D&D 5E Why are treants vulnerable to fire?

[D'karr]

Correct. I use matches or a lighter.

Smokey says, "only you can prevent wildfires."

As to the OP, I blame Peter Jackson and the flaming Ent in The Two Towers. See at 0:51 secs and 1:52.

 

[billd91]

It is gamist, D&D is not a simulation of the real world.

It is like pokemon plant types take extra damage from fire.

I mean if D&D is trying to simulate reality, look at hit points & armor class, or go with why do only unattended object get affected by spells like thunderwave or fireball.

Can we bury this fallacy? Some highly abstract elements in a game doesn't mean there can't be significant nods to simulation elsewhere.

 

[Reynard]

There are so many of these strange elements in D&D that don't track with our expectations based on reality that it is often more useful ( and more fun!) to accept the What (treants are vulnerable to fire) and come up with an in-world Why (as moving trees, they are less dense and ignite and char more easily). Explaining all those niggling little incongruities actually makes for some fun world building.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Because of the burning properties of wood scout says

http://members.scouts.org.uk/factsheets/FS315001.pdf

 

[MightyZehir]

Well, I think we have enough treants on fire for now.. Let's move on to the topic of why leopard seals are not in the Monster Manaul.

I mean have you seen these animals, they are the ultimate penguin killers.

 

[Uchawi]

In theory, you have to go back to Treants as monsters as presented across the editions. If they typically did not have vulnerability to fire, then why is it the case now. In the AD&D monster manual they are vulnerable to fire, but it was presented in a different fashion when calculating AC. That would not fly in 5E, because of bounded accuracy.

 

[Remathilis]

A skeleton dying of thirst or falling asleep is even more silly, but by RAW they have to eat, sleep and drink

This is the same intersection of rules and fiction that 3e tried to fix with dozens of rules, 4e fixed with "the rules always trump logic, ooze tripper" and 5e assumes DMs can sort out with a minute of common sense.

The first player who tries to starve a skeleton because "the stat block doesn't say immune to exhaustion" is getting laughed away from my table.

It is gamist, D&D is not a simulation of the real world.

It is like pokemon plant types take extra damage from fire.

I mean if D&D is trying to simulate reality, look at hit points & armor class, or go with why do only unattended object get affected by spells like thunderwave or fireball.

It's super effective!

 

[the Jester]

I think the answer to the question posed in the OP is "pitch".

 

[Warbringer]

It's super effective!

True, but no in the context if simulation.

On OP, yeah I think it's an LOTR thing.

On skeletons starving to death, this so explains why skeletons are inanimate in the real world ... Be romantic magic clearly helps them digest.

 

[Gargoyle]

I'm ok with treants being vulnerable to fire. It makes some sort of thematic sense at least, though you could also say they should be vulnerable to slashing damage by the same logic (fear the axe!), so I don't think I can defend it logically.

I'm tired of skeletons being mowed down by arrows though; I believe I will be implementing some house rules to make them at least resistant to piercing weapons. All undead should be immune to fear, exhaustion, etc, not sure I really need a formal house rule for that, I think it qualifies under the heading of a common sense ruling.