Spyke
rpgmemes·RPGMemes byiAmTheTot

(dnd 5e) Prove me wrong, RAW

Disclaimer: this is purposefully obtuse.

Other effects in the game which explicitly state they kill you:

Shadows, succubi, massive damage, death saving throws, beholder death ray (notably not even their disintegration ray kills you), power word kill, vampires, mind flayers, night hags, drow inquisitors.

Clearly, if they intended for disintegration to kill you, they'd have said so. Since specific overrides general, and there is no general rule that disintegrated creatures are dead, I rest my case. QED.

View original on sh.itjust.works
lemmy.world

OP you appear to be committed to (not) dying on this hill and I applaud you

139

A disintegrated creature and everything it is wearing and carrying, except magic items, are reduced to a pile of fine gray dust. The creature can be restored to life only by means of a true resurrection or a wish spell.

Why would you need to be "restored to life" if you weren't dead?

86
iAmTheTotreply
sh.itjust.works

Because you could later die. So a creature that has been disintegrated, and then later dies, can only be brought back by those means.

93
Ahdokreply
ttrpg.network

If this was the intent of the rules, it would be expressed in explicit, unambiguous language. They don't write contingency rules for possible future events that haven't happened this way, and if you interpret rules documents this way, then everything becomes an argument.

The implication of "the creature can only be restored to life by (x)..." is present tense. It applies to the current state of the game following the events described. The language "unattended objects catch fire" in fireball doesn't mean "unattended objects in the area of a fireball will catch fire if someone sets fire to them." it means they catch fire.

Language in rules doesn't ambiguously cater to a potential future state of the game that may not occur. It is describing the current state of the game, like the rules do in all other situations.

17
iAmTheTotreply
sh.itjust.works

To the contrary, if it were intended to kill you it would be explicit. See all the examples I included in the OP.

The "present tense" argument doesn't hold water when you look at how spells are worded. Let's take a look at Alarm:

You set an alarm against intrusion...

Present tense. It describes a state change to the game world.

...Until the spell ends,...

Describes an ending to that state. We can conclude that the alarm state lasts until the spell ends.

Disintegration does not describe any such end to the changed state. We can conclude that this rider effect comes into play if the character ever dies in the future.

3
Ahdokreply
ttrpg.network

The "present tense" argument is that "the creature can only be restored to life" describes the current state of the creature. It's currently possible to restore the creature to life using wish, and therefore they are currently not alive. This is a plain reading of the RAW, and it's inconsistent with the entire cohort of the rules to claim otherwise.

If that's not good enough for you, then it's also the intention of "reduced to a pile of grey dust" is that players will be intelligent enough to know that dust is an object, and not a creature. There's no statblock for the dust because objects don't have creature stat blocks.

If THAT'S not good enough for you, it's the intention of the rules that the players use common sense when reading them.

If THAT'S not good enough for you, Crawford has explicitly stated that if disintegrate reduces you to 0hp, you're killed - and he wrote the rule.

Any of these four arguments should be enough for a DM to be able to make a sensible ruling here, although normally I don't rely on an appeal-to-Crawford for rulings.


If you want to play a slapstick comedy style campaign where your DM allows things to happen outside of RAW because they're silly or fun or whatever - there's nothing stopping you. The joy of DnD is you can play the game however you like, so long as your group are happy with that.

17
iAmTheTotreply
sh.itjust.works

Edited, because you edited your comment as I was replying: The "current state" of the creature is that it can only be brought back to life by the means mentioned in the spell, I agree with you there. But it does not mean that the creature need be dead for that to be a true statement about its state.

Would you agree with me that the normal, default state of a creature is "can only be brought back to life by [exhaustive list of all reviving magic]"?

Nothing says you become an object. Compare to True Polymorph, which has a section for turning a creature into an object.

6
Ahdokreply
ttrpg.network

It's assumed that the player is clever enough to know that dust is an object, as the player's brain is assumed to not be made of dust.

4

I'm not looking for assumptions, I'm looking for RAW. I don't know about you but at my table we play by the rules.

