D&D 5E Disintegrate Vs. Druid

[Eubani]

As the rules on this are ambiguous and can be fairly argued from both sides I believe that it ultimately must be a DM's call. I believe JC & MM both have said on twitter that if there are multiple effects occurring on the character than they opt to allow the player to choose order of effect, but they choose order of effect for npc's & creatures. Now there are many DM's out there who are uncomfortable or unwilling to give players this level of choice/control so I would advise pick what is best for your campaign/story and be constant.

 

[dmnqwk]

When applying this rule you'd need to consider the precedent set by the line "As long as the excess damage doesn’t reduce your normal form to 0 hit points, you aren’t knocked unconscious." on Page 67 of the player's handbook. This indicates that while a player normally would go unconscious for hitting 0 HP, instead the Druid does not unless the damage carries over. With this in mind it's safe for anyone to believe that unless stated elsewhere, the same would apply to the effect of Disintegration.

This clearly states that A) the Druid does indeed get reduced to 0 hit points, but B) a Druid's shapeshifting rule supercedes any other rule concerning being reduced to 0 hit points. Now, I'm not offering this up as proof one way or the other, I am merely pointing out that there is proof that the spirit of the law was intended to allow Shapeshifting to ignore standard rules concerning a reduction to 0 hit points.

If I were DM, I would follow the spirit of the rule suggesting that a Druid (or other shapeshifted creature) reduced to 0 hit points be treated as if they were not reduced to 0 hit points and ignore any an all rules concerning this occurrence (for example, if a character used a spell to shift into a half-orc then I would definitely not let them trigger relentless endurance).

Just remember if you are planning on suggesting a polymorphed or shapeshifted person is subject to a weakness towards Disintegrate spell, think why you feel druids are overpowered and require such an AWFUL penalty (considering the average animal form will not survive disintegration you are basically screwing over someone for wanting to change shape). Also consider that it then opens up an avenue for someone to go "I polymorph that super overpowered unbeatable 500 hit point creature into a cat, then cast disintegrate on it. goodbye monster hello 150'000 experience!)

 

[Imaculata]

The more you clarify, the more complications you open up with other aspects of the game. Instead of one rule that's vague and interpretive for DMs to rule on, you have a bunch of rules that end up being interpretive when they come across other parts of the game that clash with them. That's why 3e was the worst offender for arguing and debating rules.

People keep saying that, but I play 3rd edition, and never have such discussion about the rules with my players. If there is any doubt, we look it up, and can find an answer in the books.

I disagree that more clarifications add more complications. I think if you write a solid foundation, with a clear explanation of which rules overrule other rules, then you're well on your way to a system that does not provoke quite so many discussions. For example, you could say that class mechanics always overrule spell mechanics. Or you could state that the core rules in the PHB and DMG always overrule other books.

The trick is to create a system in which you don't create quite so many exceptions to the rules. Everything needs to fit in a cohesive and logical whole.

 

[Maxperson]

When applying this rule you'd need to consider the precedent set by the line "As long as the excess damage doesn’t reduce your normal form to 0 hit points, you aren’t knocked unconscious." on Page 67 of the player's handbook. This indicates that while a player normally would go unconscious for hitting 0 HP, instead the Druid does not unless the damage carries over. With this in mind it's safe for anyone to believe that unless stated elsewhere, the same would apply to the effect of Disintegration.

Why? The exception is clearly speaking only about damage and unconsciousness. Nothing else. RAW means that only those two things are excepted. Anything else is a house rule.

This clearly states that A) the Druid does indeed get reduced to 0 hit points, but B) a Druid's shapeshifting rule supercedes any other rule concerning being reduced to 0 hit points. Now, I'm not offering this up as proof one way or the other, I am merely pointing out that there is proof that the spirit of the law was intended to allow Shapeshifting to ignore standard rules concerning a reduction to 0 hit points.

But it doesn't or it would say that it affected other things. It specifically only calls out damage and unconsciousness and not effects.

Just remember if you are planning on suggesting a polymorphed or shapeshifted person is subject to a weakness towards Disintegrate spell, think why you feel druids are overpowered and require such an AWFUL penalty (considering the average animal form will not survive disintegration you are basically screwing over someone for wanting to change shape). Also consider that it then opens up an avenue for someone to go "I polymorph that super overpowered unbeatable 500 hit point creature into a cat, then cast disintegrate on it. goodbye monster hello 150'000 experience!)

