with you 100%. Temp HP creates more problems because it can't be easily healed, doesn't stack and would make the druid even more resilient since effects that target HP like Power Word Kill would then not even affect the wildshaped druid among other issues.

And I also agree that this is all a symptom of the edition being written with a "laissez faire" kind of attitude toward the rules which has caused them lots of extra work thus far to explains things to a level people can actually follow. This is even worse for Adventure League imo.

I agree on the natural language design theory doing more harm than good, but I disagree on temporary hit points creating more problems. It just changes the expectations.