7
iAmTheTotreply
sh.itjust.works

I'm not misreading anything. "The creature can only..." applies a new state to the creature. After that state has been applied, or somehow reversed (unaware of any way to do this by RAW), then the creature can only be brought back to life by the means mentioned in the spell.

46
biglemmowski.win

Yes you are. You're intentionally abusing a weakness in English language (present and future tense are often written the same way so must be inferred by context) to assume something clearly not intended by the 2 sentences considered holistically.

It's a funny joke. +1, but, ain't no DM takin dis Hail Mary from a player seriously. 😂

8

It's like this for all TTRPGs. Someone always be trying to rules lawyer away someone's fun. 😎

6

Reminds me of that one barbarian subclass skill that doesn't state when does you bonus to AC end, so you could argue (and lose) that it stay with you forever

4
lemmy.dbzer0.com

ain't no DM takin dis Hail Mary from a player seriously

I absolutely would, my players would need to be creative to allow this dust pile to communicate and do anything, but I'm quite sure they could manage

17
oo1reply
lemmings.world

New villain is a cleaner with a feather duster +1.

12

I was legit imaging a pile of dust that learns telepathy to communicate with their party members and screams in an angry scotch accent to be thrown at their enemies so that their particles might sting the bastards eyes and blind them

They'd be deathly afraid of any and all cleaning staff, but also the party would have a broom and catch pan of some sort for when their buddy get a lil spilt

10

Same, I'm now going to try to kill a PC with disintegrate just for the occasion!

6

use whatever spell that lets you somehow communicate with it, somehow enable it to cast spells on its own (i would presume if there's still a mind it can simply cast spells?), then it's just a weird magical creature similar to elementals and slimes from then on.

1

Wanna bet?

I'd make it an absolute realistic pile of dust, unable to move, unable to cast magic, fight, or anything but be carried along by whatever picked it up, and when enough of the dust gets separated, death is automatic.

But I'd still allow it as an interesting edge case once.

10
Alinorreply
lemmy.world

I'm sorry, I don't know enough about the English language to recognise the difference. What would the phrase be in future tense?

8
degenreply
midwest.social

I thought you needed a body part to resurrect? I might be thinking Pathfinder, though cause I mostly play that.

5
sh.itjust.works

The difficulty of restoring to life someone who is already alive is why such high-level magic is required.

8
lemmy.world

I've never played DND so I don't know if this is something you could pull off or anything but I'd probably be like

"I snort the fine pile of dust" and then, I don't know, there's some latent personality or intention there, so now we have to alternate playing my character between turns/minutes or something. It'd probably make for some great RP moments, especially if each personality couldn't remember very well what the other was doing previously. Maybe the class and abilities change with each person, which makes arming up appropriately interesting or a pain depending on how we handle it I suppose.

8

I'd say ingesting the powder either kills it (had the players managed to get me to agree it was alive) or sends it on a tour of your digestive tract

1
lemmy.world

I see no flaw in this argument. Instead of dying, the character exists like the guy from “One” by Metallica, desperately waiting for a stiff breeze to end his existence.

47
lemmy.world

Dust pan, imprisoning me, all I can be, a pile of fine dust

I cannot live, I cannot die, turned into dust, scattered across the floor

25
lemmy.world

The spell specifies you turn into gray dust. Unfortunately gray dust has no listed stat block.

Luckily it is mentioned in "Tales from the Yawning Portal", "The floor of this room is covered with a layer of fine gray dust and ash, three inches deep."

Based on the rest of the description you are restricted to the room in which you turned to dust and the only action you may take is casting " Minor Illusion", with the added restriction of all illusions must be humanoid.

41
iAmTheTotreply
sh.itjust.works

Nothing about the Disintegration spell says that your stats change. Compare to spells that do, such as Polymorph, or True Polymorph which even covers changing a creature into an object.

16

I'm not changing your stats, you still have a 14 wisdom.

You are however definitely turned into gray dust and I'm applying the rules as written about gray dust. The gray dust is restricted to the current room and can only form the shapes of various humanoids.

22
frezikreply
midwest.social

That's probably the path I'd take as a DM if I had a player insisting on rules lawyering like OP. OK, you get to "play" as a pile of dust. Have fun sitting there until random wind currents blow you around.