The penalty is really virtually non-existent. No wizard is going to run around casting it on rabbits, squirrels and birds. You would have to be in direct combat with a very high level wizard. That wizard would have to happen to have that spell in his book. He would happen to have that spell memorized. The druid would have to decide to take the chance. And the wizard would have to decide to use it on the druid and not someone else.

That's a very unlikely set of events.

 

[Maxperson]

People keep saying that, but I play 3rd edition, and never have such discussion about the rules with my players. If there is any doubt, we look it up, and can find an answer in the books.

Then you play a very different 3e than I do. The rules were a mess.

I disagree that more clarifications add more complications. I think if you write a solid foundation, with a clear explanation of which rules overrule other rules, then you're well on your way to a system that does not provoke quite so many discussions. For example, you could say that class mechanics always overrule spell mechanics. Or you could state that the core rules in the PHB and DMG always overrule other books.

I would probably not play a game that took that lazy and nonsensical way out. There's no in game reason why spells should always trump class abilities and vice versa. It gets even more ridiculous when you try to explain why class ability from the PHB trumps one from splat book X.

The trick is to create a system in which you don't create quite so many exceptions to the rules. Everything needs to fit in a cohesive and logical whole.

So the trick is to not create exceptions in an exception based rule set?

 

[dmnqwk]

In the real world, lawyers use precedents to determine whether or not something is likely to be applied, for example when Napster was sued it set a precedent over Digital Music Rights which was not really dealt with until then.

In this instance we understand the ruling is that the only time we are given explicit instructions concerning a shapeshifted druid being reduced to 0 hit points we are informed to ignore a rule concerning it. From that, we can safely infer (if we choose) that shapeshifted beings reduced to 0 hp do not follow standard rules. You cannot ignore that it exists, you may only react to it in your own way (in your case you feel it's irrelevant and that it only applies to that specific ruling.)

The rules do not cover the subject, so anything you choose on the subject is entirely a "house rule", meaning you can make up your own rules OR you can use this precedent to guide you.

In reference to the unique structure of this spell, it deals 10d6+40 force damage on a failed save, meaning the average druid beast shape has to save or die, a mechanic that seems to be removed from 5th edition concerning magical spells.

To claim the penalty is virtually non-existent is a failure to appreciate the unique health situation of the majority of druid shapes, as well as to appreciate that it is pretty much a one shot mechanic that not only kills them, severely cripples the chance of them being resurrected in the future.

If you believe the spell is meant to screw druids up (and anyone else who can shapechange) but I would be much more inclined, were I in need of doing so, in treating a shapeshift as a creation of magical force, and applying the mechanic that disintegrate merely removes the shapechange, forcing them back into regular form as per the third part of the spell. But again, you could decide to argue the druid (or anyone else who is a magical creation, including any creature created entirely by magic) is instantly vaporised as per the spell description, but to do so would be a serious failure to apply the spirit of the law.

 

[Maxperson]

In the real world, lawyers use precedents to determine whether or not something is likely to be applied, for example when Napster was sued it set a precedent over Digital Music Rights which was not really dealt with until then.

In this instance we understand the ruling is that the only time we are given explicit instructions concerning a shapeshifted druid being reduced to 0 hit points we are informed to ignore a rule concerning it. From that, we can safely infer (if we choose) that shapeshifted beings reduced to 0 hp do not follow standard rules. You cannot ignore that it exists, you may only react to it in your own way (in your case you feel it's irrelevant and that it only applies to that specific ruling.)

It's not a ruling. It's a rule. The rule is damage and unconsciousness only. A ruling is what the DM does when he encounters the problem, which is most likely going to be never. There is no precedent.

In reference to the unique structure of this spell, it deals 10d6+40 force damage on a failed save, meaning the average druid beast shape has to save or die, a mechanic that seems to be removed from 5th edition concerning magical spells.

To claim the penalty is virtually non-existent is a failure to appreciate the unique health situation of the majority of druid shapes, as well as to appreciate that it is pretty much a one shot mechanic that not only kills them, severely cripples the chance of them being resurrected in the future.

If you believe the spell is meant to screw druids up (and anyone else who can shapechange) but I would be much more inclined, were I in need of doing so, in treating a shapeshift as a creation of magical force, and applying the mechanic that disintegrate merely removes the shapechange, forcing them back into regular form as per the third part of the spell. But again, you could decide to argue the druid (or anyone else who is a magical creation, including any creature created entirely by magic) is instantly vaporised as per the spell description, but to do so would be a serious failure to apply the spirit of the law.

