It's Not Chain Gating Solars, but...

[dextercorvia]

So I was just glancing through tree related things, and I noticed the Druid spell Liveoak (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/liveoak.htm). Since it has such a long duration (day/level), the spell takes precautions against a Druid spamming it, and raising an army. The problem with this is that Liveoak, turns a tree into a Treant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/treant.htm). What I never realized before, is that Treants can use Liveoak as a SLA 2/day. You now have quite a little pyramid army. The top is rather fragile, so you will have to take care of the first two or three generations, but since oak trees tend to grow in a rather close proximity, it seems to me that you would have no trouble throwing down Orthanc.

[Crow]

I see you found one of my all-time favorite druid spells...right behind "Control Weather".

[Istari]

Bonus is that as a Druid even if they slip out of your direct influence becuase one dies, they won't go on a rampage like shadows would.

[MesiDoomstalker]

So I was just glancing through tree related things, and I noticed the Druid spell Liveoak (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/liveoak.htm). Since it has such a long duration (day/level), the spell takes precautions against a Druid spamming it, and raising an army. The problem with this is that Liveoak, turns a tree into a Treant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/treant.htm). What I never realized before, is that Treants can use Liveoak as a SLA 2/day. You now have quite a little pyramid army. The top is rather fragile, so you will have to take care of the first two or three generations, but since oak trees tend to grow in a rather close proximity, it seems to me that you would have no trouble throwing down Orthanc.

I don't think it works like that. Reading the entry, it does not say the animated trees are Treant's and thus I don't see why they would have the same ability. I've encountered natural Treants (non-Liveoak ones) in several campaigns with different DM's and without fail somebody mentions this and attempts to Diplomancy the Treant(s) to make an army for them and each DM in turn has said "No, thats not how the ability works. They are still trees, not Treants." Not "No, you can't have an army of tries

[Ravens_cry]

I agree, by RAW, it says nothing about them being Treants.
RAI and RAW are working together here and saying "No."

[Divide by Zero]

it does not say the animated trees are Treant's


I agree, by RAW, it says nothing about them being Treants.


The liveoak spell triggers the tree into animating as a treant.

I'm confused.

[Cespenar]

Even if the animated trees would come up as treants (and it says treants there in the spell), there's also this bit:


The spell can be cast on only a single tree at a time; while liveoak is in effect, you can’t cast it again on another tree.

So no quick armies here.

[Zaq]

Even if the animated trees would come up as treants (and it says treants there in the spell), there's also this bit:



So no quick armies here.

Well, the idea is that you cast it, making Treant A. Treant A casts it, making Treant B. Treant B casts it, making Treant C . . .

[Divide by Zero]

Even if the animated trees would come up as treants (and it says treants there in the spell), there's also this bit:



So no quick armies here.

1 Cast liveoak on a tree.
2 Have the new treant cast liveoak on another tree.
3 goto 2

Seems quick to me.

[Coidzor]

Animate Trees (Sp)

A treant can animate trees within 180 feet at will, controlling up to two trees at a time. It takes 1 full round for a normal tree to uproot itself. Thereafter it moves at a speed of 10 feet and fights as a treant in all respects. Animated trees lose their ability to move if the treant that animated them is incapacitated or moves out of range. The ability is otherwise similar to liveoak (caster level 12th). Animated trees have the same vulnerability to fire that a treant has.

So... I guess it depends upon how one reads "fights as a treant in all respects" and "otherwise similar to liveoak."



Even if the animated trees would come up as treants (and it says treants there in the spell), there's also this bit:



So no quick armies here.

Well, if your treant's treants can make treants then you've got exponential growth only limited by the number of trees and rounds you have to devote to the task.

Since Treant A makes Treants B and C. Treants B and C each make between them Treants D, E, F, and G. D, E, F, and G make H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O... and so on. Doubling the number created at each step & then adding it to the total.

So, in 11 minutes, one could get 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 128 + 256 + 512 + 1024 = 2047 Treants.

Slow, as all but the original Treant are called out as having a 10 foot move speed, but easily able to make entire forests pick up and move across the continent. and they can even do it while they're moving, since SLAs default to standard actions or less.

