Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="epithet" data-source="post: 7364837" data-attributes="member: 6796566">I think the last few pages would suggest that the issue isn't as &quot;long resolved&quot; as some folks thought.I have always thought this was a simple matter of looking at how druid feature actually worked, rather than try to get overly technical with the specific wording. Your beast hit points add to your druid hit points to make you tougher, not to make you more vulnerable. Clearly in the now-deleted tweet Jeremy indicated that it was never the intent for the disintegrate spell to bypass that and turn a strength into a weakness, but a technical reading of the rules made it apparent that the written words did not faithfully capture the intent of the designers.Rather than correct the rule with errata, Jeremy included the incorrect (per intent) rule interpretation in the Sage Advice document, because the design team bends over backwards to avoid issuing errata for the books.At the end of the day, this remains a &quot;death by technicality.&quot; If you are the kind of DM that would destroy a character using a technicality, then either your players have bought in to that in advance or you're very likely running the game as an antagonistic DM, which many (myself included) consider to be Doing It Wrong. I mean, if your players have signed up for a &quot;meat grinder&quot; experience, then by all means - that can be a good time. If you're in a situation, however, where beast + druid have enough combined hit points to soak the damage from the spell and you kill him anyway, that's kind of a phallic move.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="epithet, post: 7364837, member: 6796566"] I think the last few pages would suggest that the issue isn't as "long resolved" as some folks thought. I have always thought this was a simple matter of looking at how druid feature actually worked, rather than try to get overly technical with the specific wording. Your beast hit points add to your druid hit points to make you tougher, not to make you more vulnerable. Clearly in the now-deleted tweet Jeremy indicated that it was never the intent for the [I]disintegrate [/I]spell to bypass that and turn a strength into a weakness, but a technical reading of the rules made it apparent that the written words did not faithfully capture the intent of the designers. Rather than correct the rule with errata, Jeremy included the incorrect (per intent) rule interpretation in the Sage Advice document, because the design team bends over backwards to avoid issuing errata for the books. At the end of the day, this remains a "death by technicality." If you are the kind of DM that would destroy a character using a technicality, then either your players have bought in to that in advance or you're very likely running the game as an antagonistic DM, which many (myself included) consider to be Doing It Wrong. I mean, if your players have signed up for a "meat grinder" experience, then by all means - that can be a good time. If you're in a situation, however, where beast + druid have enough combined hit points to soak the damage from the spell and you kill him anyway, that's kind of a phallic move. [/QUOTE]

Verification