14
iAmTheTotreply
sh.itjust.works

Crappy party mates you have if they won't even scoop you up into a bag and carry you around.

42
Match!!reply
pawb.social

buddy let's start a campaign together you can be the pocket sand and i will be dale gribble

24
frezikreply
midwest.social

If a guy is doing what you're doing in this thread at the table, then yeah, I'd support them in leaving you there.

5
iAmTheTotreply
sh.itjust.works

Doing what? Trying to play by the rules? It's a game! Games have rules. If you can't accept someone living out their pile of dust fantasy, which is clearly supported by the rules, then I think you need to take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself who hurt you.

11

You are 100% free to live out your pile of dust fantasy. I let you be a pile of dust. Isn't that what you wanted?

10

*ahem Subtle Spell has entered the chat. Cast any spell that doesn't require a line of sight target and that doesn't require material components or otherwise rely on an "attack" or similar action. Like say Guardian Of Nature. Or, if you want to get REALLY pedantic: Dimension Door.

8

if you get cast in cement and become at least 6 inches of stone your DR goes up to fucking 50 or something

8

Disintegrate also specifies the creature can only be brought back to life with a true resurrection or wish spell. Which most certainly means it is indeed dead, otherwise, why mention bringing it back to life?

4
ttrpg.network

You're not dead when you're petrified, either, which can lead to some pretty interesting exploits, rules-as-written.

Petrified creatures count as creatures, not objects, so rules-as-written you can determine if a statue is a petrified creature by trying to target it with a spell that requires a creature for a target.

With the cantrip Poison Spray, you can check for petrified creatures without using spell slots or risking damaging the creature, since it would be immune to poison while petrified.

28
timgrantreply
ttrpg.network

You can also safely check with Vicious mockery. The spell can target any creature, but only damages the target if it can hear, which "inanimate" things cannot.

On the other hand, Dissonant Whispers causes the target to hear (rather than hearing being a precondition as it is with Vicious Mockery) and with this you can kill petrified creatures, thus ensuring no spell casters return them to flesh-and-blood, without damaging the statue.

6

This is straight up horrible. LOL, party goes on a mission to obtain a cure for petrification to save a bunch of statues only to discover that they are all a bunch of corpses because the villain is just that big of an asshole.

7

If you want to go absolutely strict RAW with the creature/object distinction, resurrection spells don't technically work. They target "a creature that died", which, by an obnoxiously precise reading of the rules, can't exist. After they die, they're an object and not a valid target.

I don't understand why they can't just make "dead" a state a creature can be in.

8

Get the feeling it would be difficult to have a dust based strength character though. Hard to hold weapons/make attacks with them as dust.

Maybe wizard?

18

Two-handed weapons require two hands, and one-handed weapons require a free hand to load. But you could use a one-handed weapon that you don't have to load. Or rather, you don't even need to do that, since no weapons are listed as being one-handed.

4

Still needs an arcane focus and the spell components could be problematic. Monk maybe? (A dextrous pile of dust gently (yet masterfully!) being blown at enemies)

3
lemmy.world

Just have someone carry you around in their pockets, then throw you in the enemies eyes to temporarily blind them.

3
lemmy.world

I mean, from your characters perspective, death is preferable to being transmuted to dust, especially in a setting with a well established afterlife.

17
iAmTheTotreply
sh.itjust.works

Hey, you don't know my character. He's making the best of his fine dusty life.

28
lemmy.world

You can be literally obliterated by a sneeze. And you're so dusty, folks would need to make a Con check for allergies.

15

That's not even in the scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX-m7UsCp3I

Here's what Walter actually says:

How are you doing?

...mumbling...

How are you doing?

You did the only thing that you could, I hope you understand that.

Any thoughts on what our next move might be?

Our next move. Our next move. Given the fact that at the first opportunity, Gus will kill us.

No, no, we bought ourselves some time, yes, but... The question is how much. He will be looking for another chemist.

Are you sure you're...

What do you mean?

What page is that?

13
lemmy.ml

Probably should go join the Thousand Suns Sons. They might set you up with some nice power armor.

