D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Maxperson]

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.

A disintegrated creature and everything it is wearing
and carrying, except magic items, are reduced to a pile
of fine gray dust. The creature can be restored to life
only by means of a true resurrection or a wish spell.

The bolded seems to say that being reduced to ash kills you.

 

[Arial Black]

A disintegrated creature and everything it is wearing
and carrying, except magic items, are reduced to a pile
of fine gray dust. The creature can be restored to life
only by means of a true resurrection or a wish spell.

The bolded seems to say that being reduced to ash kills you.

Going by your own kind of 'logic', where you refuse to believe a rule means 'instead' unless it actually says the word 'instead', then you should equally refuse to believe that being disintegrated causes you to die, because it never actually says it causes you to die.

It might seem to say it kills you on the grounds that it says you can't be resurrected, but that's just an interpretation being put on RAW that it doesn't actually say.

If the spell doesn't say that being turned to dust kills you, then it doesn't.

Hoist by your own petard.

Of course, this kind of 'logic' is what you used when you asserted that the effects of a spell exist before it is even cast...!

 

[dmnqwk]

Well here's where you cannot.

Either you apply the dust effect to Snuggles, then you revert to your normal form as a result of the wild shape ending; Or you revert to your normal form as a result of the wild shape ending, then you check the condition "was target reduced to 0 hit points" and the answer is no, Amrien has not been reduced to 0 hit points. There's no scenario in which you can assume the past is the present. I understand attempts to twist it, I considered those myself, but unfortunately you cannot apply the condition "reduced to 0 hit points" to Amrien, because Amrien was not reduced to 0 hit points, Snuggles was.

Of course, a DM can make a house ruling however they like, but it's quite clear that even if Snuggles is disintegrated and then exists as the pile of grey dust (think Gaseous Form spell if you're considering it impossible for Amrien to exist temporarily as a pile of grey dust.) after which Snuggles reverts to Amrien and lives to fight another day.. we hope!

As for Maxperson believing "they screwed up Disintegrate" this is your opinion, and not fact. You shouldn't go around telling people they screwed up because you don't see how logical it is that the Druid can be dusted, then reforms as per the written rules.

 

[seebs]

A disintegrated creature and everything it is wearing
and carrying, except magic items, are reduced to a pile
of fine gray dust. The creature can be restored to life
only by means of a true resurrection or a wish spell.

The bolded seems to say that being reduced to ash kills you.

Technically, no. It merely says that you can only be restored to life by particular means. It never explicitly specifies that it kills you. So theoretically, if you're a PC and you get dusted, you have to make death saves until you die (at which point you can be restored to life only by a true resurrection or wish) or stabilize (at which point you are a very healthy pile of dust).

... Which I think is ridiculous, but strictly speaking, the other poster was right and the rules do not actually explicitly state that you are killed by disintegrate.

 

[seebs]

Well here's where you cannot.

Either you apply the dust effect to Snuggles, then you revert to your normal form as a result of the wild shape ending; Or you revert to your normal form as a result of the wild shape ending, then you check the condition "was target reduced to 0 hit points" and the answer is no, Amrien has not been reduced to 0 hit points. There's no scenario in which you can assume the past is the present. I understand attempts to twist it, I considered those myself, but unfortunately you cannot apply the condition "reduced to 0 hit points" to Amrien, because Amrien was not reduced to 0 hit points, Snuggles was.

If you want to seriously argue that they aren't the same entity, you are going to break a huge number of rules. For instance, why does Amrien's player get to pick actions for Snuggles? If Snuggles eats a goodberry, does Amrien starve to death from not-eating later, because only Snuggles was affected by the magic?

That's not gonna work. You have to assume some amount of intended continuity.

As for Maxperson believing "they screwed up Disintegrate" this is your opinion, and not fact. You shouldn't go around telling people they screwed up because you don't see how logical it is that the Druid can be dusted, then reforms as per the written rules.

It's sort of rude to imply that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to understand your point but not agree with it. Unless you have some kind of formal certification that you are the single human being whose ability to understand rules is the uncontested best in the world, you might want to consider the possibility that other people who view the rules differently are not necessarily stupider or less-informed than you; it's possible that there is simply an ambiguity that they're perceiving and you aren't.

 

[Maxperson]

Going by your own kind of 'logic', where you refuse to believe a rule means 'instead' unless it actually says the word 'instead', then you should equally refuse to believe that being disintegrated causes you to die, because it never actually says it causes you to die.

You're confused. You think that when I'm arguing what RAW is, I'm somehow arguing that I only ever go by RAW, even though I've said repeatedly that I don't do that.

It might seem to say it kills you on the grounds that it says you can't be resurrected, but that's just an interpretation being put on RAW that it doesn't actually say.

That's why I used the word "seems", instead of "RAW". See how that works?

If the spell doesn't say that being turned to dust kills you, then it doesn't.

