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.
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.
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
*“Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?”
Jesus, get the quote right.
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?
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.
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…
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.
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.
Pfft, you could play a dragon fairy princess in 3e. Probably at something like a +10 level adjustment.
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.
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.
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 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.
I thought you needed a body part to resurrect? I might be thinking Pathfinder, though cause I mostly play that.
The difficulty of restoring to life someone who is already alive is why such high-level magic is required.