[Zaq]

It's just sloppy wording. If I say that "X has attributes P, Q, and R, and is otherwise similar to Y," does that mean that X is identical to Y aside from P, Q, and R? Or does it mean that P, Q, and R are the main differences between X and Y, but not the only ones? In the context of game rules, it seems to me that it's more logical to assume that "similar, except for these ways mentioned here" means "identical, except for these ways mentioned here," simply because if there are other changes and those other changes aren't stated . . . well, those aren't exactly rules, now are they? However, the fact remains that "similar" and "identical" are not the same word (they are, in fact, similar, but not identical), and it's dangerous to assume that they are. Not impossible, but dangerous.

I say that by RAW, there's nothing to indicate that this particular trick shouldn't work, but the wording's awkward enough that I can at least see where the disagreement is coming from, even if don't agree with it.

[excruciarch]

2 Divide by Zero
As treant doesn't mean it is a treant. It is something that looks like a treant but is not. It's just a soulless animated tree.

[Kantolin]

but easily able to make entire forests pick up and move across the continent

This would be exceptionally cool ^_^ A problem is happening in this area, so you pick up the trees and have them move to a different one. Or, alternately, have them move in so that when the evil king wakes up, he finds that his domain now exists entirely within a forest, which is the first part of the propechy...

[Cespenar]

Okay, sorry, reading failure.

So, I'll try a different approach. The spell never talks about the treant being under your control, as opposed to other similar summoning spells. So, you animate the treant, and it probably acts to his own neutral good alignment.

[Devmaar]

2 Divide by Zero
As treant doesn't mean it is a treant. It is something that looks like a treant but is not. It's just a soulless animated tree.

If it fights as a Treant then it stands to reason it has the abilities a Treant might use to fight, such as Animate Trees

[Morph Bark]

So, in 11 minutes, one could get 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 128 + 256 + 512 + 1024 = 2047 Treants.

It takes 10 minutes for you to create the first Treant.

That Treant takes 1 full round action to create a new Treant. (10 1/10 minutes; 2 Treants)

Both Treants take 1 full round action to create a new Treant. (10 2/10 minutes; 4 Treants)

The first Treant can no longer make new Treants. The other 3 all make a new Treant. (10 3/10 minutes; 7 Treants)

Now the second Treant can no longer make new Treants. The third and fourth Treants use their second use of their ability and the other three use their first use, creating 5 more. (10 4/10 minutes; 12 Treants)

Fifth, sixth and seventh Treant use their second use, eighth to twelfth use their first use, creating 8 more. (10 5/10 minutes; 20 Treants)

Eighth to twelfth use their second use, thirteenth to twentieth use their first use, creating 13 more. (10 6/10 minutes; 33 Treants)

Thirteenth to twentieth use their second use, twenty-first to thirty-third use their first use, creating 21 more. (10 7/10 minutes; 54 Treants)

Twenty-first to thirty-third use their second use, thirty-fourth to fifty-fourth use their first use, creating 34 more. (10 8/10 minutes; 88 Treants)

Thirty-fourth to fifty-fourth use their second use, fifty-fifth to eighty-eighth use their first use, creating 55 more. (10 9/10 minutes; 143 Treants)

Fifty-fifth to eighty-eighth use their second use, eighty-ninth to one hundred and fourty-third use their first use, creating 89 more. (10 10/10 minutes; 232 Treants)


I made you a table:

{table=head] Time passed | Number of Treants
10 minutes | 1
+1 round | 2
+2 rounds | 4
+3 rounds | 7
+4 rounds | 12
+5 rounds | 20
+6 rounds | 33
+7 rounds | 54
+8 rounds | 88
+9 rounds | 143
+10 rounds | 232
11 minutes | 232
+1 round | 376
+2 rounds | 609
+3 rounds | 986
+4 rounds | 1596
+5 rounds | 2583
+6 rounds | 4180
+7 rounds | 6764
+8 rounds | 10945
+9 rounds | 17710
+10 rounds | 28656
[/table]


EDIT: tl;dr? Shot answer is "no".

