D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Maxperson]

Are you suggesting that the RAW for Wild Shape do not say the Druid assumes the shape, hit points, and hit dice of the beast form? Or are you saying that the words "affect", "adopt", "impersonate", "put on", "simulate", "feign", or even "fake" are not valid glosses for the word "assume" in this context, and that the hit points thus acquired are not assumed but are rather genuine?

RAW says you (the druid) assume the shape of (not becomes) a beast. That's it. Plain English. The druid in beast form is still the druid, so when the druid hits 0 hit points in beast form, it's the druid that is hitting 0. All other language also talks about you (the druid). Not once does it ever use language to say that the body of the beast is somehow not the druid. That means that the new pool of hit points belongs to the druid.

It then goes on to define what exactly that means. It means the following.

1. Your (the druid) game statistics are replaced in a very specific fashion which does not involve the beast shape not being the druid.

2. When you (the druid) transform, you (the druid) assumes the beasts hit points and hit dice. It then goes on to talk about the very specific things that reversion stops. Ash and death are not there. Being reduced to 0 hit points is.

3. You (the druid can't cast spells and so on.

4. Oh, look. You (the druid) keep the benefits of class, race, or other source if the form is physically capable.

There's nothing that supports your interpretation that the wild shape is somehow not the druid. Everything says that it is.

 

[Hriston]

RAW says you (the druid) assume the shape of (not becomes) a beast.

It also says you assume the beast's hit points, not that the beast's hit points become your hit points.

I don't see how both of those statements don't support my interpretation.

 

[Maxperson]

It also says you assume the beast's hit points, not that the beast's hit points become your hit points.

I don't see how both of those statements don't support my interpretation.

And I guess when you make an omelet, you crack an egg, but the egg doesn't become cracked by you. It's the same difference. When you assume the hit points of the beast, those become your hit points. If they didn't, you (the druid) could not hit 0 hit points like wild shape says you (the druid ) do. If what you are arguing was true, the language would be, you revert when the beast falls unconscious, reaches 0 hit points, or dies. Since it doesn't separate the hit points out like that, they are the druids hit points, but in a separate pool.

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

Clearly there are going to be two, defined camps here - that are not going to agree with the other camp no matter how any of us frame our arguments. I will reiterate: The Druid is Dust camp, will have a dusted Druid, and the Druid reverts unharmed camp will go on their merry way as well.

I am calling it: The horse had been beaten to death, ressurected, and then hit with a disintegrate... but wait... the horse was a wild shaped Druid... GAH!

 

[Hriston]

And I guess when you make an omelet, you crack an egg, but the egg doesn't become cracked by you. It's the same difference. When you assume the hit points of the beast, those become your hit points. If they didn't, you (the druid) could not hit 0 hit points like wild shape says you (the druid ) do. If what you are arguing was true, the language would be, you revert when the beast falls unconscious, reaches 0 hit points, or dies. Since it doesn't separate the hit points out like that, they are the druids hit points, but in a separate pool.

That's referring to the assumed beast hit points. The Druid still has his/her actual hit points. S/he just doesn't have to use them until the assumed hit points are exhausted.

 

[BryonD]

Well, the designers have stated to me via Twitter that the intent of wild shape was to not allow disintegrate to work. Jeremy Crawford was very careful to only speak of design intent, though, instead of giving me the ruling. Most likely because he looked at it and RAW doesn't match the intent. I agree with you, though, this circumstance is very unlikely to occur in a real campaign.

Yeah, I saw that comment.
I disagree with a lot of their intent. Which is cool because, again, their first intent was to create a highly flexible core game. Their specific intent tends to be pretty conservative,pro simple pro-"the player lives".
This is a perfectly valid baseline.

 

[Maxperson]

That's referring to the assumed beast hit points. The Druid still has his/her actual hit points. S/he just doesn't have to use them until the assumed hit points are exhausted.

When you assume something, you make it yours, not the other way around.

 

[Hriston]

When you assume something, you make it yours, not the other way around.

When you assume a thing, you take it on as if it were your own, but it does not replace the things you already have.

 

[Imaculata]

In other words, you have both. You have both the hit points of the beast form, and your original pool of hit points. They are both your remaining health.

The reason it works this way, is because the Druid is supposed to transform back to his old self whenever he takes too much damage. This allows the Druid to be a little bit tanky. And Disintegrate is a damage based spell. So I see no reason why that would suddenly replace the core mechanic of a class.

Yes, disintegrate does say in its description that anything that reaches 0 hp is dusted. What they should have said, is anything that has no life left is dusted instead. Now we have a pointless circle discussion over something that could be ruled either way, but of which the original intent is pretty clear.

So does anyone still feel that vague rule descriptions are better than clear rules?

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

So does anyone still feel that vague rule descriptions are better than clear rules?

Not so much vague, moreso not all encompassing of every conceivable interpretation possibly? A rules lawyer will figure out a way around Disintegrate even if the write of the damn spell had 9 pages dedicated to it. I believe that individual DM/players do and will want the ability to tinker and tailor the game - and make house rules along these lines. Leaving the rules at least partially open to enterpretation, allows such house rules to exist.