Awakening a tree -- Con score

[Artoomis]

None taken.
I'm not sure what you mean by "construct trait." Do you mean the Constitution nonability?

Construct is a creature type, and a creature can only have one type (plus subtypes). Making the spell target into a Plant removes its Construct-ness.

No, it does not.

[The tree is given stats as an animated object, with only the specified exceptions. Those exceptions are its type, mental stats (Int, Wis, Cha), and senses...

That's from you. What it means is that awakened plants are animated objects (contructs) in every way except for the listed exceptions.

Basically, that means that awakened plants are constructs with the <plant> creature type and with mental stats. The only thing having the <plant> type means is that they are affected by thing that affect plants, as opposed to constructs.

So, if you want to know what awakened plants have in terms of ability scores, resistances, etc. look to constructs. On the other hand, they do get mental ability scores and they have the <plant> type so they can be affected by plant-affecting things.

I wonder if that's really what the designers had in mind? The language is very clear, but who knows what the intent might have been.

 

[AuraSeer]

Basically, that means that awakened plants are constructs with the <plant> creature type and with mental stats. The only thing having the <plant> subtype means is that they are affected by thing that affect plants, as opposed to constructs.

Plant is not a subtype, though. It's a type.
Since a creature can only have one type, it must be either a plant or a construct-- not both.

 

[Caliban]

Plant is not a subtype, though. It's a type.
Since a creature can only have one type, it must be either a plant or a construct-- not both.

It's type is plant, it very clearly says so. It's a plant with no Con score, because it's not granted one by the spell.

Before the spell it was an unintelligent plant without a Con score. After the spell it is an intelligent plant without a Con score.

 

[Corwin]

Plant is not a subtype, though. It's a type.
Since a creature can only have one type, it must be either a plant or a construct-- not both.

How does that preclude the creature from benefiting from its construct abilities? It gets to keep anything not expressly removed by the change.

Look, take a half-dragon/human for example. As soon as you place the half-dragon template on the human, you change it to a [Dragon] type. Does it lose it's human benefits or abilities? No. It still gets the extra feat and the extra skill points.

Same for the tree. It starts as a construct (animated object). Awakening it changes its type to [Plant]. Everything it had before (as a construct) stays unless specifically changed by the spell.

So it retains all its animated object stuff, picks up mental abilities and changes to [Plant]. That's it.

So no Con score.

BTW, I was going to say "my vote is for no Con score...", but that would imply there is any debate requiring a concensus or vote in the first place. This is very clear, straighforward and a non-issue, IMO. So it isn't up for debate, it just is what it is.

I should also point out that someone mentioned earlier about the tree having a Con of 0. That's not quite right. It has no Con sore at all (a zero being a score). So it atually has Con: -. There are actually significant differences. Just an FYI.

 

[Artoomis]

Plant is not a subtype, though. It's a type.
Since a creature can only have one type, it must be either a plant or a construct-- not both.

I fixed that typo (I don't know why I typed "subtype").

It's a "plant" with all the properties of a "construct" except that it has mental abilities and carries the <plant> type label.

It really is, in a way, both a construct and plant, though it is of the type "plant." It breaks the rules in much the same way that a 20th level monk becoming an outsider does.

 

[AGGEMAM]

I should also point out that someone mentioned earlier about the tree having a Con of 0. That's not quite right. It has no Con sore at all (a zero being a score). So it atually has Con: -. There are actually significant differences. Just an FYI.

I don't think that has been mentioned at all in this thread. I wrote that it had a Con modifier of 0(zero), which is correct.

 

[Corwin]

Wouldn't that be a 10 Con?

 

[AGGEMAM]

Wouldn't that be a 10 Con?

LOL.

Well yes and no.

The modifier for a nonability is +0.

 

[Corwin]

I know, I was just funnin' ya.

I had originally mis-recalled, thinking you said Con 0, not Con mod 0. (Though Con mod +0 would have been clearer and could have avoided all of this... )

I still don't think there is anything to debate here. Unless we want to discuss what we'd rather do to stat up animated trees. But that's what the House Rules Forum is for, right?

 

[AGGEMAM]

I still don't think there is anything to debate here. Unless we want to discuss what we'd rather do to stat up animated trees. But that's what the House Rules Forum is for, right?

I agree!