D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Maxperson]

I've seen several good explanations in this thread.

I showed the relevant rules to my eleven year old last night. He immediately came to the correct conclusion. He said, "The disintegrate ray causes the druid to lose his wildshape, and then the druid takes any additional damage."

Perhaps you're reading something that isn't there into the text.

This isn't mean to insult, so please don't take it that way, but when I was 11 my understanding of things was much less than it is now.

 

[Maxperson]

When I say RAW to someone it's because I'm quoting the rules text directly to show them what it says. Simply claiming that what you're saying is RAW is just nonsense if you're not providing rules text. Interpretations are not RAW by default. If say that a longsword deals 1d8 damage, that's the RAW because anyone can look in the book and see that fact for themselves.

Then you admit that since there is no RAW saying that wild shapes are a separate creature, RAW says that a wild shaped druid hit 0 hit points prior to reversion?

 

[Hriston]

This isn't mean to insult, so please don't take it that way, but when I was 11 my understanding of things was much less than it is now.

I don't know how old you are, but if you are significantly older than eleven I should hope you have learned something from your life experience since then.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know how old you are, but if you are significantly older than eleven I should hope you have learned something from your life experience since then.

I don't know how old you are, either, but as has just been mentioned in this thread by a moderator, insults are unbecoming of adults having a conversation.

Do you have an actual response?

 

[epithet]

Then you admit that since there is no RAW saying that wild shapes are a separate creature, RAW says that a wild shaped druid hit 0 hit points prior to reversion?

No.

You are taking one little phrase and trying to make it more important than anything else in the game. Your entire argument becomes meaningless if you look at the rules as a whole, and consider how they relate to each other. For example: "When you drop to 0 hit points, you either die outright or fall unconscious ... When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals your hit point maximum. ... If damage reduces you to 0 hit points and fails to kill you, you fall unconscious."

A druid forced to revert because his wild shape has been damaged to 0 does not fall unconscious, even for a moment. The druid does not lose concentration unless he fails his Con save. A druid wild shaped into a 1 hit point squirrel is not instantly killed when he takes 2 or 3 hit points of damage.

If you simply take a moment to look at what happens when a character is reduced to 0 hit points, and consider whether those things happen when a druid's wild shape form is reduced to 0 hit points, it is clearly and obviously not the same damn thing. Wild shape is an exception to the rules regarding falling to zero, spelled out in the Player's Handbook for any 11 year old to read and comprehend.

You would be much better served by reading the rulebooks with an eye towards understanding the rules as a cohesive whole, so that you could provide your players with a consistent and immersive game, instead of picking through them to find your "gotcha!" phrases and clauses that serve no purpose other than to antagonize your players.

Here is a truth of Dungeon Mastering this game: you only "win" when your players win. If they lose, you lose too. When you provide a rigorous challenge which they overcome, the victory is as much yours as theirs. When you throw a nitpicky, narrow interpretation (or misinterpretation) of a rule at them that screws their character over, that's not a challenge--it's just annoying, frustrating, and dumb. It knocks players out of immersion and can ultimately drive them away from the table.

 

[Maxperson]

You are taking one little phrase and trying to make it more important than anything else in the game. Your entire argument becomes meaningless if you look at the rules as a whole, and consider how they relate to each other. For example: "When you drop to 0 hit points, you either die outright or fall unconscious ... When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals your hit point maximum. ... If damage reduces you to 0 hit points and fails to kill you, you fall unconscious.

A druid forced to revert because his wild shape has been damaged to 0 does not fall unconscious, even for a moment. The druid does not lose concentration unless he fails his Con save. A druid wild shaped into a 1 hit point squirrel is not instantly killed when he takes 2 or 3 hit points of damage.

No. I'm taking what is written and saying that it is what is written. What you are doing is trying to say that an example of specific beating general with very narrow usage that deals ONLY with damage and not with other effects like turning to ash and then argue that the specific rule is broader than it is. Disintegrate triggers differently than death from massive damage.

If you simply take a moment to look at what happens when a character is reduced to 0 hit points, and consider whether those things happen when a druid's wild shape form is reduced to 0 hit points, it is clearly and obviously not the same damn thing. Wild shape is an exception to the rules regarding falling to zero, spelled out in the Player's Handbook for any 11 year old to read and comprehend.

The only wild shape exceptions are spelled out in the wild shape rules. Damage carried over AFTER the druid hits 0 hit points while wild shaped, and it stops unconscious unless the damage carried over is enough to drop the druid to 0 a second time. That's it. It stops nothing else as written. You can however, per RAW, be killed while wild shaped and you don't come back to life after reversion.

