D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Maxperson]

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.

The thing is, each DM will shut the creativity down at different points. That's a good thing. Rather than all of them being forced to conform to set boundaries, or fight with players when they want to change those set boundaries, each group can create its own. That's preferable.

 

[Umbran]

How about the plebs stop policing the thread?

Yes. How about we have a moderator do it instead - what is said below applies to *EVERYONE*...

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.

Please, don't make it personal. Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster. Here, you have taken it from a discussion that might have been resolved with reason, and made it into an ego contest. This is very uncool of you, and is a good way to get moderators to look rather critically at your overall approach. Do you want that? Probably not.

So, everyone - DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL. Do the stunningly original thing of being respectful to each other. Thanks.

 

[Noctem]

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.

Agreed on changing expectations, I think if they went that far it would completely change the wildshape dynamic. It's important to keep in mind though that saying the feature needs to be fixed just because of how a single spell interacts with it might be a bit of an exaggeration. I don't personally have any issue with out these things interact.

 

[Hriston]

During the start of 5e when there were lots of questions bouncing around, people took to twitter to ask questions to the devs directly. At first people focused their questions to Mike Mearls because he's a famous guy but the more he was asked questions the more people started scratching their heads. The reason for this was that the answers he gave were his rulings and not how the game itself was designed to work. So he contradicted the rules in almost every response which lead to even more confusion. That's when Mearls, Crawford and others decided to nominate Jeremy Crawford as the rules guy. If you have a question and want the answer based on the rules and not a simple ruling, you ask him. Which is what makes maxperson's posts even more ridiculous!

Anyway that aside, the RAW and RAI clearly don't agree with some of the posters in this thread. However, they are convinced they are correct. This is the exact reason why I didn't want to get involved in this thread earlier since I've gone through this whole process on the WOTC forums. They have their shutters on and they just continue on and on. But at some point, reading someone constantly tell other people who are playing correctly that they aren't and should follow a houserule of theirs instead, or that the RAW says something it doesn't just gets to me. Play your game how you want, don't go online to tell people your rulings / houserules are how it's meant to be played. We have the lead devs and the rulebook for that thanks...

The RAW are just that, a written text. We can all agree on what that is because the words are the same in everyone's books. There is no point in someone saying they know what RAW is contrary to what others think it is. RAW is a verifiable fact.

What it means, on the other hand, like any text, is subject to interpretation, and what I find annoying about several of the posts I've read, in this thread and others, is when someone goes around claiming that their interpretation is actually the RAW. It is not. Unless you are quoting straight from the source, anything you write to explain the meaning of the text is an interpretation that may vary from one reader to the next. You have your interpretation. I have mine. Don't tell me yours is the RAW.

 

[Hriston]

So far no one has given a good explanation for how RAW lines up with RAI.

I've seen several good explanations in this thread.

I showed the relevant rules to my eleven year old last night. He immediately came to the correct conclusion. He said, "The disintegrate ray causes the druid to lose his wildshape, and then the druid takes any additional damage."

Perhaps you're reading something that isn't there into the text.

 

[psychophipps]

If the total damage is greater than the combined remaining hit points of the shape and the Druid ...well, it's time to whip out your Gnomish Dustfighter(tm) and hope the caster of Disintegrate doesn't follow up by casting Gust of Wind.

 

[Imaculata]

The RAW are just that, a written text. We can all agree on what that is because the words are the same in everyone's books. There is no point in someone saying they know what RAW is contrary to what others think it is. RAW is a verifiable fact.

What it means, on the other hand, like any text, is subject to interpretation, and what I find annoying about several of the posts I've read, in this thread and others, is when someone goes around claiming that their interpretation is actually the RAW.

^ This is indeed usually the problem. We've had huge discussions about the rules as written on the WOTC forums, where one person claims the text means one thing, and another claims it means something entirely different. (In fact, we had that discussion about what challenge rating means to the expected difficulty of a challenge)

This is the big reason why I prefer a very detailed rule description, over one that leaves room for interpretation. So we don't end up in a spot where one person thinks that "a reasonable challenge" means "a good fight", where as another thinks it means "a fair fight that won't get you killed". I don't like vague rule descriptions. It would not be hard to resolve issues like that by just picking better words.

 

[Noctem]

I've seen several good explanations in this thread.

I showed the relevant rules to my eleven year old last night. He immediately came to the correct conclusion. He said, "The disintegrate ray causes the druid to lose his wildshape, and then the druid takes any additional damage."

Perhaps you're reading something that isn't there into the text.

Thanks for recognizing that we have indeed tried to give solid explanations

 

[Noctem]

The RAW are just that, a written text. We can all agree on what that is because the words are the same in everyone's books. There is no point in someone saying they know what RAW is contrary to what others think it is. RAW is a verifiable fact.

What it means, on the other hand, like any text, is subject to interpretation, and what I find annoying about several of the posts I've read, in this thread and others, is when someone goes around claiming that their interpretation is actually the RAW. It is not. Unless you are quoting straight from the source, anything you write to explain the meaning of the text is an interpretation that may vary from one reader to the next. You have your interpretation. I have mine. Don't tell me yours is the RAW.

When I say RAW to someone it's because I'm quoting the rules text directly to show them what it says. Simply claiming that what you're saying is RAW is just nonsense if you're not providing rules text. Interpretations are not RAW by default. If say that a longsword deals 1d8 damage, that's the RAW because anyone can look in the book and see that fact for themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

Please, don't make it personal. Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster. Here, you have taken it from a discussion that might have been resolved with reason, and made it into an ego contest. This is very uncool of you, and is a good way to get moderators to look rather critically at your overall approach. Do you want that? Probably not.

So, everyone - DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL. Do the stunningly original thing of being respectful to each other. Thanks.

You're right. He had been insulting me repeatedly and I shouldn't have lowered myself to that level. Thanks for the reminder.