D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Maxperson]

As to that, whenever we come across RAW that could be read in either of two ways, and the wording doesn't solve the problem, then go to the concept behind the effects in question.

With disintegrate, what the 'dust at 0hp' rule is trying to simulate is that if you would otherwise die or be knocked unconscious from the damage dealt by this spell, it turns you to dust.

But the beast form going to 0hp does not result in the usual death/unconsciousness; it results in a reverted druid, who takes the excess damage.

RAW cannot be read both ways. RAW is read able to be read one way. Damage reducing you to 0 hit points = dust. Druid wild shape hits 0 hit points. It's crystal clear.

There is no dead/unconscious beast, therefore there is no dust.

You are confusing intent with RAW. RAI =/= RAW.

 

[Imaculata]

With disintegrate, what the 'dust at 0hp' rule is trying to simulate is that if you would otherwise die or be knocked unconscious from the damage dealt by this spell, it turns you to dust.

That is what the spell description should have said instead. But it doesn't. We can guess what the intent should be, but you could rule it either way.

In the PHB it says this about the combat resolution order:

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's
range: a creature, an object, at a location.

2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether
the target has cover and whether you have advantage
at disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells,
special abilities. and other effects can apply penalties
at bonuses to your attack roll.

3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a
hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has
rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause
special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

If there's ever any question whether something you're
doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're
making an attack roll, you're making an attack.

Now with point 3 is where it gets tricky. "you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.". Well, disintegrate does have an additional effect. But what is the correct order? It doesn't say. It says you roll damage, and that special effects come into effect as well. It doesn't specifically say that they come into play AFTER the damage resolution (even though that makes sense). So as far as rules-as-written are concerned, Maxperson is correct, it doesn't specifically say that you must resolve the damage first, and then resolve the effects. The book is completely fuzzy about it.

 

[seebs]

As to that, whenever we come across RAW that could be read in either of two ways, and the wording doesn't solve the problem, then go to the concept behind the effects in question.

With disintegrate, what the 'dust at 0hp' rule is trying to simulate is that if you would otherwise die or be knocked unconscious from the damage dealt by this spell, it turns you to dust.

But the beast form going to 0hp does not result in the usual death/unconsciousness; it results in a reverted druid, who takes the excess damage.

There is no dead/unconscious beast, therefore there is no dust.

"Trying to simulate" seems weird. If I wanted to say that, I'd write "if this damage would knock the target unconscious or kill them, they are instead disintegrated." There is no reason to "simulate" something we can express clearly within the existing rules framework. So what is the basis for inferring that the rule is attempting to "simulate" this particular otucome, as opposed to assuming that it means exactly what it says?

 

[Noctem]

Ah my bad, I didn't remember the 3 steps exactly. I thought it was step 1 pick targets, figure out bonuses etc. step 2 resolve attack and damage and finally step 3 resolve effects. Guess not. However, that's really just an afterthought since as Arial points out, wildshape reversion will never result in the druid being reduced to 0 hit points anyway.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah my bad, I didn't remember the 3 steps exactly. I thought it was step 1 pick targets, figure out bonuses etc. step 2 resolve attack and damage and finally step 3 resolve effects. Guess not. However, that's really just an afterthought since as Arial points out, wildshape reversion will never result in the druid being reduced to 0 hit points anyway.

The reversion is irrelevant. The druid hits 0 before that.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Chaosmancer]

Round and round the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel

 

[seebs]

Ah my bad, I didn't remember the 3 steps exactly. I thought it was step 1 pick targets, figure out bonuses etc. step 2 resolve attack and damage and finally step 3 resolve effects. Guess not. However, that's really just an afterthought since as Arial points out, wildshape reversion will never result in the druid being reduced to 0 hit points anyway.

It doesn't have to result in the druid being reduced to 0 hit points, as it results from the druid being reduced to 0 hit points. "Reduced to 0 hit points" is an event, not a state.

... EDIT: It occurs to me, that's probably the real distinction being drawn. I'm reading "reduces you to zero" as "at some point during the resolution your hit points go to zero". I wonder if people are parsing it as "you are reduced to zero", meaning, "your hit points remain zero".

 

[Noctem]

Now think of this in terms of a game that is attempting to simulate real life. The more complicated the rule set it becomes, the more it invites error and ambiguity (not to mention incomprehensibility- take the tax code, please). On the other hand, the more simplified the rule set is, the more likely it is to be open to variant interpretations.

There is no "proper" way to do it. There is no "solid" base. People can, and will, argue about everything.

You're comparison of 5th edition dnd to "real life" and "the united states constitution, laws and regulations, etc.." is just precious. But that's the only real disconnect at play here. Dnd does not try to simulate real life. In real life I can't conjure a fireball and throw it, I can't fly, I can't fight dragons, I can't even find a dungeon with things inside to kill for loot in order to gain levels and suddenly gain special abilities I couldn't do before all of a sudden. What are you smoking?

 

[Imaculata]

Now think of this in terms of a game that is attempting to simulate real life. The more complicated the rule set it becomes, the more it invites error and ambiguity (not to mention incomprehensibility- take the tax code, please). On the other hand, the more simplified the rule set is, the more likely it is to be open to variant interpretations.

There is no "proper" way to do it. There is no "solid" base. People can, and will, argue about everything.

But it's not a simulation of real life, it's a game. And plenty of other games manage to clarify their rules just fine without people arguing over what the rules say. (Even really complicated board games can have perfectly clear rules)

So I don't think this defense holds up. And I don't think there is no proper way to do it. Of course there is. Tabletop games have had proper and clear rules for decades. D&D really is no different. There's no excuse.