The average druid will never be hit by the spell. Hell, the rare druid will still not be hit by that spell. It's going to be the very, very, very rare druid that hits the particular set of circumstances required to be affected by disintegrate while in wild shape. So no, the spell is not meant to screw up druids at all, even if you do follow RAW and not RAI.

 

[seebs]

People keep saying that, but I play 3rd edition, and never have such discussion about the rules with my players. If there is any doubt, we look it up, and can find an answer in the books.

Nonsense. I've been playing 3E for a long time, also Pathfinder, and the rules are completely hopeless. I've seen people go for 30 pages or longer on whether or not loading a crossbow counts as movement.

I disagree that more clarifications add more complications. I think if you write a solid foundation, with a clear explanation of which rules overrule other rules, then you're well on your way to a system that does not provoke quite so many discussions. For example, you could say that class mechanics always overrule spell mechanics. Or you could state that the core rules in the PHB and DMG always overrule other books.

That wouldn't necessarily help nearly as much as you seem to think.

The trick is to create a system in which you don't create quite so many exceptions to the rules. Everything needs to fit in a cohesive and logical whole.

That... Actually comes out significantly worse. 4e is probably the clearest D&D, and works because it goes exactly the other way; fewer, simpler, rules, with more exceptions.

Seriously, if you think this is so easy, go do it. I have been doing writing, including working on actual formal standards, for nearly as long as I've been gaming, and I promise you, it is actually hard. Which is to say, I simply do not believe that it is possible for any human or group of humans to produce something as complicated as D&D that isn't prone to confusions and ambiguities.

 

[Arial Black]

No. Parsing is not RAW. What is says is what is RAW. If you are changing "reduces the target to 0" into "you are reduced to 0", you are not engaging in RAW, but rather you are creating a house rule. RAW can only ever be what is explicitly written, not some interpretation that requires a change to the language.

What was 'specifically written' can be understood as either 'results in being reduced to 0 hp, and therefore unconscious or dead' OR 'when doing the maths of the game mechanics, the number ever gets to zero, even if it doesn't stay at zero'.

The maths and the game mechanics don't exist in the game world, they simply describe what does exist. Normally, being at 0 hp describes the game reality of being unconscious or dead (or as a trigger to revert). All of these things are events in the game world. Disintegrate triggers off the game world events of unconscious/dead.

The game mechanics of a druid's hp total as the beast form reach zero and switch to his normal hps aren't an event in the game world; the only actual event here is the reversion. There is no unconsciousness or death.

There was no answer. I never asked him what the language of disintegrate was supposed to be. I only asked him what the result would be and he very significantly did not tell me. Rather he gave intent instead. That's very telling because if RAW had backed up intent, he would have simply given me the ruling like he usually does.

No, what he usually does is phrase his answers as his intent. He avoids language that restricts the choice of his players, to support his 'rulings not rules' philosophy. We shouldn't expect any other form of answer from him.

This is false. He never said that. He simple said that the intent was for the druid to survive. He never made a ruling like that.

This is quite a feat of mental gymnastics: you ask him which it is, he says that the intent is that the druid survives (supporting the 'result' interpretation), and you pretend that he didn't answer your question because he didn't rule your way, using the excuse that his form of words didn't meet your standard.

 

[dmnqwk]

When I was growing up, I preferred it when people stuck to the rules. Losing as a kid was fine, but being cheated out of victory was not, it drove me mad. Translating that from spot into DnD and I was okay if my character died, but not if it was because somebody thought of the rules as different to how I believed they existed.

5th edition is not for people who want everything spelled out for them in black an white, it thrives on grey when compared to previous editions. The downside is you get a lot more issues determining what to apply and when (even the advantage/disadvantage system is very much so an open-ended philosophy) and when it comes to rulings, even if the book covers it the ultimate decision is with the DM. If the DM feels Druids should be killed outright by Disintegrate then they are, just remember if a player disagrees you'll have to cope with that.

Even if the creator of 5th edition said "this is what should happen" it's irrelevant, it's up to you to apply the rule as you see fit - even if you disagree with the majority you are not wrong.

I, personally, will be sticking with shapeshifters as never hitting 0! (though, tbh, I also let Rangers have bears as their animal companions because I demand justice for #teamtrinket everywhere so I'm untrustworthy!)