[excruciarch]

If it fights as a Treant then it stands to reason it has the abilities a Treant might use to fight, such as Animate Trees
What does fighting have to do with SLAs or SNAs? Animating trees at that?
Treant is moved by the spirit. Animated tree lacks that. Animated tree only looks like a treant but has no power to control nature since it is just an animated tree.

[gomipile]

What does fighting have to do with SLAs or SNAs? Animating trees at that?
Treant is moved by the spirit. Animated tree lacks that. Animated tree only looks like a treant but has no power to control nature since it is just an animated tree.

"The ability is otherwise similar to liveoak"

As others have stated, the only way to make totally consistent rules sense of the bolded part is for it to behave as liveoak in every single way not specifically overridden in the Animate Trees (Sp) entry.

[NecroRick]

The liveoak spell triggers the tree into animating as a treant.


Of course, you can't go exponential with this, as each Treant can only use its 'Liveoak' ability once (due to the built in limitation in Liveoak), not twice.

So 12 minutes gets you 20 Treants, not 2 million. Still, given a day or two it is pretty certain that you can in fact raise an army that is capable of sieging a Wizard in his big tower.... so long as the Treants would agree to do so.

What I wouldn't let a player do is makes some Treants, and then jump around going "look at me" and then convince them to go and do a bunch of things completely opposite from their original nature and inclinations. Apparently that makes me a bad person. (Sorry diplomancers, but you suck all the fun out of the gaming experience for everyone (including ultimately yourself), so no soup for you!)

Ignore me.

[Morph Bark]

Of course, you can't go exponential with this, as each Treant can only use its 'Liveoak' ability once (due to the built in limitation in Liveoak), not twice.

Where do you get this from? Nowhere do I see the liveoak-animated Treant can only use its own SLA once.

[ImperatorK]

Where do you get this from? Nowhere do I see the liveoak-animated Treant can only use its own SLA once.
But Liveoak can be used only once and Treants SLA is like Liveoak, so... >.>

[hamishspence]

But it's "at will" and comes with "can control two at once".

Thus, you have to be able to use it at least twice, for statement about control, to be true.

[Morph Bark]

But Liveoak can be used only once and Treants SLA is like Liveoak, so... >.>

Mostly like Liveoak.


A treant can animate trees within 180 feet at will, controlling up to two trees at a time. [...] The ability is otherwise similar to liveoak (caster level 12th).

[NecroRick]

But it's "at will" and comes with "can control two at once".

Thus, you have to be able to use it at least twice, for statement about control, to be true.

So it does. My bad. I apologise. Go wild, go crazy, go exponential.

Having actually gone and read that section of the rules, it seems clear that the intent of the wording of that section of the rules was that the animated trees have the fighting stats of a treant (including the EXes) but not any of their SPs or SUs.

Unfortunately it is so poorly worded that even a blind rules lawyer could drive a deposition, two class action suits and a custody hearing right through the middle of it.

For DMs wanting to rebel/retain sanity: I suggest placing all the emphasis on the "fights" in "fights as a treant". And de-emphasise the following "in all respects". Players may cry dirty pool, but this is just turning the tables on them via a classic rules-lawyer manoeuvre they have been using for years. What is good for the goose etc.

[Quietus]

Guys, you're missing this part :


The spell can be cast on only a single tree at a time; while liveoak is in effect, you can’t cast it again on another tree.

Note that this is an absolute. It isn't limiting the caster to one Liveoak effect; It's limiting everything to one Liveoak effect. If one tree on the opposite side of the world is subject to a Liveoak spell, yours will fail.

[ImperatorK]

Hm. I would say that Treants ability animates trees and nothing else. It's pretty clear on that.

Animate Trees (Sp)

A treant can animate trees within 180 feet at will, controlling up to two trees at a time. It takes 1 full round for a normal tree to uproot itself. Thereafter it moves at a speed of 10 feet and fights as a treant in all respects. Animated trees lose their ability to move if the treant that animated them is incapacitated or moves out of range. The ability is otherwise similar to liveoak (caster level 12th). Animated trees have the same vulnerability to fire that a treant has.
Similarity to Liveoak means that it's a touch spell, 10 min. casting, 1 day/level (D), no saving throw and spell resistance.
If the ability was about creating treants it would just be copy-pasted from Liveoak spell as a spell-like.

