Durring combat Druid wild shapes into mouse and scurried across floor. Bad guy runs over and stomps on mouse hitting AC and reducing mouse to zero. Mouse reverts to druid per the (RAW) and is now prone, bad guy uses the rest of the movement to run away.
Player says, "hey dont I get an attack of opportunity?"
DM says, "no, I'm not going to give it to you because you're reverting back into the druid and you are prone at the moment.
Lets just say there is some dissatisfaction with the call that was made. I would like to get everyone's opinion on how to correctly adjudicate this scenario. If you follow RAW then I would say yes the PC gets the AoO. However, thematically im not sure that makes sense. So how do you handle this...everthing else aside...whats the ruling?
RAW: a creature is not made prone from an attack unless the attack has a feature that says so. Stomping down with the boot is an unarmed attack and follows the rules of it. There isn't anything that says a wild shape dropping to 0 hp results in the druid being prone. A character drops prone at 0 hp not because of dropping to 0 but rather because they fall unconcious and the unconcious condition results in that. Since the druid doesn't fall unconcious, they don't fall prone.
Losing wild shape as a result of dropping to 0 hp is instantaneous and does not remove the Druid's ability to take a reaction of any kind. Being prone also doesn't remove a reaction.
However, it is part of RAW that a DM gets final say. A DM may apply conditions, advantage, disadvantage, bonuses and penalties as they see fit for the current circumstances and are free to adjudicate the nuances of how features apply to or work in a given situation.
Personally, I would rule in favour of the prone. The character at the time had a larger-than-their-body solid surface pressing down on them from above crushing them into the ground. It seems quite logical that this would induce the prone condition so when the druid returns to their own body they would remain in a prone condition. There is nothing about that situation which would, in my opinion, remove the reaction. I fail to see the logic of that and it seems a harsher thing to do plus opens up problems with consistency on other shapeshifting features like Polymorph spells (which have the same lose form on 0 hp clause as wild shape), so it frankly doesn't seem worth it. But this is just me.
Regardless of how I would choose to personally rule on these occasions - your DM is not in the wrong here. It would be better for you to talk to them directly about your concerns on their rulings, rather than try to seek approval from strangers on the internet first. I'm not a fan of a player going on the internet to get a bunch of people to 'agree' with them just so they can go to the DM, show the replies and go "see! they agree!". At the end of the day even if you had a hundred posts agreeing with you even from WotC themselves, it doesn't matter in the slightest. Your DM gets the final say on what the rules are, not the books. So if this is what you were doing (and I'm not saying you are, only If) then you should be aware nothing we put here matters - you need to talk to your DM without the words of randos on the internet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
RAW, there is nothing that would cause the Druid to fall prone or lose their reaction in this situation, but, as Cyber indicated, the DM has the final say, and can add to the rules at their discretion. I can see the logic in a four legged creature reverting to a two legged creature (in a situation beyond the creatures control, such as dropping to 0hp) that they would be in the prone position (on all fours). Cyber reached the same conclusion due to a different reason. I could also see the logic in that sudden shock removing your ability to immediately make an opportunity attack. Neither of those things are RAW, but logically I could see those calls making sense in the moment.
Now, if your DM is in the habit of making non RAW calls that upset the players, you need to have a conversation with him/her/them to make sure that everyone is getting what they want out of the game. D&D is a collaborative experience, and if someone is unhappy, they should take steps to address the issue. But beyond that, I'm not sure what help we are other than to confirm that that was a call not based on RAW (I wouldn't call it a "bad" call, but obviously a contentious one)
As mentioned, Rules as Written, there were several errors made.
1) The druid is not prone when they revert to their natural shape. Just because they are a mouse that gets stepped on doesn't mean that they would be prone. However, a DM could decide that if the wild shape is knocked prone then the druid would be prone when they revert to their natural form. Similarly, other conditions could be ruled to remain on the druid when the wild shape ends - paralysed, stunned, blinded, levels of exhaustion - if these carry over then a DM could rule that prone would also carry over.
2) The druid does not lose their reaction just because their wild shape goes away. The rules don't indicate how long such a reversion takes but the absence of any commentary indicates that it would happen fast enough that it would not interfere with any abilities like reactions that the druid could take. This is a bigger issue than prone. The druid should have had the opportunity to use their reaction to make an opportunity attack. It would have been at disadvantage if they were prone but there is nothing in the rules in this situation that would take away the ability to make an op attack.
This is a case of the DM implementing a house rule on the fly in which a wild shaped druid that loses their wild shape also loses any reactions on the turn they lose their wild shape.
