D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[psychophipps]

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.

And I agree 100%. The most frustrating thing to me is that it's been this way with every thread I have read his comments from. Just a shame, really.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You've admitted to doing the exact same thing over on the D&D forum. You stated straight out that you often argue RAW, but rule things differently at your own table.

 

[Hriston]

^ This is indeed usually the problem. We've had huge discussions about the rules as written on the WOTC forums, where one person claims the text means one thing, and another claims it means something entirely different. (In fact, we had that discussion about what challenge rating means to the expected difficulty of a challenge)

This is the big reason why I prefer a very detailed rule description, over one that leaves room for interpretation. So we don't end up in a spot where one person thinks that "a reasonable challenge" means "a good fight", where as another thinks it means "a fair fight that won't get you killed". I don't like vague rule descriptions. It would not be hard to resolve issues like that by just picking better words.

I don't think there's such a thing as a completely unambiguous text. I'm all for clearly written rules, but without the reader's interpretation a text has no meaning. Different readers will have their own interpretations that may not agree, and that's fine. Authorial intent, which Jeremy Crawford has given us in this and other cases, can go a long way in guiding our interpretations even if we don't all end up in the same place.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think there's such a thing as a completely unambiguous text. I'm all for clearly written rules, but without the reader's interpretation a text has no meaning. Different readers will have their own interpretations that may not agree, and that's fine. Authorial intent, which Jeremy Crawford has given us in this and other cases, can go a long way in guiding our interpretations even if we don't all end up in the same place.

I agree with what you say about intent. In my game I won't be having disintegrate killing wild shaped druids. Not that it would ever be an issue. Disintegrate is rare, druids are not in every game, and there are very often better targets, so it's very unlikely that a wild shaped druid would ever be targeted.

As for clarity in rules, I like them to a degree, but they do stifle choice. With rules that have wiggle room, you can have 5 different interpretations and 1 of those will be likely be good for any given table. They can decide which for themselves. If you have no wiggle room, you're stuck with rules that are bad for the table unless you house rule, which is far more likely to cause animosity. Many people resist change. A vague rule being interpreted is more likely to be accepted. There are also many DMs who dislike changing RAW, so specific is worse than vague there as well.

That's not to say that rules should be extremely vague, but just worded so that there is room for different views. 5e is good like that. The discussions here, heated or not, are not typical of those that happen at tables. At tables, it's usually either not even a discussion, or over in a minute or two.

 

[Hriston]

Thanks for recognizing that we have indeed tried to give solid explanations

You're welcome! Unfortunately there's no point arguing with those who, out of hand, shoot down any argument that disagrees with theirs, no matter what it's merits are, unless, of course, you enjoy that sort of thing.

 

[Hriston]

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.

Right, and to be clear, I wasn't saying you do that. I, like you in your post here, was using the general "you", and I agree; a longsword does 1d8, unless wielded with two hands that is.

 

[epithet]

Right, and to be clear, I wasn't saying you do that. I, like you in your post here, was using the general "you", and I agree; a longsword does 1d8, unless wielded with two hands that is.

Or by someone under the influence of an enlarge/reduce effect.

 

[Hriston]

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?

It wasn't meant as an insult, and I'm sorry if it was taken that way. My point was that being older than eleven is irrelevant, IMO, when interpreting a text that was written at a fifth grade reading level.

 

[Maxperson]

It wasn't meant as an insult, and I'm sorry if it was taken that way. My point was that being older than eleven is irrelevant, IMO, when interpreting a text that was written at a fifth grade reading level.

Okay. That's clearer. I wasn't commenting on reading of individual text, but rather the more complex nature of how multiple separate rules interact with each other.

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

That kind of stuff was introduced in 4th edition with immediate interrupt / reaction abilities. But yeah 4e redefined many things and although 5e didn't keep it all, it did keep some things.

Which was why we, as a group despised 4th. And one of the reasons we will discard FILO for 5th.