Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="seebs" data-source="post: 6762830" data-attributes="member: 61529">Except that 5hp won't be enough to kill them, so that 5hp doesn't do anything. Their hitpoints decreased by 75, and that's it.I think your other post does an excellent job of highlighting the real issue; both you and the other person who made that argument treat it as &quot;screwing the player&quot;... Implying that only player druids are ever at issue. And I think that's the thing; this would be a sucky thing to have happen to a PC, which is a good reason not to do it.But you have not come even close to establishing that the rules are &quot;clear&quot;, and the reason you're not getting much more than &quot;that's just, like, your opinion man&quot; is that you've never actually cited a rule that supports the disputed claims. You talk about &quot;order of operations&quot;, but that concept isn't even present in the rules. We had another person claim that the &quot;order&quot; is clearly present in the &quot;make an attack&quot; rule, but it's not.You're inventing rules, and you're doing it based on having picked an outcome that you're emotionally attached to; it would &quot;screw the player&quot; to &quot;vape&quot; their druid. But that's a purely emotional argument; it's not an argument from rules. And then you invent whatever rules you need to get that result.This is ridiculous. 5e already covers that very well with &quot;rulings, not rules&quot;. GM concludes that it's more fun for the polymorph effect to protect the player, and runs with it. Heck, I might well end up running it as &quot;wildshape wins&quot; for PCs, but let you dust an NPC shapechanger, because that would be fun too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="seebs, post: 6762830, member: 61529"] Except that 5hp won't be enough to kill them, so that 5hp doesn't do anything. Their hitpoints decreased by 75, and that's it. I think your other post does an excellent job of highlighting the real issue; both you and the other person who made that argument treat it as "screwing the player"... Implying that only player druids are ever at issue. And I think that's the thing; this would be a sucky thing to have happen to a PC, which is a good reason not to do it. But you have not come even close to establishing that the rules are "clear", and the reason you're not getting much more than "that's just, like, your opinion man" is that you've [b]never actually cited a rule that supports the disputed claims[/b]. You talk about "order of operations", but that concept isn't even present in the rules. We had another person claim that the "order" is clearly present in the "make an attack" rule, but it's not. You're inventing rules, and you're doing it based on having picked an outcome that you're emotionally attached to; it would "screw the player" to "vape" their druid. But that's a purely emotional argument; it's not an argument from rules. And then you invent whatever rules you need to get that result. This is ridiculous. 5e already covers that very well with "rulings, not rules". GM concludes that it's more fun for the polymorph effect to protect the player, and runs with it. Heck, I might well end up running it as "wildshape wins" for PCs, but let you dust an NPC shapechanger, because that would be fun too. [/QUOTE]

Verification