I'd still have allowed the Opportunity Attack, but at disadvantage because you are Prone. The reason why I think this seems to be a fair bit different from other posters, though.
The simple fact is that the Druid would be on all 4's while they are a mouse, scurrying across the floor. Since there is no verbiage in any of the shape changing abilities in the game about 2 leg vs 4 leg locomotion and whether or not changing shape allows you to swap between them, it is left to the DM. In which case, your DM was fully correct to leave the Druid Prone in the situation.
As far as the Opportunity Attack, lying on the floor isn't exactly a great position to be making an attack from. It would in part depend on what weapon the Druid was wielding at the time, but anything other than a Dagger would be extremely awkward to bring to bear from that position. Still possible, but very difficult. And thus, made at Disadvantage. Of course, if the Druid is using something more like a Quarterstaff, it might not be allowed at all. It would depend on how tight the surroundings are, since a Quarterstaff is a large weapon, and you're trying to swing it while lying on the ground. And random piece of furniture could catch the other end, blocking the strike.
As others have said, your DM can rule as he likes; and as cybermind indicates, it doesn't matter what we think and getting help from the internet wouldn't support your case. If you came here to clarify RAW that is all together different.
On the other hand, if your DM consistently makes these kinds of rulings that are in complete conflict with RAW, I would start to wonder either if they know the rules or if they are just using their position to make their side of the game more enjoyable to themselves. Adding a bit of rule flexibility to make things "feel right" when they don't can be fun, but it can also strip player agency and remove player tools on a whim. If the goal of the game is for the players to overcome challenges set by the DM, then the DM removing those tools arbitrarily and without warning takes some (most) of that fun away for me. I wouldn't continue to play in a game where the rules (especially ones with clear RAW) were always in question.
Related, can someone point out what prone has to do opportunity attacks anyway? Even if the DM rules that you were prone, as long as you have a reaction you still should be able to make an opportunity attack. Prone states nothing about the attacks you make.
Any call that adds a punishment for a mundane interaction is a bad call.
Can you please elaborate on this ? Does this mean that a DM should only make calls in favor of the players ?
Note that I do not disagree (at least not until I have further clarifications), because the problem is that a lot of DM have a tendency to consider themselves "against" the players and to favor their side/NPCs in the hope that the players will not find the opposition a cakewalk. And therefore very often to make rulings to punish the players, more than rulings that advantage them.
That being said, this often comes from the attitude of the players who like to brag that they have beaten the DM and the opposition presented, and (in quite a number of cases) have been "perverted" by the previous editions where a lot of power was transferred to them, with the consequence that they think that everything is due to them.
As a consequence, it creates a lot of situations like this where players think that they are somehow “owed” the rules and their perfect application when it suits them, but (of course) never bother to remind anyone when a rule that disadvantages them is “forgotten”. And this creates rule-lawyers and players who want to rule-play rather than roleplay.
It’s that kind of tension which is bad, not the rulings in themselves. The DM is not the player’s adversary. He builds the story with them, even though his monsters are the protagonists of the player’s characters. And they should work together to build a nice story, not bicker about rule points.
And this is where 5e went (once more) in the right direction, to re-establish firmly that the DM’s perspective is always right, and supersedes any other point in the RAW.
Once the perspective changes, the whole game changes, and it is always for the better.
Sure. If you do a normal thing within the game (make an attack, use a spell, etc) then there shouldn't be a risk of punishment for it. The risk/reward is just success or failure (aside from any abilities the enemy might have). If the GM wasn't planning on granting some extra reward and if the player wasn't looking for extra risk/reward with a specific action, then adding extra punishment is just the GM being petty.
On the other hand, if your DM consistently makes these kinds of rulings that are in complete conflict with RAW, I would start to wonder either if they know the rules or if they are just using their position to make their side of the game more enjoyable to themselves. Adding a bit of rule flexibility to make things "feel right" when they don't can be fun, but it can also strip player agency and remove player tools on a whim. If the goal of the game is for the players to overcome challenges set by the DM, then the DM removing those tools arbitrarily and without warning takes some (most) of that fun away for me. I wouldn't continue to play in a game where the rules (especially ones with clear RAW) were always in question.
Well, this is where we differ. A ruling from the DM, by RAW, always overrules all the other RAW. So the DM's ruling cannot, by definition, be in conflict with the RAW. I, for one, like to encourage creative thinking of the players, and do not hesitate to create or bend the rules in the name of Maximum Game Fun, which is not about following the other RAW all the time.
