D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[seebs]

What was 'specifically written' can be understood as either 'results in being reduced to 0 hp, and therefore unconscious or dead' OR 'when doing the maths of the game mechanics, the number ever gets to zero, even if it doesn't stay at zero'.

Apart from the drops/reduces question (which I don't think is a consistently-used terminology distinction), it seems to me that we have two fundamentally identical triggers: "[the druid] drops to 0 hit points" or "reduces [the target] to 0 hit points".

There's nothing to indicate that one of them means "ends up at 0 hit points after all other procs" and the other means "goes to 0 hit points at all ever".

So if an event can trigger one, that event can also trigger the other.

The maths and the game mechanics don't exist in the game world, they simply describe what does exist. Normally, being at 0 hp describes the game reality of being unconscious or dead (or as a trigger to revert). All of these things are events in the game world. Disintegrate triggers off the game world events of unconscious/dead.

No, it doesn't. It triggers off 0 hit points. If they had meant "triggers off the game world events of unconscious/dead", they would have written "if this damage knocks you unconscious or kills you".

The game mechanics of a druid's hp total as the beast form reach zero and switch to his normal hps aren't an event in the game world; the only actual event here is the reversion. There is no unconsciousness or death.

That's not stated, and it's actually not how I'd interpret it. I'd interpret it as being just like the trope in literature where you knock the shifter out, and they revert, except that they revert less damaged.

No, what he usually does is phrase his answers as his intent. He avoids language that restricts the choice of his players, to support his 'rulings not rules' philosophy. We shouldn't expect any other form of answer from him.

Agreed.

This is quite a feat of mental gymnastics: you ask him which it is, he says that the intent is that the druid survives (supporting the 'result' interpretation), and you pretend that he didn't answer your question because he didn't rule your way, using the excuse that his form of words didn't meet your standard.

See, I don't think the "result" thing is implied here, exactly. I think, rather, the issue here is that the wild shape (or other polymorph) powers are intended to interrupt damage processing and cause you to restart the damage processing with new circumstances; you apply the remaining damage to a new form, instead of continuing with the existing damage event. So it's not that disintegrate's relying on "final resulting damage"; disintegrate is as-written, just like unconscious/dead-at-zero is as-written, but the shape revert is an interrupt which breaks that.

That's simpler and consistent with the rules philosophy that you have relatively straight-forward rules and sometimes one rule trumps another.

 

[Maxperson]

What was 'specifically written' can be understood as either 'results in being reduced to 0 hp, and therefore unconscious or dead' OR 'when doing the maths of the game mechanics, the number ever gets to zero, even if it doesn't stay at zero'.

Not really. If you add the "therefore unconscious or dead" you are adding to the language what isn't there. In any case the wild shape is reduced to "0 hit point, and therefore unconscious or dead" the instant it hits 0 hit points. Then, AFTER that happens a specific rule overrides the general one and prevents the unconscious part. It never, ever stops the druid from being reduced to 0 hit points. Read it however you like, it doesn't stop the disintegrate spell from working.

The game mechanics of a druid's hp total as the beast form reach zero and switch to his normal hps aren't an event in the game world; the only actual event here is the reversion. There is no unconsciousness or death.

Yes it is an event in the game world. That's why unconsciousness is also a way in the game world to cause the druid to revert. All three reversion triggers happen via game world events.

No, what he usually does is phrase his answers as his intent. He avoids language that restricts the choice of his players, to support his 'rulings not rules' philosophy. We shouldn't expect any other form of answer from him.

Funny, the other times I've had answers from him it was straight rulings, not intent like that.

This is quite a feat of mental gymnastics: you ask him which it is, he says that the intent is that the druid survives (supporting the 'result' interpretation), and you pretend that he didn't answer your question because he didn't rule your way, using the excuse that his form of words didn't meet your standard.

I didn't say he didn't answer the question. I said he didn't give a ruling and he did not. Pretending that he did is disingenuous.

 

[Arial Black]

I just got SCAG. On p131, 'Mastery of Death', it says:-

Beginning at 11th level, you use your familiarity with death to escape its grasp. When you are reduced to 0 hit points, you can expend 1 ki point (no action required) to have 1 hit point instead.

How do you all think that this ability interacts with disintegrate?

For me, it definitely use the phrase 'reduced to 0 hp', but also clarifies that, if you use the ability, you have 1 hp instead of 0 hp.

As I've mentioned before, this game has quite a few examples of abilities/spells/etc removing their own trigger, as if that trigger never actually happened (while still actually triggering). Like shield, for example: the trigger is that you actually get hit, which triggers the spell that means you never actually got hit. It doesn't need to include the word 'instead' to actually mean 'you get missed instead of being hit'.

For me, Wild Shape removes its own trigger when taking damage and being reduced to 0 hp. You revert 'instead' of being reduced to 0 hp, and it doesn't need to use that particular word to have that meaning.

As for the disintegrate spell, I read it as 'if this damage results in you being at 0 hp, you're dust'. It's a damage-dealing spell, not save-or-die. Wild Shape interacts with damage by reverting instead of 0 hp.

 

[Maxperson]

I just got SCAG. On p131, 'Mastery of Death', it says:-

How do you all think that this ability interacts with disintegrate?

