D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Maxperson]

Not so much.

The most straightforward reading of the rules is that disintegrate does a bunch of damage, and if after the damage is done the target doesn't have any hit points left, it turns to dust. The way wild shape works, you go through the hit points of the beast form, revert, then start going through the hit points of the humanoid form. So, if you get through the hit points of the humanoid form, the druid turns to dust.

It's really not complicated.

Yep, it's absolutely that simple if you completely ignore the wild shape rules.

Now, the problem in this thread is that some folks want to get hung up on semantics instead of just taking the plain, simple meaning of the text. Y'all get excited over the phrase "reduced to zero," without regard for the fact that what that means is "don't have any hit points left." A druid that takes enough damage to wipe out his beast form hitpoints still has his druid hit points, so unless he takes enough damage to wipe those out, too, he's got hit points left.

He has no hit points left UNTIL he reverts. Before then, he's out of hit points and at 0. You can continue to ignore the rules to make things simpler if you want. Ignoring combat rules works really well for simplifying the game.

When damage forces a druid to revert back from wild shape, it doesn't render the druid unconscious, even momentarily. It doesn't trigger any of the things that normally happen when a character falls to zero hit points - there are no death daves, the druid doesn't automatically lose concentration, etc. Druids losing all the hit points of their beast form is clearly and obviously not the same as a character falling to zero hit points, and it is absolutely ridiculous to pretend that it is. The only reason Jeremy Crawford didn't use words like "obviously" and "of course" in his response is that he's representing WotC, but I'm pretty sure he was thinking them.

The rules explicitly call out unconsciousness as the exception. There are no other exceptions without a house rule. Just because the rules except one thing, does not mean that all things dealing with 0 hit points are also exceptions. Your logic is faulty.

 

[Hriston]

Yes exactly, I'm glad I'm not the only one who is realizing that him claiming RAW about what he's saying is nonsense. Not only is he not correct as per the lead designer of the game, but the rules themselves don't agree with him. His interpretation of the rules is faulty on all counts.

Yeah, I really don't understand the value of a RAW interpretation that ignores the clearly stated RAI. I mean, the designers are doing you a favor by telling you how they meant the game to work. When RAW doesn't align with RAI, that's the result of a mistake. I'm not saying it doesn't line up I this case, but if you can't see how the RAW can be interpreted in a way that agrees with the intent, and you want your game to be based on a mistaken interpretation that clearly wasn't intended, you can go right ahead. Rulings not rules and all that.

 

[Noctem]

He did no such thing. Saying that the intent that disintegrate not kill wild shape is not a direction on how you are to read the rule. That's what rulings are for and he didn't make one.



It can't be a house rule, because it's RAW.



There is no official interpretation. Crawford never made any attempt to interpret RAW. He only spoke about intent.

Denial to the last eh?

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/15...shaped-druid-is-reduced-to-0-by-disintegrate/

That's sageadvice. The place where the lead devs have been storing all of the official interpretations that they give over twitter and other places. It doesn't get much more official than that. Jeremy Crawford is also stated to be the rules guy by both himself and Mike Mearls, the other lead designer of the edition. He's the guy you go to if you want to know what the rules say. His answers have also been known to be made into errata for the game. So I don't think you know what you're talking about. At all

 

[Noctem]

Yeah, I really don't understand the value of a RAW interpretation that ignores the clearly stated RAI. I mean, the designers are doing you a favor by telling you how they meant the game to work. When RAW doesn't align with RAI, that's the result of a mistake. I'm not saying it doesn't line up I this case, but if you can't see how the RAW can be interpreted in a way that agrees with the intent, and you want your game to be based on a mistaken interpretation that clearly wasn't intended, you can go right ahead. Rulings not rules and all that.

During the start of 5e when there were lots of questions bouncing around, people took to twitter to ask questions to the devs directly. At first people focused their questions to Mike Mearls because he's a famous guy but the more he was asked questions the more people started scratching their heads. The reason for this was that the answers he gave were his rulings and not how the game itself was designed to work. So he contradicted the rules in almost every response which lead to even more confusion. That's when Mearls, Crawford and others decided to nominate Jeremy Crawford as the rules guy. If you have a question and want the answer based on the rules and not a simple ruling, you ask him. Which is what makes maxperson's posts even more ridiculous!

Anyway that aside, the RAW and RAI clearly don't agree with some of the posters in this thread. However, they are convinced they are correct. This is the exact reason why I didn't want to get involved in this thread earlier since I've gone through this whole process on the WOTC forums. They have their shutters on and they just continue on and on. But at some point, reading someone constantly tell other people who are playing correctly that they aren't and should follow a houserule of theirs instead, or that the RAW says something it doesn't just gets to me. Play your game how you want, don't go online to tell people your rulings / houserules are how it's meant to be played. We have the lead devs and the rulebook for that thanks...

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, I really don't understand the value of a RAW interpretation that ignores the clearly stated RAI. I mean, the designers are doing you a favor by telling you how they meant the game to work. When RAW doesn't align with RAI, that's the result of a mistake. I'm not saying it doesn't line up I this case, but if you can't see how the RAW can be interpreted in a way that agrees with the intent, and you want your game to be based on a mistaken interpretation that clearly wasn't intended, you can go right ahead. Rulings not rules and all that.

The vast majority of people who play this game don't go to forums or to twitter to check if what is written matches up with what the designers intended. Heck, they probably don't go online looking for errata, either. That's why what is written is so important.

There is no interpretation of what is written that lines up with RAI. I can certainly change what is written to match RAI, but then it is no longer RAW, which is fine. However, since this thread was started about what happens per RAW, RAI is not relevant to that. I have explained how RAW reads, and why, and what RAI is.