Of course, a ruling by the DM that is utterly wrong is nothing more. The DM can rule that way (against RAW), and does get the final say. Abusing that relationship is not fun gaming. That is why this is not a rules question so much as a group dynamic question.
Thank you for pointing out that I did skip over the fact that the AoO would be at disadvantage.
Durring combat Druid wild shapes into mouse and scurried across floor. Bad guy runs over and stomps on mouse hitting AC and reducing mouse to zero. Mouse reverts to druid per the (RAW) and is now prone, bad guy uses the rest of the movement to run away.
The pertinent question that nobody has asked yet is what happened to the Druid's HP after their Wild Shape form hit 0HP?
Spillover damage happens. When the mouse HP hit 0, any remaining damage does spill over to the Druid's actual HP. What level are you playing at? Did the Druid also get reduced to 0 HP from the attack? If so, they are Unconscious, and would not get an Opportunity Attack. If not, then RAW they're perfectly fine and would get the OA.
"The DM is always right" does not mean "Whatever the DM says is RAW". A DM has the right to run their games how they want, but anything not following RAW is explicitly a "house rule" or "homebrew".
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
If its a roleplay thing like attacking the king during dinner, then sure, there should be consequences. But if its a matter of just throwing on extra punishment outside of the rules for a player, it doesn't make sense in promoting an enjoyable game.
In the case at hand, the consequences were that the player wasted a wildshape (and realistically, an entire turn's worth of actions). They already took a risk/reward gamble and lost.
And another factor on top of that; the GM didn't even use the prone rules correctly. The druid should have at least had an attack at disadvantage, not just no attack. So that is two extra layers of punishment for just doing something that already failed to pay off. Its just excessive.
One thing to consider, though. If you have never been the DM (I don't know if this is the case), you may not realize how many things they have to keep track of at once.
Having played both sides of the screen, the difference between players and DM in prep work and cognitive load is a bit like this:
-Players: finding keys and wallet, then ordering dinner at a restaurant
-DM: cooking the food, then simultaneously serving 6 tables
If you have been DM, just know that it's okay if other DMs call things differently. I know I've had a few moments where I've thought, "Wait, that's not how I would have called it!" but then we just moved on with the game and it wasn't a big deal.
While most DMs try to be reasonable and fair, they are making a lot of calls for each player, NPC, the environment, etc. By all means talk to your DM after the game if you feel something is amiss, and sort out how a future ruling might go, but also have patience and appreciate the effort they are going to.
That's all well and good, except this is Rules & Game Mechanics, and the OP's question was about the RAW interaction.
RAW, if the damage dealt was enough to force the Druid back to their natural form, and if the spillover damage was enough to also take the Druid to 0HP, they are Unconscious and Incapacitated (and possibly just dead if you're using massive damage optional rules).
If this is the case, then they were unable to make an OA by RAW.
If this is not the case, then they were perfectly able to make an OA by RAW, and the DM's call is a house rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I reference you to my previous comment of "The DM is always right" does not equate to "Whatever the DM says is RAW". RAW is RAW. Not RAW is homebrew/house rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I reference you to my previous comment of "The DM is always right" does not equate to "Whatever the DM says is RAW". RAW is RAW. Not RAW is homebrew/house rules.
I don't think that anyone here, including myself, equated the two proposals. The DM is always right is RAW and supersedes all other RAW, that's all.
You literally just equated the two, and it is not correct.
RAW are the Rules as Written. This is how the game system functions, for anyone, and that includes DMs. In no way does a DM making a decision which breaks from RAW make that decision RAW itself. It's a house rule, and that's okay. DMs are empowered to make house rulings and homebrew as they wish. None of that changes how the system functions.
RAW: the way the system functions in a vacuum
Not RAW: the way the system functions for a specific DM's game(s). House rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I reference you to my previous comment of "The DM is always right" does not equate to "Whatever the DM says is RAW". RAW is RAW. Not RAW is homebrew/house rules.
I don't think that anyone here, including myself, equated the two proposals. The DM is always right is RAW and supersedes all other RAW, that's all.
You literally just equated the two, and it is not correct.
Nope, said nothing of the kind. It's just that the other RAW are superseded by DM's decisions. It does not mean that they change, they stay written as such, it's just that they are superseded by any ruling that a DM does in his game. It does not make these rulings RAW, but they supersede the RAW in his game.