For me, it definitely use the phrase 'reduced to 0 hp', but also clarifies that, if you use the ability, you have 1 hp instead of 0 hp.

Yes, unlike wild shape, that ability unwinds time. It uses the word "instead", which indicates that it changes things so that 0 never happens.

As I've mentioned before, this game has quite a few examples of abilities/spells/etc removing their own trigger, as if that trigger never actually happened (while still actually triggering). Like shield, for example: the trigger is that you actually get hit, which triggers the spell that means you never actually got hit. It doesn't need to include the word 'instead' to actually mean 'you get missed instead of being hit'.

Yes, and wild shape is not one of them. None of its language removes the trigger like your example does.

For me, Wild Shape removes its own trigger when taking damage and being reduced to 0 hp. You revert 'instead' of being reduced to 0 hp, and it doesn't need to use that particular word to have that meaning.

That's not RAW, though. No written language in wild shape allows it to remove its own trigger.

As for the disintegrate spell, I read it as 'if this damage results in you being at 0 hp, you're dust'. It's a damage-dealing spell, not save-or-die. Wild Shape interacts with damage by reverting instead of 0 hp.

There is no "instead" with wild shape. It doesn't exist.

 

[Noctem]

I just got SCAG. On p131, 'Mastery of Death', it says:-



How do you all think that this ability interacts with disintegrate?

For me, it definitely use the phrase 'reduced to 0 hp', but also clarifies that, if you use the ability, you have 1 hp instead of 0 hp.

As I've mentioned before, this game has quite a few examples of abilities/spells/etc removing their own trigger, as if that trigger never actually happened (while still actually triggering). Like shield, for example: the trigger is that you actually get hit, which triggers the spell that means you never actually got hit. It doesn't need to include the word 'instead' to actually mean 'you get missed instead of being hit'.

For me, Wild Shape removes its own trigger when taking damage and being reduced to 0 hp. You revert 'instead' of being reduced to 0 hp, and it doesn't need to use that particular word to have that meaning.

As for the disintegrate spell, I read it as 'if this damage results in you being at 0 hp, you're dust'. It's a damage-dealing spell, not save-or-die. Wild Shape interacts with damage by reverting instead of 0 hp.

This ability will work even against this spell because unlike the half-orc and barbarian features it doesn't have the caveat that it fails vs things that cause outright death. So yes, Mastery of Death will work. However, as noted previously it won't proc when you revert from wildshape. You, as in the Monk, have not been reduced to 0 hit points. Again, wildshape reversion will never proc effects that go off from being reduced to 0 hit points. The only way those proc is if your actual health pool is reduced to 0 hit points.

Maxperson is of course wrong in basically every post he's submitted to the discussion in this thread, but I'm sure people already know that bit.

 

[Maxperson]

Maxperson is of course wrong in basically every post he's submitted to the discussion in this thread, but I'm sure people already know that bit.

So in your infinite wisdom, you'll be able to prove that the word "instead" is in wild shape somewhere.

Your argument relies on rules that don't exist, and that you acknowledged don't exist in a response to another poster.

 

[Imaculata]

Maxperson is of course wrong in basically every post he's submitted to the discussion in this thread, but I'm sure people already know that bit.

I disagree. He's just correcting us all on what the rules actually say. We may disagree on his ruling, which I do too, but he's correct that this matter could be ruled either way. The rules do not tell us what happens first, the spell or the revert. We may deduce what the rules intent, but that is our interpretation of the rules, not what they actually say.

There's a difference here between what the literal text says, and what we think the rules mean.

 

[Arial Black]

So in your infinite wisdom, you'll be able to prove that the word "instead" is in wild shape somewhere.

Your argument relies on rules that don't exist, and that you acknowledged don't exist in a response to another poster.

English is a language with a wide vocabulary, and there are many, many different ways to say the same thing. The fact that the word 'instead' doesn't appear is no proof that the text doesn't have the same meaning as if the word did appear.

I realise that you refuse to accept any wording that doesn't precisely match some unknown standard unique to you, but the rest of us aren't bound by such insanity. When you ask JC the question, and he actually answers you, you refuse to believe that he answered you on the grounds that he didn't use the precise words that you demanded. Meanwhile, the rest of us have the comprehension skills required to understand what 'the intent is that the druid survives' means in this context.

At this point, the DM of 5E has made a ruling, you don't dispute it, but you're in the corner whingeing to anyone who wants to listen that the DM is wrong....!

 

[Arial Black]

I disagree. He's just correcting us all on what the rules actually say. We may disagree on his ruling, which I do too, but he's correct that this matter could be ruled either way. The rules do not tell us what happens first, the spell or the revert. We may deduce what the rules intent, but that is our interpretation of the rules, not what they actually say.

I agree that the rule could be read either way, depending on whether you understand 'reduced to 0 hp' as some event that happens during the process of resolving the damage taken or the result of the damage taken, but Maxperson doesn't admit this. He asserts that there is only one possible way to interpret those words: his way! Even in the face of the writer who tells him that the intent is to interpret it the other way!

There's a difference here between what the literal text says, and what we think the rules mean.

And where Maxperson falls down is that he imagines that there is some pure RAW that doesn't have to be interpreted, while the wise know that every piece of RAW has to be interpreted by the reader, because that's how reading comprehension works.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*