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

MightyZehir

Explorer
Does it actually make sense?

I mean there are fire-intolerant plants that tend to be highly flammable and get destroyed completely by fire. But Many big ass trees are fire tolerant or have some degree of fire resistance.

Without apparent weak spots or vital organs that humans have, I'm pretty sure that treants can take a Fireball to the face better than any human can.

Sure, we use wood for fuel, but that is also because it takes such a long ass time to burn.

Anyway, enough of my rant. Do you guys have any gripes for D&D monsters.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There are some oddities about resistances and vulnerabilities, for sure.

I'm currently a little dissatisfied with the skeleton and zombie. The skeleton ought to have resistance - or maybe even immunity! - to piercing damage. Stabbing a skeleton is just a dumb idea - or ought to be. Zombies likewise should be resistant to piercing and maybe bludgeoning too - you should pretty much have to hack them apart.

I'm glad that the undead don't have a boatload of immunities just for existing - it's never made sense to me that they were immune to mental effects, for example, when we expect vampires to dominate each other and necromancers to command them. But I really think they've gone too far in the opposite direction.

Skeletons and zombies are immune to poison damage and being poisoned. That's it.

Whoever heard of *knocking a zombie out*?! But you can, under RAW. Likewise you can frighten them, which strikes me as downright insane.
 

Does it actually make sense?

I mean there are fire-intolerant plants that tend to be highly flammable and get destroyed completely by fire. But Many big ass trees are fire tolerant or have some degree of fire resistance.

Without apparent weak spots or vital organs that humans have, I'm pretty sure that treants can take a Fireball to the face better than any human can.

Sure, we use wood for fuel, but that is also because it takes such a long ass time to burn.
It's exactly as you say: people think of wood as fuel, so a creature made of wood ought to be flammable, right? Of course, anyone who's ever tried to start a campfire with a wet log (or even just a green one) has had a rather different experience.
 



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 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.

I've been thinking of converting pokemons into D&D monsters...but it will definitely take a long time.
 

I think of it as, the treant actually has less hit points, but few things affect it much, and fire is one of those few things. You could instead give it half hit points and make it resistant to all but fire.
 

Skeletons and zombies are immune to poison damage and being poisoned. That's it.

Whoever heard of *knocking a zombie out*?! But you can, under RAW. Likewise you can frighten them, which strikes me as downright insane.
A skeleton dying of thirst or falling asleep is even more silly, but by RAW they have to eat, sleep and drink
 


Remove ads

Top