RAW are the Rules as Written. This is how the game system functions, for anyone, and that includes DMs. In no way does a DM making a decision which breaks from RAW make that decision RAW itself. It's a house rule, and that's okay. DMs are empowered to make house rulings and homebrew as they wish. None of that changes how the system functions.
The DM can make whatever changes he wants to the system in his game. The RAW system sort of works for basic actions
RAW: the way the system functions in a vacuum
Actually, it does not. The system is not complete ("The rules don’t account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session."), WotC stopped trying to create a complete system that works by itself after 4e and thankfully came back to a system that requires the DM to make calls. I should not have to remind you of all the discussions in these forums where it's been proven time and time again that there are holes in the system and that the RAW by no mean create a single system that can even be interpreted the same way by all.
For me, it's a much better system overall, because the previous editions have proven that you cannot make a complete system, and that any attempt really cripples the possibility anyway. So I'm much more comfortable with what we have, a system that recognises that is is incomplete and relies on a DM to make it actually work in practice.
Not RAW: the way the system functions for a specific DM's game(s). House rules.
That just does not mean anything. Of course it's not RAW, because the RAW are just that, not a system, but rules. It's like a musical instrument, it does nothing on its own.
That's all well and good but this is a forum for discussing rules and if every question that starts with "was my DM right to make this call about a rule" is going to be answered with "yes because according to the books DM is always right" then there is no valuable discussion about mechanics to be had.
The purpose of these forums is discussion, education and assistance in mastering existing game rules within what's written in the books.
Also, while the system is not complete, it actually does provide all the necessary rules to the situation described by the OP. There is no need for any interpretation by the DM.
Lyxen, all you've accomplished is demonstrate that you do not understand the meaning of "RAW" as it relates to Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition, and as it relates to this forum.
When we discuss what RAW is regarding a rules question, we are discussing how the interactions play out with respect to the rules as they are written in official published source books. This is the scope that we use, so that we may determine how things function in a universal manner. I.e., when someone asks a question about RAW, they are asking a question about how the published rules actually work, without any modification--Rules as Written.
Can a DM decide they want to run their game with modifications to the rules as befits their own personal taste? Absolutely, and there's a phrase for that--house rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I will keep this short as possible:
Durring combat Druid wild shapes into mouse and scurried across floor. Bad guy runs over and stomps on mouse hitting AC and reducing mouse to zero. Mouse reverts to druid per the (RAW) and is now prone, bad guy uses the rest of the movement to run away.
Player says, "hey dont I get an attack of opportunity?"
DM says, "no, I'm not going to give it to you because you're reverting back into the druid and you are prone at the moment.
Lets just say there is some dissatisfaction with the call that was made. I would like to get everyone's opinion on how to correctly adjudicate this scenario. If you follow RAW then I would say yes the PC gets the AoO. However, thematically im not sure that makes sense. So how do you handle this...everthing else aside...whats the ruling?
Where did the rule that the druid is now prone come from?
RAW: a creature is not made prone from an attack unless the attack has a feature that says so. Stomping down with the boot is an unarmed attack and follows the rules of it. There isn't anything that says a wild shape dropping to 0 hp results in the druid being prone. A character drops prone at 0 hp not because of dropping to 0 but rather because they fall unconcious and the unconcious condition results in that. Since the druid doesn't fall unconcious, they don't fall prone.
Losing wild shape as a result of dropping to 0 hp is instantaneous and does not remove the Druid's ability to take a reaction of any kind. Being prone also doesn't remove a reaction.
However, it is part of RAW that a DM gets final say. A DM may apply conditions, advantage, disadvantage, bonuses and penalties as they see fit for the current circumstances and are free to adjudicate the nuances of how features apply to or work in a given situation.
Personally, I would rule in favour of the prone. The character at the time had a larger-than-their-body solid surface pressing down on them from above crushing them into the ground. It seems quite logical that this would induce the prone condition so when the druid returns to their own body they would remain in a prone condition. There is nothing about that situation which would, in my opinion, remove the reaction. I fail to see the logic of that and it seems a harsher thing to do plus opens up problems with consistency on other shapeshifting features like Polymorph spells (which have the same lose form on 0 hp clause as wild shape), so it frankly doesn't seem worth it. But this is just me.
