D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Imaculata]

This isn't to say that either position is either inherently better or worse. Personally, I think that there has been too much focus on the Druid mechanic and not enough on disintegrate; there seems to be a fair number of mechanics (and they are proliferating as the rules expand) that allow some type of recovery from 0hp.

I've always had issues with the Disintegrate spell in all editions of D&D. Even back when I was playing Baldursgate, I would cast Deathward on my party, to protect them against it... which of course did not work, because disintegrate is not a death spell. Then why does it sound like one? The word alone conjures up an image of someone being obliterated in an instant, which sure sounds like it would require a death save. There's just something very unintuitive about the spell, and I've never liked it.

 

[seebs]

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.

That is a really unfriendly thing to say, especially from the person who was smug and condescending about how the "make an attack" rules clearly specified the order of events, when in fact the rule you were citing to does not exist in any form anywhere in the game, and was completely made up.

But mostly, even if it were true, it would be really, really, rude. There is no circumstance under which this comment could lead to a productive discussion; it's just personal sniping. If I wanted to read posts like this, I'd be on the Paizo Pathfinder Rules discussion forum.

 

[seebs]

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.

This summary is incorrect. Maxperson has agreed that we were given a clear statement of intent, but notes that there is a significant difference between how that was phrased and how some other responses have been phrased, which he believes to reflect that, in this case, the words of the rules do not correctly articulate that intent.

 

[dmnqwk]

Since this topic is still up and running I thought I would mention the specifics of the Disintegrate spell is that it says "if the target is reduced to 0 hit points, it is disintegrated."

Now, Wild Shape states the druid reverts back to their normal form at 0 hp. Since the target of the spell was the wildshaped druid it is quite clear the target no longer exists, because we are now dealing with the druid instead.

You're going to try and suggest the target is still in existence but unless I see a rule stating otherwise I am free to believe the target of the spell was the wildshaped druid, not the druid, and that the spell can only disintegrate the form of the wildshape, which no longer exists.

RAW is that the target is disintegrated. The target does not exist anymore, therefore that part of the spell fails. (if you're going to concern yourself with the wording, remember Disintegrate explicitly states the target can be a creature, an object or a creation of magical force. The wildshape explicitly states you transform, meaning the original target ceases to function between the full stop of the damage, and the capital letter of the disintegration effect.) RAW.

 

[seebs]

Huh.

So by that reasoning, when the druid reverts, they have no memories of the wildshaped period, because the thing which had those experiences no longer exists.

I wonder whether there's been any rulings on whether ongoing spell effects, etc., are broken when you revert a polymorph.

 

[dmnqwk]

I agree, can of worms are definitely opened up with this spell, however, let's work things through on the assumption that the Disintegration spell goes off. Using Amrien, the Wood Elf Druid as an example, shape changed into Snuggles the Bear.

1) Snuggles, with 48 hit points, is hit by a dastardly ray of sickly green energy that she cannot avoid. Snuggles receives 88 points of damage, oh noes!
2) Snuggles, who was at full health with 48, is dropped to 0 but not sufficient damage to instantly kill her. Snuggles is instantly turned to a pile of grey dust!
3) Snuggles is now a pile of grey dust. However, Snuggles is not dead because NOTHING has told her she is dead.
4) Snuggles reverts back to Amrien, who takes 40 damage and reverts back to her original form, as per the description of Wild Shape.

So to summarize: Wild Shape is indeed disintegrated into a pile of grey dust, then reverts back to the Druids form. Never dies, never dead. RAW.
But for the sake of common sense I'd skip the grey pile of dust bit. Yay for Snuggles!

 

[seebs]

I agree, can of worms are definitely opened up with this spell, however, let's work things through on the assumption that the Disintegration spell goes off. Using Amrien, the Wood Elf Druid as an example, shape changed into Snuggles the Bear.

1) Snuggles, with 48 hit points, is hit by a dastardly ray of sickly green energy that she cannot avoid. Snuggles receives 88 points of damage, oh noes!
2) Snuggles, who was at full health with 48, is dropped to 0 but not sufficient damage to instantly kill her. Snuggles is instantly turned to a pile of grey dust!
3) Snuggles is now a pile of grey dust. However, Snuggles is not dead because NOTHING has told her she is dead.
4) Snuggles reverts back to Amrien, who takes 40 damage and reverts back to her original form, as per the description of Wild Shape.

So to summarize: Wild Shape is indeed disintegrated into a pile of grey dust, then reverts back to the Druids form. Never dies, never dead. RAW.
But for the sake of common sense I'd skip the grey pile of dust bit. Yay for Snuggles!

This is one of several possible interpretations of the rules as written. The rules specify that two things happen to an entity "reduced" or "dropped" to zero hit points in this circumstance. It doesn't specify the order. You could just as well rule that Snuggles reverts, and then the disintegrate spell turns Snuggles to dust because Snuggles was reduced to 0hp by its damage.

And yes, you're quite right that the rules never specify that a character dusted by disintegrate is dead, but then, they don't say that even if you're not wildshaped, so far as I can tell, even though it is strongly implied.

 

[Maxperson]

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....!

Here's the kicker. "Instead" isn't even implied in wild shape. Even if it was, though, something that is implied isn't RAW. If you have to try to figure out what is implied and act on it, you've left RAW behind and are no longer following it. RAW can only ever be what is explicitly written and nothing more. That's what Rules As Written means.

 

[Maxperson]

Even in the face of the writer who tells him that the intent is to interpret it the other way!

Nobody every said that to me, though. Crawford's response to me was not about how to interpret RAW. It was only that the intent of the wild shape was not to die to disintegrate. They screwed up on the disintegrate/wild shape interaction in a very human way. It was an oversight and was not intended to work that way.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree, can of worms are definitely opened up with this spell, however, let's work things through on the assumption that the Disintegration spell goes off. Using Amrien, the Wood Elf Druid as an example, shape changed into Snuggles the Bear.

1) Snuggles, with 48 hit points, is hit by a dastardly ray of sickly green energy that she cannot avoid. Snuggles receives 88 points of damage, oh noes!
2) Snuggles, who was at full health with 48, is dropped to 0 but not sufficient damage to instantly kill her. Snuggles is instantly turned to a pile of grey dust!
3) Snuggles is now a pile of grey dust. However, Snuggles is not dead because NOTHING has told her she is dead.
4) Snuggles reverts back to Amrien, who takes 40 damage and reverts back to her original form, as per the description of Wild Shape.

So to summarize: Wild Shape is indeed disintegrated into a pile of grey dust, then reverts back to the Druids form. Never dies, never dead. RAW.
But for the sake of common sense I'd skip the grey pile of dust bit. Yay for Snuggles!

That's not how it works, though. Being turned to dust is not a change of form, so reversion which only changes form, has no effect on dust. Then there's the disintegrate specific rules which state the only ways to return to life, reversion not being one of them.