[Talya]

By RAW, the Animate Trees ability of Treants functions exactly like Liveoak except as stated. The only differences stated are:

-A Treant can animate two trees at a time
-Range of 180 feet, spell is cancelled if they move out of range
-1 round for a tree to uproot itself
-Movement speed of 10
-spell is cancelled if the casting treant is incapacitated

There's nothing in there about these animated trees not having any of the abilities of treants.


It's just a soulless animated tree.


/treant on

What do you mean, "Soulless tree?" Oooh, you spend a few hundred thousand years living on the ground after your species lived in trees for a million years, and you forget how they sheltered and protected you. Ungrateful, hairless monkeys. If i were your father I'd tan your backbark something fierce...

[Morph Bark]

Note that this is an absolute. It isn't limiting the caster to one Liveoak effect; It's limiting everything to one Liveoak effect. If one tree on the opposite side of the world is subject to a Liveoak spell, yours will fail.

Which still means a Treant's ability is not affected, as in that particular aspect its ability is different from Liveoak (as it can have up to two animated trees at any one time). Which means in turn that once the tree animated with the actual Liveoak spell is killed or the spell's duration expires, all other Treants become normal trees again.

I suggest that during this time you move all the trees to the desert and reverse the desertification process.

[Quietus]

Which still means a Treant's ability is not affected, as in that particular aspect its ability is different from Liveoak (as it can have up to two animated trees at any one time). Which means in turn that once the tree animated with the actual Liveoak spell is killed or the spell's duration expires, all other Treants become normal trees again.

I suggest that during this time you move all the trees to the desert and reverse the desertification process.

Ah, good point.

[Devmaar]

What does fighting have to do with SLAs or SNAs? Animating trees at that?

Animate Trees is listed under Combat in the Treant's Monster Manual entry

[Divide by Zero]

The only consistent way to interpret it is "identical, except as listed." Because if you start inferring additional unwritten exceptions, then everyone is going to have a different idea of what should and shouldn't be included.

[Coidzor]

For DMs wanting to rebel/retain sanity: I suggest placing all the emphasis on the "fights" in "fights as a treant". And de-emphasise the following "in all respects". Players may cry dirty pool, but this is just turning the tables on them via a classic rules-lawyer manoeuvre they have been using for years. What is good for the goose etc.

No. In this case it'd be admitting that a bad rule wasn't bad. It's better to not be in denial and to be able to admit that, yes, some rules are bad and should be houseruled to be more streamlined. Rather than houseruling it anyway but lying about houseruling it like you're suggesting.

It's not Oberoni if you're admitting you're fixing a bad rule because it needs to be fixed if someone would actually try that in play.

[excruciarch]

{Scrubbed}

[Istari]

Maybe the limiter here is just being able to find enough large trees to actually make that many treants.

[Coidzor]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Your quote and your post seem to contradict one another. :smalltongue:

[gomipile]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I invite you to definitively prove that all those who disagree with you are experiencing acute mental disturbances characterized by confused thinking and disrupted attention (usually accompanied by disordered speech and hallucinations.)

In general, I am more likely to be right than you, because I am reasoning from evidence and logic. Meanwhile, you are resorting to argumentum ad hominem, among other ineffective methods.

[excruciarch]

Your quote and your post seem to contradict one another. :smalltongue:
It's a tree that moves and attacks and whatever but it is not a REAL treant and does not have any SLAs til said otherwise.
It's an animated tree.

The liveoak spell triggers the tree into animating as a treant.
It DOES NOT make the tree a treant.

[Taelas]

Very well, then: Explain what "animating as a treant" means.

[Divide by Zero]

It's a tree that moves and attacks and whatever but it is not a REAL treant and does not have any SLAs til said otherwise.
It's an animated tree.

It DOES NOT make the tree a treant.

I really don't see how you can interpret "as a treant" in any way other than "gains the abilities of a treant." Since it doesn't explicitly say which abilities it gains, the only logical way to interpret it is that it gains all of them.

[Talya]

It's a tree that moves and attacks and whatever but it is not a REAL treant and does not have any SLAs til said otherwise.
It's an animated tree.

It DOES NOT make the tree a treant.