10
lemmy.zip

Thousand Sons*

Also, pretty sure that it comes with a permanent controlling enchantment subjugating them to the next Sorcerer

6

If the speck of dust is sentient, then it's not really a rubricae. The suits of armor do nothing when not controlled

4

Well, that's a small problem compared to being a pile of dust without power armor.

2
lemmy.world

Why would it matter if it says you die? It's not like there's a rule that dead characters can't take actions. Or that they transform into objects. Or get sent to another plane of existence depending on who they worship and their alignment while leaving an object behind.

9
lemmy.blahaj.zone

Nothing in the spell says they don't. By contrast, Wild Shape

Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. 

Also, a pile of dust doesn't have a stat block because it's an object. It's not even sentient. But if you really really want to play as a lifeless pile of dust, knock yourself out.

4

Spells do what they say they do. So "it doesn't say they don't" isn't a defense unless you think I could argue that Haste changes my Dex to 30.

The spell also doesn't say you become an object. Compare to True Polymorph!

17

I'd like to imagine that this is how non-necromantic sapient undead creatures are created, someone has all their flesh incinerated away but somehow their soul clings to the bones, and bam sapient skeleton.

In this case it could result in a poltergeist, which uses the dust to interact with things.

7
lemmy.world

Well memed, but it's no fun to try to argue with someone who will take everything in bad faith, even as a joke.

6
SolOrionreply
sh.itjust.works

I disagree, I think it's funny as long as this is all theory.

If a player was actually serious about wanting to do this as more than a meme, and was arguing this hard for it I'd be mad as hell. In this context, though? It's fine. I think it's amusing how hard people can stretch the rules. It's similar to the peasant railgun. Hilarious concept. I'm still not okay with someone trying to actually use a peasant railgun.

6

In theory, sure. But not with OP saying "Nah-uh" to everything. There's just no fun to be had.

And I really enjoy arguing about game mechanics, just look back at me talking about that insect swarm/animal shapes nonsense people who know nothing about the game came up with.

I'd say I'd agree but there is no stretching here, you'd have to rule that a creature that is missing every part of its body is alive. You'd also have to rule that a pile of dust has a maximum HP of more than 0, or else you'd also be dead instantly.

You'd never get a death save, your already dead.

3
lemmy.world

RAW, a pile of dust is not a playable character option. Sorry.

RAW, you also cannot play as a dragon fairy princess. That would be homebrew.

You REALLY want to play a pile of dust...? Well, okay, we can homebrew that for you.

5
lemmy.world

So? That doesn't make it a playable option. Point to where it says, RAW, that you can continue to play as something you're turned into?

RAW, it is not a playable character option. Sounds to me like you prefer to abide by RAI...

4
iAmTheTotreply
sh.itjust.works

I don't need to point to where RAW says that I cannot play it because nothing leads one to believe that you can't. If your character is polymorphed, its state changes but you can still play it.

5
lemmy.world

Where does it say that, RAW? I'm using your own logic against you. You'll have to come up with a better response than that.

Edit: to clarify, where does it say RAW that you get to continue playing when polymorphed into a non-playable character?

2
iAmTheTotreply
sh.itjust.works

Imagine a GM that takes control away from a druid player any time they wildshape, smh.

5
lemmy.world

I mean, this is a game where we are being intentionally obtuse. I don't care about the game in any capacity. I care about what is written in the rulebook.

Feels like you may have lost the plot of your own joke post.

2
macmacfirereply
lemmy.ml

The target’s game statistics, including mental ability scores, are replaced by the statistics of the new form. It retains its alignment and personality.

OP could've just repeated "spells do what they say they do." It doesn't say you lose control of your character in the new form, all it says about the new form and how that affects the character is...well, that line(plus a few other things about the gear they were wearing and whatnot).

3
lemmy.world

If it makes a character into a non playable character option, what rule is suddenly making that character playable? Nothing explicitly states that you can play as a character that is not a playable character option. You have a set list of RAW character options.

1

But nothing explicitly states that you stop playing as the character you were playing as if they were transformed, whether into a playable character option or not. There is no rule saying that that character is playable, but there is no rule saying you can't play as them. Again, spells do what they say they do.

2
Archpawnreply
lemmy.world

You could say that about anything. You want to move left? Point to where it says, RAW, that you can move left.