You would be much better served by reading the rulebooks with an eye towards understanding the rules as a cohesive whole, so that you could provide your players with a consistent and immersive game, instead of picking through them to find your "gotcha!" phrases and clauses that serve no purpose other than to antagonize your players.

I am. I'm looking at the rules as written for wild shape and for disintegrate. As written, the druid turns to ash if he hits 0 while wild shaped. There are no rules that say otherwise.

Here is a truth of Dungeon Mastering this game: you only "win" when your players win. If they lose, you lose too. When you provide a rigorous challenge which they overcome, the victory is as much yours as theirs. When you throw a nitpicky, narrow interpretation (or misinterpretation) of a rule at them that screws their character over, that's not a challenge--it's just annoying, frustrating, and dumb. It knocks players out of immersion and can ultimately drive them away from the table.

Don't presume to judge how I DM by how I argue RAW. I frequently ignore or change RAW in order to make the game better. Just because I am arguing that the book says something happens in a certain way, does not mean I play it that way.

 

[psychophipps]

Don't presume to judge how I DM by how I argue RAW. I frequently ignore or change RAW in order to make the game better. Just because I am arguing that the book says something happens in a certain way, does not mean I play it that way.

You know, I really don't like ignoring people. I generally feel that everyone has a valid point and input to add to pretty much any discussion. That being said, the fact that you're arguing the point about a potentially poorly written text that you don't even agree with is... *deep breaths* certainly worthy of an exception to my general ignore policy.

Congratulations, Maxperson! You won the lottery and became my first forum ignore in well over a decade! *cheering crowd*

 

[Maxperson]

You know, I really don't like ignoring people. I generally feel that everyone has a valid point and input to add to pretty much any discussion. That being said, the fact that you're arguing the point about a potentially poorly written text that you don't even agree with is... *deep breaths* certainly worthy of an exception to my general ignore policy.

Congratulations, Maxperson! You won the lottery and became my first forum ignore in well over a decade! *cheering crowd*

I guess you've never heard of debating. Oh, well. Besides, by taking the opposite side in the debate, I can see all the arguments against that side and/or ways that other people do things. Sometimes something will come up that I hadn't thought of and help me with how I run things. Just because you can't see the merits in it, doesn't mean that there are no merits there.

 

[Noctem]

No.

You are taking one little phrase and trying to make it more important than anything else in the game. Your entire argument becomes meaningless if you look at the rules as a whole, and consider how they relate to each other. For example: "When you drop to 0 hit points, you either die outright or fall unconscious ... When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals your hit point maximum. ... If damage reduces you to 0 hit points and fails to kill you, you fall unconscious."

A druid forced to revert because his wild shape has been damaged to 0 does not fall unconscious, even for a moment. The druid does not lose concentration unless he fails his Con save. A druid wild shaped into a 1 hit point squirrel is not instantly killed when he takes 2 or 3 hit points of damage.

If you simply take a moment to look at what happens when a character is reduced to 0 hit points, and consider whether those things happen when a druid's wild shape form is reduced to 0 hit points, it is clearly and obviously not the same damn thing. Wild shape is an exception to the rules regarding falling to zero, spelled out in the Player's Handbook for any 11 year old to read and comprehend.

You would be much better served by reading the rulebooks with an eye towards understanding the rules as a cohesive whole, so that you could provide your players with a consistent and immersive game, instead of picking through them to find your "gotcha!" phrases and clauses that serve no purpose other than to antagonize your players.

Here is a truth of Dungeon Mastering this game: you only "win" when your players win. If they lose, you lose too. When you provide a rigorous challenge which they overcome, the victory is as much yours as theirs. When you throw a nitpicky, narrow interpretation (or misinterpretation) of a rule at them that screws their character over, that's not a challenge--it's just annoying, frustrating, and dumb. It knocks players out of immersion and can ultimately drive them away from the table.

Couldn't agree with you more friend

 

[Noctem]

You know, I really don't like ignoring people. I generally feel that everyone has a valid point and input to add to pretty much any discussion. That being said, the fact that you're arguing the point about a potentially poorly written text that you don't even agree with is... *deep breaths* certainly worthy of an exception to my general ignore policy.

Congratulations, Maxperson! You won the lottery and became my first forum ignore in well over a decade! *cheering crowd*

I also feel the same way and almost never put people on ignore but in this case I also made the exception. I can't stand people who argue this sort of thing for simply the sake of arguing. At least he's capable of admitting it for everyone to read. Basically, wilful ignorance IMO but anyway I don't think the discussion is going to advance positively at this point so gl hf to those who continue.