I'd like you to point out in the spell description exactly where it makes an exception for the SLAs, because treants have SLAs. Something animated as a treant would also have SLAs. It would have everything a treant has.

[excruciarch]

{Scrubbed}

[excruciarch]

I'd like you to point out in the spell description exactly where it makes an exception for the SLAs, because treants have SLAs. Something animated as a treant would also have SLAs. It would have everything a treant has.

Animating as a treant. >< It's not animated as a treant. Big difference you know.

[Taelas]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

What the authors wanted makes no difference from what the rules allow. Regardless, you cannot infer what the authors want anymore than I can.

By RAW, liveoak animates a tree as a treant, which gives them all the abilities of a treant, including Animate Tree.



Animating as a treant. >< It's not animated as a treant. Big difference you know.

Yet you cannot seem to explain the difference, or explain why there is one in the first place (the rules never touch upon the subject).

[CodeRed]

It's a tree that moves and attacks and whatever but it is not a REAL treant and does not have any SLAs til said otherwise.
It's an animated tree.

It DOES NOT make the tree a treant.

For your argument to work, you would need to prove that something being as a thing is different from it being that thing. Do you have several years and a Doctorate in Philosophy in order to write such a treatise? No? Otherwise, your opinion is your own and simply because you disagree with someone else does not make your opinion incontrovertible fact.

Also, prove to us "delirious nerds" the difference between "an animated tree" and a treant. If you could provide quotes from the books I would be willing to cede the argument. As it is, all you have done is come into this thread and insult people.

Furthermore, let's get into the logical fallacy of Rules Intent. I don't give a crap what the "designers intended" as that has no relevance to this discussion because you cannot prove it. You can't invoke this idea of knowing what the intent of the spell is unless you have a phone number of the designer you can call. If you do, then go ahead and shed some light on this for this "small boy lost in nerdy delusions".

TL;DR All your points are invalid and you are extremely rude and insulting.

[Talya]

Animating as a treant. >< It's not animated as a treant. Big difference you know.

Uh. Yeah. Animating is present tense. Animated is past tense. Otherwise, they mean the same thing...

Gee, glad we cleared that up.

Anyway, there is nothing "obvious" about what you are suggesting. Also, it doesn't matter what the writers "intended," because intentions will be judged differently by everyone. What matters is what they wrote. And what they wrote, is that the spell animates a tree as a treant. "As a treant" is another way of saying "identical to a treant." Treants have certain spell like abilities. Without a specific exception for those abilities, they have those abilities.

[ImperatorK]

Are animated things even living creatures? I know only of animated dead (undead) and animated objects (constructs).

[excruciarch]

It just MOVES as a treant, it's not animated to BE a treant.

tree is animating as a treant Do you understand that here the word animate depicts motion? IT'S ANIMATING (means some sort of activity by the object itself) AS SOMETHING, IT'S NOT ANIMATED AS A REAL TREANT.

[Talya]

Are animated things even living creatures? I know only of animated dead (undead) and animated objects (constructs).

Trees are already living. A living tree cannot be a construct. They would be plant creatures. The spell just allows the tree in question to act.

[CodeRed]

Are animated things even living creatures? I know only of animated dead (undead) and animated objects (constructs).

That would require D&D to have a definition for the term "Animated" which it does not except for in the context of spell names and monster names. The term in english means to give something life or a semblance of life but that doesn't really answer your question. So, essentially, whether or not something "animated" by a spell is alive or unliving is merely up to each individual spell's text.

[ImperatorK]

Animate Trees ability specifically spells out that the tree has fire vulnerability like a treant. Why point that out if it's supposed to be like a treant? >.>

[Talya]

Animate Trees ability specifically spells out that the tree has fire vulnerability like a treant. Why point that out if it's supposed to be like a treant? >.>

That's a good question. Irrelevant, because prior to that, they just said it's exactly like a treant, but still a good question. It is a redundant statement.

[Rogue Shadows]

Animate Trees ability specifically spells out that the tree has fire vulnerability like a treant. Why point that out if it's supposed to be like a treant? >.>

Clarity? A healthy, living tree is actually pretty hard to set on fire without getting oil involved.

