D&D (2024) Disintegrate Reverted to Old Wording

[Chaltab]

So the Disintegrate spell as listed in the 5.1 SRD has a bit of an issue: a target is disintegrated if an effect reduces it to 0 hit points. However, some race and class features allow a character reduced to 0 hit points to instead be reduced to 1 HP or more instead, and there's ambiguity into whether such features (like Death Ward and Reletendless Endurance) circumvent this. And there's one other bit of weirdness I'll get to in a moment.

At some point, the 2014 Player's Handbook errata updated Disintegrate to read:

The target is disintegrated if this damage leaves it with 0 hit points.

With this update, the target must be left with 0 hit points, so that Relentless Endurance and Death Ward, can definitely save a target's life. No ambiguity.

The 2024 version, however, has gone back to the original wording:

If this damage reduces it to 0 Hit Points, it and everything nonmagical it is wearing and carrying are disintegrated into gray dust.

So we're back to the situation before where the wording leaves it ambiguous. Now to the other issue that just occurred is that if a target is already dying at 0 hit points and has a maximum hit points greater than 75, then Disintegrate can only ever cause it to fail a single death save.

Obviously this isn't a gamebreaking issue but it does strike me as odd they went back on previous errata.

 

[TiQuinn]

Yeah, these little shifts in terminology and sentence structure can lead you down a rabbit hole but if you're part of an ongoing campaign or group of players from 5e, there's a pretty good chance you've already locked this down and settled upon a certain outcome if Disintegrate hits your character, and honestly, I don't see anything there that should dissuade a group from playing the way they've been playing. What really matters is how you handle it going forward, but I'm always one for erring on the side of caution with players and so I'm never going to parse "leaves with" versus "reduces to" to deny a PC who has an ability like Death Ward from getting that benefit.

Other DMs may not agree, and that's really what it comes down to. I guess maybe the problem is that if you are in this situation, you didn't think to ask your DM in your session zero "Well...how are you gonna handle disintegration" if you were even aware there was a terminology change. And to that, I say, you have to have some level of trust in your DM and their willingness to see your character continue in the game. To my mind, I wouldn't let a wording shift be the difference between whether a PC was killed automatically or not, but I cannot say that's the way it is for everyone.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I would imagine they simply didn't remember why it was errata'ed. I wouldn't have. It's a narrow and rare interaction, and it's kind of exactly the sort of thing that the DM should resolve in the moment. I can appreciate that people want an official answer. However, I feel like having easy access to official rules answers discourages new DMs from making rulings and moving on. I think that's an important skill to learn in TTRPGs.

I wish that the official response to these sort of things was more often along the lines of, "Your DM should decide how this interacts. Generally, in a heroic style of play game we would favor whichever interpretation benefits the PCs or players, while a grimdark style of play game should favor whichever interpretation benefits the opponents." That would make a certain kind of player absolutely livid, though.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I mean, IMO, casting Disintegrate on a downed PC is a waste of a 6th level spell slot so... there's that.

 

[Chaltab]

Oh it absolutely is. It's very unlikely to even come up. Though the other reasons for the errata still apply.

 

[leozg]

it's kind of exactly the sort of thing that the DM should resolve in the moment

No it is not. It was errata'ed because it was somewhat wrong and should not be solved by the DM. DM has a lot to think during the game, if something should be resolved by the DM then it should just not be written in the book in a way that causes this kind of problem.

 

[Reynard]

So the Disintegrate spell as listed in the 5.1 SRD has a bit of an issue: a target is disintegrated if an effect reduces it to 0 hit points. However, some race and class features allow a character reduced to 0 hit points to instead be reduced to 1 HP or more instead, and there's ambiguity into whether such features (like Death Ward and Reletendless Endurance) circumvent this. And there's one other bit of weirdness I'll get to in a moment.

At some point, the 2014 Player's Handbook errata updated Disintegrate to read:

With this update, the target must be left with 0 hit points, so that Relentless Endurance and Death Ward, can definitely save a target's life. No ambiguity.

The 2024 version, however, has gone back to the original wording:

So we're back to the situation before where the wording leaves it ambiguous. Now to the other issue that just occurred is that if a target is already dying at 0 hit points and has a maximum hit points greater than 75, then Disintegrate can only ever cause it to fail a single death save.

Obviously this isn't a gamebreaking issue but it does strike me as odd they went back on previous errata.

Is it ambiguous, or is it just saying "You disintegrated; sorry."?

I have no problem with it being a specific exception to those abilities.

 

[nevin]

So the Disintegrate spell as listed in the 5.1 SRD has a bit of an issue: a target is disintegrated if an effect reduces it to 0 hit points. However, some race and class features allow a character reduced to 0 hit points to instead be reduced to 1 HP or more instead, and there's ambiguity into whether such features (like Death Ward and Reletendless Endurance) circumvent this. And there's one other bit of weirdness I'll get to in a moment.

At some point, the 2014 Player's Handbook errata updated Disintegrate to read:

With this update, the target must be left with 0 hit points, so that Relentless Endurance and Death Ward, can definitely save a target's life. No ambiguity.

The 2024 version, however, has gone back to the original wording:

So we're back to the situation before where the wording leaves it ambiguous. Now to the other issue that just occurred is that if a target is already dying at 0 hit points and has a maximum hit points greater than 75, then Disintegrate can only ever cause it to fail a single death save.

Obviously this isn't a gamebreaking issue but it does strike me as odd they went back on previous errata.

seems perfectly clear to me. A high level spell designed to disintegrate things actually disintegrates the character if they go to 0 or below. seems to be a working as originally intended to me. I don't think Death saves were ever intended to save the character from being a pile of dust. You could make the save at my table and you'd still be a pile of dust. I think you have to reach really hard to think that errata leaves any opening for survival. Other than reincarnation or ressurrection...

 

[pawsplay]

AFAIC, if you are reduced to zero hit points, you are gone, and once you are gone, the second ability never comes online. Unless the ability that brings you up to 1 hit point specifies it takes effect before other effects are applied, it clearly doesn't. by the time Mister Zombie is making his Constitution saving throw, he is already disintegrated.

 

[TiQuinn]

AFAIC, if you are reduced to zero hit points, you are gone, and once you are gone, the second ability never comes online. Unless the ability that brings you up to 1 hit point specifies it takes effect before other effects are applied, it clearly doesn't. by the time Mister Zombie is making his Constitution saving throw, he is already disintegrated.

That’s certainly one way to play it.