You can do anything unless the rules forbid it. And there's nothing forbidding continuing to play after your character is transformed any more than there is anything forbidding you to play while they're wearing a red shirt.

3
lemmy.world

You being able to move left is covered clearly by the rules under movement speed.

You cannot "do anything unless the rules forbid it". That's not how RAW works.

1
Archpawnreply
lemmy.world

Honestly, RAW just doesn't work. If you can't do anything unless specifically allowed, then you can't do anything because whatever you do will always be more specific than what the rules say. If you can't do anything unless forbidden, then it doesn't work because there's so much the rules didn't bother with, just leaving it to common sense. And then there's the fact that sometimes rules contradict. Sure there's a rule that the more specific rule overrides the general rule, but that's just yet another contradicting rule on the pile.

There's nothing specifically saying whether or not you can move left. There's nothing specifically saying whether or not you can move through walls. We all know you can do one of those but not the other, but it's not because of anything the book says.

Granted, the book sometimes gives creatures special abilities that let them move through walls, which would be an odd thing to do if it's something you can do anyway, but the game constantly goes into different levels of detail about things.

4

I think maybe you've missed the whole point of this thread, dawg. I read the first sentence and then dismissed the entirety of your comment because you clearly either don't understand or aren't engaging with the premise.

-1
lemmy.world

Pfft, you could play a dragon fairy princess in 3e. Probably at something like a +10 level adjustment.

4

I’m just going to swing for the fences with the always objectionable, “fiction trumps rules.”

5
programming.dev

It doesn't kill you, it turns you into an inanimate object.

Edit: And objects aren't creatures.

4
iAmTheTotreply
sh.itjust.works

Spells do what they say they do, and disintegrate doesn't change you into an object. Compare to True Polymorph, a higher level spell, which can creatures into objects.

9
programming.dev

Ok, disintegrate transforms you in a pile of tiny objects if you get down to 0 HP when hit

4
iAmTheTotreply
sh.itjust.works

No? As I just said, the spell doesn't mention anything about changing your type.

2
programming.dev

A disintegrated creature and everything it is wearing and carrying, except magic items, are reduced to a pile of fine gray dust.

Going from creature to pile of fine gray dust sounds like changing to me

1

It changes your shape, yes! Same as Polymorph does, for example. That doesn't mean you're no longer a creature. See True Polymorph for example, which can turn creatures into objects. And it's a higher level spell! Clearly the devs intended that ability to be higher magic.

5

I agree that "spells do what they say" but a pile of dust is definitely an object, not a creature. That said, I'm willing to concede that it doesn't turn you into a object because it says one of the only ways to be restored to life is through True Resurrection which targets creatures. (And I don't feel like being so obtuse as to argue that the specific rule of Disintegrate saying True Resurrection allows the dust to return to life means it overrides the general rule of True Resurrection targeting creatures lol.)

2
lemm.ee

The rules also don't state that being incapacitated impairs movement in any way, dropping to 0hp is stated to incapacitate you. So you can just move away at 0hp.

Obviously we have DMs who aren't robots and will play to the spirit of the game, not the word of the rules.

2
cjoll4reply
lemmy.world

The rules state that you either die or fall unconscious when you have 0 hit points. The definition of "unconscious" in Appendix A specifies that you are incapacitated AND can't move or speak AND are unaware of your surroundings.

EDIT: Maybe I shouldn't assume you're talking about 5e. I have no idea about 5.5e or any other edition

17

Yes but in D&D you only quote the rules that support whatever bullshit you're trying to pull.

17

No, dropping to 0 hit points makes you unconscious, not incapacitated. That's an important distinction. It's the unconscious part that impairs your movement.

11

Do they need to define dictionary words? You are incapacitated, you don't have capacity to do that.

The lack of qualification indicates you are completely incapacitated and have no capacity to do or say anything.

1

Fireball doesn't need to say it kills you. The rules for damage, falling to 0 hit points, and failing death saving throws say that.

Edited to add, damn I refuted him so hard he straight up deleted it.

44

We've made their point...a person can survive fireball by making the three death saving throws. Exactly how a fine pile of ash and dust can!

28