Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="epithet" data-source="post: 6744515" data-attributes="member: 6796566">This is ridiculous.The bottom line is that the wild shaped druid has two pools of hit points, his humanoid pool and his beast pool. Until both pools of hit points are emptied, the druid is not truly reduced to 0 hit points. You can't just ignore the humanoid pool of hit points, that would be both unfair and stupid. It's always there, waiting for the druid to revert, and you don't get to pretend it isn't just because you want to get into a semantic argument.You know how disintegrate is supposed to work against a wild shaped druid, thanks to a response from the rulemaster at Wizards. You've admitted that you don't use this ridiculous interpretation you're insisting is &quot;RAW&quot; at your own table. Where do you hope that this argument will end up? Do you see a pathway to vindication for your position opening up? I mean, you have received confirmation of&nbsp; the intent of the rule, and there have been several of us who have told you that our reading of the rule &quot;as written&quot; perfectly aligns with that stated intent. Of the few posters in this thread who support your interpretation, most have been apparently keen on twisting the wording of a rule in order to screw over a druid, not particularly interested in a reasonable interpretation of the intersection of the two rules sections at play in this topic.At this point, are we just arguing for the sake of argument?[video=youtube;kQFKtI6gn9Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/video]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="epithet, post: 6744515, member: 6796566"] This is ridiculous. The bottom line is that the wild shaped druid has two pools of hit points, his humanoid pool and his beast pool. Until both pools of hit points are emptied, the druid is not truly reduced to 0 hit points. You can't just ignore the humanoid pool of hit points, that would be both unfair and stupid. It's always there, waiting for the druid to revert, and you don't get to pretend it isn't just because you want to get into a semantic argument. You know how disintegrate is supposed to work against a wild shaped druid, thanks to a response from the rulemaster at Wizards. You've admitted that you don't use this ridiculous interpretation you're insisting is "RAW" at your own table. Where do you hope that this argument will end up? Do you see a pathway to vindication for your position opening up? I mean, you have received confirmation of the intent of the rule, and there have been several of us who have told you that our reading of the rule "as written" perfectly aligns with that stated intent. Of the few posters in this thread who support your interpretation, most have been apparently keen on twisting the wording of a rule in order to screw over a druid, not particularly interested in a reasonable interpretation of the intersection of the two rules sections at play in this topic. At this point, are we just arguing for the sake of argument? [video=youtube;kQFKtI6gn9Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/video] [/QUOTE]

Verification