So far no one has given a good explanation for how RAW lines up with RAI. Noctem has tried, but his explanation relies on completely ignoring wild shape RAW and then adding in some fictional rule that says you can't check for effects until after damage is fully applied.

 

[Maxperson]

Denial to the last eh?

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/15...shaped-druid-is-reduced-to-0-by-disintegrate/

That's sageadvice. The place where the lead devs have been storing all of the official interpretations that they give over twitter and other places. It doesn't get much more official than that. Jeremy Crawford is also stated to be the rules guy by both himself and Mike Mearls, the other lead designer of the edition. He's the guy you go to if you want to know what the rules say. His answers have also been known to be made into errata for the game.

Great. So what. So he put it in Sage Advice. What he put there was intent, not an interpretation of the rules. Read it again and see if you can see anything other than intent. If it was a rules interpretation, intent would not have been mentioned. He would have said simply that what happens is X, because Y. He couldn't do that because what is written does not line up with what was intended. As for the bolded, until he does that it's not an errata to the rule.

 

[epithet]

So, you would disregard the clear and officially confirmed intent of the rule in an effort to inflate a semantic ambiguity into a means by which to unfairly destroy a player character. Is that not a completely fair characterization?

In a situation wherein the intended rule was "this and that" and the written rule came out "this or that," it is perhaps useful to distinguish between the written and intended rule. That's an error in the printed material that can be corrected via errata. In a situation like this, however, you've got an ambiguous rule interaction, which apparently confuses you to the point that you believe (quite adamantly) in a wrong interpretation of it. Crawford clarifies, telling you what was meant. That's not good enough for you, though... you have to carry on cranky about how it doesn't matter, because it is "only" the intent of the rule.

What a load of crap.

"RAI" vs "RAW" is a stupid argument, meaningless anywhere other than an internet forum. There is the text, and there is the interpretation at the table. The interpretation can be guided by clarifications from WotC such as Crawford's tweets on this issue, or the interpretation can disregard them as the DM goes his or her own way. That interpretation becomes a "house rule" such as the one you are championing in this thread.

You have demonstrated that it is possible to read the rules of D&D with a complete disregard for the intent of those rules, and you have demonstrated that doing so leads to a bad outcome. Congratulations.

 

[Maxperson]

So, you would disregard the clear and officially confirmed intent of the rule in an effort to inflate a semantic ambiguity into a means by which to unfairly destroy a player character. Is that not a completely fair characterization?

Who said anything about ignoring intent? Not me. I've simply been saying what RAW says. Also, how often do bad guys go around disintegrating sparrows, squirrels and other animals. Even if the druid is in a game where the DM does not know the intent, or does not care about the intent, the druid is not going to be facing many wizards with disintegrate and he has other options for that particular rare fight. No characters will be destroyed unless the player decided to take that chance against a high level wizard.

In a situation like this, however, you've got an ambiguous rule interaction, which apparently confuses you to the point that you believe (quite adamantly) in a wrong interpretation of it. Crawford clarifies, telling you what was meant. That's not good enough for you, though... you have to carry on cranky about how it doesn't matter, because it is "only" the intent of the rule.

It's not ambiguous. The wild shape rules are clear on what kind of hit points are used and whether or not you hit 0 prior to reversion. The disintegrate rules are clear on when they take effect.

"RAI" vs "RAW" is a stupid argument, meaningless anywhere other than an internet forum. There is the text, and there is the interpretation at the table. The interpretation can be guided by clarifications from WotC such as Crawford's tweets on this issue, or the interpretation can disregard them as the DM goes his or her own way. That interpretation becomes a "house rule" such as the one you are championing in this thread.

WoTC rarely guides interpretations. Most people don't go to twitter or the internet to get rulings. They decided based on what the rules say and move on.

 

[epithet]

...
It's not ambiguous. The wild shape rules are clear on what kind of hit points are used and whether or not you hit 0 prior to reversion. The disintegrate rules are clear on when they take effect.
...

It's not ambiguous to me, either, and yet you and I read the same text with quite different interpretations. The interplay of the rules involved is, regardless of our individual certainty, ambiguous as a demonstrable fact.

Most people, in this day and age, go to the internet with any question they have. They settle disputes at the bar by fishing the phone out of their pocket and querying Google. WotC publishes a monthly article of rules guidance, and has tasked Jeremy Crawford with the unenviable task of dealing with questions on "social media." I think your statement that Wiz "rarely" guides interpretations is as wrong as your misguided position on the disintegrate vs. wild shape issue.

 

[Noctem]

Yep, WOTC has been giving out SO MUCH guidance in terms of rules questions via twitter, the monthly articles, the errata, etc.. that they decided to create a website dedicated to storing and recording that guidance and info! Not only that, but anyone can just send a tweet to the lead devs and get it answered. That kind of access is unprecedented! They even nominated a lead dev to be THE GUY to answer questions from the public at large on twitter.

Anyway the more maxperson posts the more it's obvious how out of touch this person is. Making sweeping comments like "people don't use twitter or the internet to get rulings." wat?... the internet has never been more accessible than it is today. You have a device in your pocket that you can use to quickly google any rule question you have. You have entire forums and message boards dedicated to 5th edition. This is just pure nonsense from maxperson. And yeah he can laugh at my posts all he wants because that's all he can do now. The RAW and RAI have been explained. He can keep saying he's right all he wants, at this point I don't think anyone would agree with his houserule..

At least I'm glad to see that there's people who aren't out of touch. Pleasure meetings you gents and ladies