Regardless of how I would choose to personally rule on these occasions - your DM is not in the wrong here. It would be better for you to talk to them directly about your concerns on their rulings, rather than try to seek approval from strangers on the internet first. I'm not a fan of a player going on the internet to get a bunch of people to 'agree' with them just so they can go to the DM, show the replies and go "see! they agree!". At the end of the day even if you had a hundred posts agreeing with you even from WotC themselves, it doesn't matter in the slightest. Your DM gets the final say on what the rules are, not the books. So if this is what you were doing (and I'm not saying you are, only If) then you should be aware nothing we put here matters - you need to talk to your DM without the words of randos on the internet.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
RAW, there is nothing that would cause the Druid to fall prone or lose their reaction in this situation, but, as Cyber indicated, the DM has the final say, and can add to the rules at their discretion. I can see the logic in a four legged creature reverting to a two legged creature (in a situation beyond the creatures control, such as dropping to 0hp) that they would be in the prone position (on all fours). Cyber reached the same conclusion due to a different reason. I could also see the logic in that sudden shock removing your ability to immediately make an opportunity attack. Neither of those things are RAW, but logically I could see those calls making sense in the moment.
Now, if your DM is in the habit of making non RAW calls that upset the players, you need to have a conversation with him/her/them to make sure that everyone is getting what they want out of the game. D&D is a collaborative experience, and if someone is unhappy, they should take steps to address the issue. But beyond that, I'm not sure what help we are other than to confirm that that was a call not based on RAW (I wouldn't call it a "bad" call, but obviously a contentious one)
This was all an acceptable DM call. Not great, but reasonable.
As mentioned, Rules as Written, there were several errors made.
1) The druid is not prone when they revert to their natural shape. Just because they are a mouse that gets stepped on doesn't mean that they would be prone. However, a DM could decide that if the wild shape is knocked prone then the druid would be prone when they revert to their natural form. Similarly, other conditions could be ruled to remain on the druid when the wild shape ends - paralysed, stunned, blinded, levels of exhaustion - if these carry over then a DM could rule that prone would also carry over.
2) The druid does not lose their reaction just because their wild shape goes away. The rules don't indicate how long such a reversion takes but the absence of any commentary indicates that it would happen fast enough that it would not interfere with any abilities like reactions that the druid could take. This is a bigger issue than prone. The druid should have had the opportunity to use their reaction to make an opportunity attack. It would have been at disadvantage if they were prone but there is nothing in the rules in this situation that would take away the ability to make an op attack.
This is a case of the DM implementing a house rule on the fly in which a wild shaped druid that loses their wild shape also loses any reactions on the turn they lose their wild shape.
I'd still have allowed the Opportunity Attack, but at disadvantage because you are Prone. The reason why I think this seems to be a fair bit different from other posters, though.
The simple fact is that the Druid would be on all 4's while they are a mouse, scurrying across the floor. Since there is no verbiage in any of the shape changing abilities in the game about 2 leg vs 4 leg locomotion and whether or not changing shape allows you to swap between them, it is left to the DM. In which case, your DM was fully correct to leave the Druid Prone in the situation.
As far as the Opportunity Attack, lying on the floor isn't exactly a great position to be making an attack from. It would in part depend on what weapon the Druid was wielding at the time, but anything other than a Dagger would be extremely awkward to bring to bear from that position. Still possible, but very difficult. And thus, made at Disadvantage. Of course, if the Druid is using something more like a Quarterstaff, it might not be allowed at all. It would depend on how tight the surroundings are, since a Quarterstaff is a large weapon, and you're trying to swing it while lying on the ground. And random piece of furniture could catch the other end, blocking the strike.
As others have said, your DM can rule as he likes; and as cybermind indicates, it doesn't matter what we think and getting help from the internet wouldn't support your case. If you came here to clarify RAW that is all together different.
On the other hand, if your DM consistently makes these kinds of rulings that are in complete conflict with RAW, I would start to wonder either if they know the rules or if they are just using their position to make their side of the game more enjoyable to themselves. Adding a bit of rule flexibility to make things "feel right" when they don't can be fun, but it can also strip player agency and remove player tools on a whim. If the goal of the game is for the players to overcome challenges set by the DM, then the DM removing those tools arbitrarily and without warning takes some (most) of that fun away for me. I wouldn't continue to play in a game where the rules (especially ones with clear RAW) were always in question.
Related, can someone point out what prone has to do opportunity attacks anyway? Even if the DM rules that you were prone, as long as you have a reaction you still should be able to make an opportunity attack. Prone states nothing about the attacks you make.
Any call that adds a punishment for a mundane interaction is a bad call.
Sure. If you do a normal thing within the game (make an attack, use a spell, etc) then there shouldn't be a risk of punishment for it. The risk/reward is just success or failure (aside from any abilities the enemy might have). If the GM wasn't planning on granting some extra reward and if the player wasn't looking for extra risk/reward with a specific action, then adding extra punishment is just the GM being petty.