Yes. Going only by what the spell says, disintegrate is worthless as a spell, since it would only be able to kill by massive damage happens. Since that's stupid and it implies that you do die when ashed, we have to go with the obvious interpretation in order to make the spell work. Wild shape does not imply "instead" anywhere.

Hoist by your own petard.

That you can think that you succeeded in doing that just shows everyone that you don't understand what I am arguing in this thread. You've only managed to hoist yourself with that one.

 

[Maxperson]

Well here's where you cannot.

Either you apply the dust effect to Snuggles, then you revert to your normal form as a result of the wild shape ending; Or you revert to your normal form as a result of the wild shape ending, then you check the condition "was target reduced to 0 hit points" and the answer is no, Amrien has not been reduced to 0 hit points. There's no scenario in which you can assume the past is the present. I understand attempts to twist it, I considered those myself, but unfortunately you cannot apply the condition "reduced to 0 hit points" to Amrien, because Amrien was not reduced to 0 hit points, Snuggles was.

There is no Snuggles. There is only Zul...I mean Amrien. The wording of wild shape is you (the druid) assume the shape of a beast, not become a beast. You (the druid)... That's consistent. A wild shaped druid is still the druid himself the entire time. Once the druid hits 0, two effects trigger. Reversion and ashing. Since there are no rules that allow a trigger to be undone in play here, both effects happen no matter which order you choose to resolve them in.

 

[dmnqwk]

I fully agree with you Seebs, if you chomp a Goodberry down in bear form then revert, if Goodberry applies a single effect it would not carry over. Only if it was a continuous feeling, like a bowl of porridge, would you be free to believe the satiation was for 24 hours due to it consistently re-applying. But this, again, is something each DM can assume based on previous editions and the addition/removal of rules and/or spells from 5th edition.

As for Max and his insistence you apply the "cannot be brought back to life" silliness, you are never assumed dead, just a pile of dust. Druids can exist in forms completely alien to them, which is created through magic. The same magic which sustains you when you're a shark swimming underwater is the same magic which reverts you back from a pile of dust to Druid form and goes "hah, disintegrate!" I am fully 100% confident this argument is now flogging a dead horse and if you wish to believe otherwise you are free to do so; but if you insist it's the rules when the rules have quite coherently proven you can only win the day with inferences and assumptions, you are crazier than a human with 14 in every stat, multi-classed as 1st level everything!

 

[seebs]

I fully agree with you Seebs, if you chomp a Goodberry down in bear form then revert, if Goodberry applies a single effect it would not carry over. Only if it was a continuous feeling, like a bowl of porridge, would you be free to believe the satiation was for 24 hours due to it consistently re-applying. But this, again, is something each DM can assume based on previous editions and the addition/removal of rules and/or spells from 5th edition.

You seem really committed to the notion that the rules are absolutely totally crystal clear and absolutely prohibit any ongoing durations-of-effects, but I haven't seen any support for it except that it's the best way for you to conclude that the rules were completely unambiguous. But it's not actually in the rules.

I see nothing in the rules saying that, on reverting, you lose any existing/ongoing effects or magic. I also don't see anything saying they would have been wiped out when you changed form in the first place.

As for Max and his insistence you apply the "cannot be brought back to life" silliness, you are never assumed dead, just a pile of dust.

You're clearly assumed to be dead, by the rule saying what can bring you back to life. It doesn't say "if and only if being turned into dust kills you, you can be brought back to life only by..."

Druids can exist in forms completely alien to them, which is created through magic. The same magic which sustains you when you're a shark swimming underwater is the same magic which reverts you back from a pile of dust to Druid form and goes "hah, disintegrate!" I am fully 100% confident this argument is now flogging a dead horse and if you wish to believe otherwise you are free to do so; but if you insist it's the rules when the rules have quite coherently proven you can only win the day with inferences and assumptions, you are crazier than a human with 14 in every stat, multi-classed as 1st level everything!

My view, which is unchanged so far, is that there's an ambiguity in the rules because two rules both specify what happens in a single circumstance, and appear contradictory. You can only do anything with inferences and assumptions, yes. That is what happens with a slightly-informal rule set.

I can see why people would disagree on which conclusion to reach; what I don't get is the assertions that there's no ambiguity at all.

 

[Arial Black]

You're confused. You think that when I'm arguing what RAW is, I'm somehow arguing that I only ever go by RAW, even though I've said repeatedly that I don't do that.

You're arguing 'what RAW is' for 'reduced to 0 hp' while at the same time not arguing 'what RAW is' for 'turned to dust = death', to prove the very same point!

Yes. Going only by what the spell says, disintegrate is worthless as a spell, since it would only be able to kill by massive damage happens. Since that's stupid and it implies that you do die when ashed, we have to go with the obvious interpretation in order to make the spell work. Wild shape does not imply "instead" anywhere.

Talking about 'obvious interpretations', disintegrate does damage, then checks for dust! That's the order it is written, and checking for dust before applying the damage is absurd, checking for dust before you've applied all of the damage (by which time the druid will have reverted) goes against the spirit of the spell just as much as saying that being doesn't doesn't kill you.