qwal's feather token treee

[calighis]

we had an incident with it that caused much debate.
The person that used it was sealed trapped in a thick wood casing suspended 20 feet above ground.

Now the question here is... would the tree burst the casing?
Would the tree then reach the ground and root or fall and grow sideways?

 

[darthkilmor]

we had an incident with it that caused much debate.
The person that used it was sealed trapped in a thick wood casing suspended 20 feet above ground.

Now the question here is... would the tree burst the casing?
Would the tree then reach the ground and root or fall and grow sideways?

If I were the DM I'd allow it, probably with the tree simply occupying the space if there was no ground for it to root in.

 

[Deset Gled]

I've always ruled that the tree token (and any other similar "create a big thing in a small area" effect) follows the same rules as Enlarge Person; the tree expands until it meets resistance of some kind, then stops. Outside objects present at the time of creation cannot be damaged by the tree, nor will they damage the tree as it is created. IMNSHO, any other interpretation will lead to nothing but headaches as you try to figure out how much force/damage the creation of the tree will cause.

 

[ElectricDragon]

I see the feather tokens (tree and swan boat) as well as the folding boat and instant fortress that create large things from small objects as actually storing the large thing in shrunken size until commanded. As such the enlarge spell would not apply. Also, the enlarge spell affects creatures and this part is to prevent player abuse: using enlarge to instantly win a battle by squeezing their opponent to death.

Daern's Instant Fortress explains what damage it does when it grows. Of course being made of Adamantine, it is stronger than a tree (hardness 20 vs. hardness 5). Nevertheless, I would allow the tree to break through anything with hardness equal to or less than the tree. It would be constrained by greater hardnesses (possibly breaking into pieces as it attempted to regain its normal size). Even then it could bend, dent, or damage the obstruction in its magical growth spurt. This would be a DM call on the spot.

Ciao
Dave

 

[mvincent]

I've always ruled that the tree token (and any other similar "create a big thing in a small area" effect) follows the same rules as Enlarge Person; the tree expands until it meets resistance of some kind, then stops.

Agreed. This seems to be the consensus in several previous discussions on the matter.

As a rule, things do not do damage from expanding, enlarging, etc. unless the rules say so (otherwise, you could end up with all sorts of horrible abuses).

As a compromise, you might allow inanimate objects a str roll (i.e. at str 0, so -5 to the roll) to burst open their enclosures.

Also, unshrunk items might continue to press against their confines until freed.

 

[ElectricDragon]

As a rule things do do damage when expanding:

Look at the spell, Righteous Might, where a Str check is allowed to burst your enclosure when growing.

Instant Fortress seems made to make holes in things (it sets itself 10 feet into the ground for stability).

If the feather token tree were activated on the ground, would it set on top of the ground, roots and all? Or should it have to make a Str check (at Str 0) to put its roots into the solid ground?

Why is Enlarge the only spell or effect considered for this?

Ciao
Dave

 

[mvincent]

Why is Enlarge the only spell or effect considered for this?

In previous discussions (examples: here and here) most other effects were considered. Righteous Might, Expansion, Enlarge, giant size, etc. all use the same str check method (but do not do actual 'damage'). Most other enlarging effects do not denote any method for adjudicating confined area at all.

But those are actually Transmutation effects. For conjuration effects (which the tree token actually is) the rules say:
"A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it."

Instant fortress is an exception, and specifically notes 10d10 to anyone in a 20'x20'x30' area. This should not be viewed as the default for items that do not mention any damage (unless one desires an over-the-top type of game).

Sure, for ages players have been feeding tree tokens to dragon's and watching them explode... but do you really wish to be the sort of DM that allows such?

 

[ElectricDragon]

It just seems strange that most DMs allow the tree to root itself into the ground (thereby breaking through the barrier of the ground without any type of roll) but balk at letting the trunk (a much stronger structure) break through the ceiling. And unlike instant fortress; it does not say that it supports itself by digging into the ground.

I am not talking about the tree affecting creatures here, just objects. I've had my share of players who want to destroy all the water in a creature's body, or enlarge their heart to burst their chest, etc. They think it is clever until someone uses it against them.

If the tree did not root itself (much like the instant fortress); I would have no problem with the other part. Now the description of the tree does not say it roots itself; but most DMs assume that it does (otherwise falling/tipping rules would need to be adjudicated like in wall of iron).

Monte Hall? Where did that come from? I suggest that an instant tree can burst a roof and suddenly I am Monte Hall? If I had his money, then I would not object to such a comment; but I am not nearly as well-off as he is and do not like the connotation at all.

Even if I do give away more treasure than the rules suggest; even if I do occasionally let a player get by with something questionable, that does not make me Monte Hall. I usually let them know that such things are a play-test and are subject to change at any time I deem fit. Also, my motto is anything good for the goose is good for the gander. If the players can use it; so can the monsters. Thus retaining balance (and allowing the players to suggest we go back to how it was before). Sometimes, playing the game is also teaching players to play fair. (I often have a lot of new and young players; and this method does work).

Ciao
Dave

 

[mvincent]

It just seems strange that most DMs allow the tree to root itself into the ground (thereby breaking through the barrier of the ground without any type of roll) but balk at letting the trunk (a much stronger structure) break through the ceiling.

It's a good observation for discussion. I believe rooting (in most DM's mind) does not necessarily mean actually 'damaging' or destroying the floor. A collapsing ceiling though can be a major event.

unlike instant fortress; it does not say that it supports itself by digging into the ground.

True, but in context that seems to be its intent. As you mention: if it was not rooted, its description would mention something about how to adjudicate it falling over (as that would almost certainly happen with a top-heavy tree).

I am not talking about the tree affecting creatures here, just objects.

That seems like a reasonable (and likely fun) compromise.

Monte Hall? Where did that come from?

From DM's that let players 'splode dragons with the token. I was referring to them (and not necessarily to you at all).

 

[frankthedm]

This is why the version of the tree token I allow in my game is an enchanted acorn that has to be placed into soil to activate.