Of course, a ruling by the DM that is utterly wrong is nothing more. The DM can rule that way (against RAW), and does get the final say. Abusing that relationship is not fun gaming. That is why this is not a rules question so much as a group dynamic question.
Thank you for pointing out that I did skip over the fact that the AoO would be at disadvantage.
The pertinent question that nobody has asked yet is what happened to the Druid's HP after their Wild Shape form hit 0HP?
Spillover damage happens. When the mouse HP hit 0, any remaining damage does spill over to the Druid's actual HP. What level are you playing at? Did the Druid also get reduced to 0 HP from the attack? If so, they are Unconscious, and would not get an Opportunity Attack. If not, then RAW they're perfectly fine and would get the OA.
"The DM is always right" does not mean "Whatever the DM says is RAW". A DM has the right to run their games how they want, but anything not following RAW is explicitly a "house rule" or "homebrew".
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
If its a roleplay thing like attacking the king during dinner, then sure, there should be consequences. But if its a matter of just throwing on extra punishment outside of the rules for a player, it doesn't make sense in promoting an enjoyable game.
In the case at hand, the consequences were that the player wasted a wildshape (and realistically, an entire turn's worth of actions). They already took a risk/reward gamble and lost.
And another factor on top of that; the GM didn't even use the prone rules correctly. The druid should have at least had an attack at disadvantage, not just no attack. So that is two extra layers of punishment for just doing something that already failed to pay off. Its just excessive.
The call could have gone a number of ways.
One thing to consider, though. If you have never been the DM (I don't know if this is the case), you may not realize how many things they have to keep track of at once.
Having played both sides of the screen, the difference between players and DM in prep work and cognitive load is a bit like this:
-Players: finding keys and wallet, then ordering dinner at a restaurant
-DM: cooking the food, then simultaneously serving 6 tables
If you have been DM, just know that it's okay if other DMs call things differently. I know I've had a few moments where I've thought, "Wait, that's not how I would have called it!" but then we just moved on with the game and it wasn't a big deal.
While most DMs try to be reasonable and fair, they are making a lot of calls for each player, NPC, the environment, etc. By all means talk to your DM after the game if you feel something is amiss, and sort out how a future ruling might go, but also have patience and appreciate the effort they are going to.
That's all well and good, except this is Rules & Game Mechanics, and the OP's question was about the RAW interaction.
RAW, if the damage dealt was enough to force the Druid back to their natural form, and if the spillover damage was enough to also take the Druid to 0HP, they are Unconscious and Incapacitated (and possibly just dead if you're using massive damage optional rules).
If this is the case, then they were unable to make an OA by RAW.
If this is not the case, then they were perfectly able to make an OA by RAW, and the DM's call is a house rule.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I reference you to my previous comment of "The DM is always right" does not equate to "Whatever the DM says is RAW". RAW is RAW. Not RAW is homebrew/house rules.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
By 2 coppers. RAF you be a dead mouse. You are prone. Once you hack up a hair ball, you get the attack. RAW you not prone, and get the attack.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
You literally just equated the two, and it is not correct.
RAW are the Rules as Written. This is how the game system functions, for anyone, and that includes DMs. In no way does a DM making a decision which breaks from RAW make that decision RAW itself. It's a house rule, and that's okay. DMs are empowered to make house rulings and homebrew as they wish. None of that changes how the system functions.
RAW: the way the system functions in a vacuum
Not RAW: the way the system functions for a specific DM's game(s). House rules.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
That's all well and good but this is a forum for discussing rules and if every question that starts with "was my DM right to make this call about a rule" is going to be answered with "yes because according to the books DM is always right" then there is no valuable discussion about mechanics to be had.
The purpose of these forums is discussion, education and assistance in mastering existing game rules within what's written in the books.
Also, while the system is not complete, it actually does provide all the necessary rules to the situation described by the OP. There is no need for any interpretation by the DM.
Lyxen, all you've accomplished is demonstrate that you do not understand the meaning of "RAW" as it relates to Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition, and as it relates to this forum.
When we discuss what RAW is regarding a rules question, we are discussing how the interactions play out with respect to the rules as they are written in official published source books. This is the scope that we use, so that we may determine how things function in a universal manner. I.e., when someone asks a question about RAW, they are asking a question about how the published rules actually work, without any modification--Rules as Written.
Can a DM decide they want to run their game with modifications to the rules as befits their own personal taste? Absolutely, and there's a phrase for that--house rules.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.