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.
OP you appear to be committed to (not) dying on this hill and I applaud you
I like it RAW and wriggling!
What’s sneezing precious
Ain’t nothin’ in the RAW that states a sentient pile of dust can’t play basketball.
Dustbud ®
All new straight-to-DVD film, “Air coughing fit”
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.
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?
Because you could later die. So a creature that has been disintegrated, and then later dies, can only be brought back by those means.
You’re misreading the language. It is present-tense, not future.
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.
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. 😂
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
New villain is a cleaner with a feather duster +1.
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
Just playing the game RAW.
It’s like this for all TTRPGs. Someone always be tryin to game the system. 😎
It’s like this for all TTRPGs. Someone always be trying to rules lawyer away someone’s fun. 😎
I’m sorry, I don’t know enough about the English language to recognise the difference. What would the phrase be in future tense?
If the creature dies it can be restored to life only by means of…
No. He’s trolling you. No Reasonable person thinks this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My sister played a campaign as a sentient ham sandwich. She would love this.
Edit:
Lmao 🤣
Haha awesome, glad she enjoyed it!
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.
That would definitely fit right in at our table. Half the group is trying to break the game with their build, and the other half is trying to one-up the first half.
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
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.
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.
Crappy party mates you have if they won’t even scoop you up into a bag and carry you around.
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.
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.
buddy let’s start a campaign together you can be the pocket sand and i will be dale gribble
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.
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.
Fine dust does not have the consistency of chunky salsa, so it checks out.
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.
I hate DMing for players smarter than me 🤬🤗
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
This reminds me of Torchwood
I mean, from your characters perspective, death is preferable to being transmuted to dust, especially in a setting with a well established afterlife.
Unless the character expects to end up in some kind of hell …
Hey, you don’t know my character. He’s making the best of his fine dusty life.
He’s certainly got grit.
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.
Well I didn’t start as a pile of dust. I became one via a RAW spell.
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…
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.
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?
Imagine a GM that takes control away from a druid player any time they wildshape, smh.
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).
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.
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.
Probably should go join the Thousand
SunsSons. They might set you up with some nice power armor.Thousand Sons*
Also, pretty sure that it comes with a permanent controlling enchantment subjugating them to the next Sorcerer
I’m just going to swing for the fences with the always objectionable, “fiction trumps rules.”
I go with fun trumps rules
Well memed, but it’s no fun to try to argue with someone who will take everything in bad faith, even as a joke.
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.
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.
