Awaken a treant

Sorry, Methinkus, but I side with the others. A treant is not a tree. Being a tree-like plant is not sufficient.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Plant: This type comprises vegetable creatures.

A "Plant" in D&D is a technical term for vegetable creatures. That is, plant-like creatures.

Trees, bushes, etc. can be called "plants" generically, but, of course, do not have entries in the Monster Manual (or any of its kin).

Plus, of course, the Treant description makes it quite clear that it is not a tree. (Previously made point. See above posts)

And, to top it off, "The character awakens a tree or animal to humanlike sentience." Treants already have human-like sentience (Int 12, Wis 15), so it would not make any sense for this spell to work. (Also a previously made point. See above posts.)

So, NO, "Awaken" will not work on a Treant.
 

Alright alright alright

No. This is what happens to an animal. Reread the spell.

Ooooook, so it hurts to be shown how wrong you are on occasion. On re-reading the spell it is clear that casting this on a treant would accomplish nothing other than making the treant friendly, and possibly offending every other treant in the area.

On the other issue of treants not being trees; A treant is a large plant having all the characteristics that define what a “tree” is, therefore it is a tree in my mind - on these boards, I was outvoted, and that’s groovy, but I am personally not yet convinced that a treant is not a tree.

As for trees not being plants in the D&D world, hmm . . . . .absurd. True by the rules, but illogical, and I have the right to rule zero that if it ever comes up (probably wont, but in my world, trees are indeed plants, thank you very much) as outlined on page 11 of the DMG, but that is only in my campaign and only because I feel it is a mistake. I see treants as an evolutionary development of a particular type tree as a kind of “guardian caste”

Note: the point is moot anyway since I already conceded that casting the spell would do next to nothing.
 

Re: Alright alright alright

Methinkus said:
As for trees not being plants in the D&D world, hmm . . . . .absurd. True by the rules, but illogical, and I have the right to rule zero that if it ever comes up (probably wont, but in my world, trees are indeed plants, thank you very much)...

Not to beat a dead horse (HYAH, Bessie! Hya! I don't care if you are in that grave! Get up, I say!) but I still want to point this out - a tree is a plant, but a plant is NOT a tree. Your post indicates you believe both the postulate and its reverse are true, but the reverse is not.
 

Re: Alright alright alright

Methinkus said:


On the other issue of treants not being trees; A treant is a large plant having all the characteristics that define what a “tree” is, therefore it is a tree in my mind - on these boards, I was outvoted, and that’s groovy, but I am personally not yet convinced that a treant is not a tree.

You oversee a single, but very important fact: treants are intelligent! Two things can have a thousand things in common, but if they differ in one thing, they're not the same. Especially if it's something as important as human-like sentience.

A CD, for example, is a disc made of plastic, has a diameter of 12cm and a hole in the middle. One side of it is shiny. So's a DVD. If I gave you a blank CD and a blank DVD, you couldn't tell them apart. But that doesn't make them the same thing. And especially it doesn't enable your CD-player to play the DVD.

Another thought occurs: Have you ever witnessed in school that a teacher slamming a pupil who didn't pay attention by shouting "WAKE UP!"? Did you notice how embarrassed the kid was. Now imagine a treant standing in the forest, guarding some treas and now a druid marches up on him and shouting to him "WAKE UP!".......
 

The definition arguement is fairly moot. A treant is already awake, as mentioned before. Having said that, I might allow you to use the spell to advance the Treant, under the progression charts in the MM.
 

Remove ads

Top