[CodeRed]

Animate Trees ability specifically spells out that the tree has fire vulnerability like a treant. Why point that out if it's supposed to be like a treant? >.>

I would assume because Wizards had really poor writers when they made these books? I mean they completely step over the whole issue of tree armies but make sure to remind you that if it's like a treant then it has fire vulnerability?

[Taelas]

It just MOVES as a treant, it's not animated to BE a treant.
Do you understand that here the word animate depicts motion? IT'S ANIMATING (means some sort of activity by the object itself) AS SOMETHING, IT'S NOT ANIMATED AS A REAL TREANT.

You do not understand.

There are no rules regarding what "animating as a treant" means. What you are saying is just your opinion. "Animating as a treant" means it can move like a treant -- yes, that much is obvious. But what does that entail? The only conclusion we can draw is that it becomes a treant; there is no other way to read it. We cannot put in limits simply because we feel they should be there (especially as everyone will have their own idea where to put the limit). We can only include it in its entirety.

[ImperatorK]

Liveoak doesn't have such reminder.

[excruciarch]

If the tree animating as something it is not animated as something.
The author's intent is clear as day.

[Talya]

Liveoak doesn't have such reminder.

...and this means...they've still got inconsistent writing?

[ImperatorK]

You do not understand.

There are no rules regarding what "animating as a treant" means. What you are saying is just your opinion. "Animating as a treant" means it can move like a treant -- yes, that much is obvious. But what does that entail? The only conclusion we can draw is that it becomes a treant; there is no other way to read it. We cannot put in limits simply because we feel they should be there (especially as everyone will have their own idea where to put the limit). We can only include it in its entirety.
There's always that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateObjects.htm) or that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animatePlants.htm). >.>


...and this means...they've still got inconsistent writing?
Yeah, when in doubt shove the fault on inconsistent writing. :smallsigh: Like everything they write is automatically inconsistent. :smallannoyed:

[Taelas]

If the tree animating as something it is not animated as something.
The author's intent is clear as day.

:smallsigh:

Perhaps you should bow out of this discussion. You are simply repeating yourself, and you are repeating a nonsensical sentence at that.


There's always that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateObjects.htm) or that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animatePlants.htm). >.>

The spell does not refer to them, therefore that is not how the spell behaves.

[Rogue Shadows]

If the tree animating as something it is not animated as something.
The author's intent is clear as day.

...that the spell makes the Trees go work for Disney?

[Talya]

There's always that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateObjects.htm) or that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animatePlants.htm). >.>

Sure, that's a valid option.

Now define that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animatePlants.htm) "as a treant." By RAW, I mean. No personal opinions.

Because what they said in the treant "Animate Trees" ability is (paraphrased) 'other than the exceptions we list here, these animated trees are exactly like treants.'

[Flickerdart]

After animating something, it becomes animated. This is how the present and past tenses of the English language work.

[ImperatorK]

Sure, that's a valid option.

Now define that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animatePlants.htm) "as a treant." By RAW, I mean. No personal opinions.

Because what they said in the treant "Animate Trees" ability is (paraphrased) 'other than the exceptions we list here, these animated trees are exactly like treants.'
:smallconfused:
All I see is that the animated trees fight like a treant, have fire vulnerability like a treant and that the ability works similarly to Liveoak exept what is written above.
If you interpret "fight like" as "is like" then please do, but I'm allowed to have my own interpretation.

[excruciarch]

2 Szar_Lakol
The tree is animating itself as a treant. An object can't animate itself in the meaning you are trying to convey. It's not animated, it behaves like it is but it is not. It looks like a treant but is just a moving tree. Consider it some sort of mechanical action that is similar to the treant's behavior.
Animate when used by the object itself can only mean motion. A cyborg animating as a human. It's not a human.

[Taelas]

After animating something, it becomes animated. This is how the present and past tenses of the English language work.

He is referring to the difference between the verb and the adjective, not the difference between tenses.

It is still incorrect, though.



2 Szar_Lakol
The tree is animating itself as a treant. An object can't animate itself in the meaning you are trying to convey. It's not animated, it behaves like it is but it is not. It looks like a treant but is just a moving tree. Consider it some sort of mechanical action that is similar to the treant's behavior.
Animate when used by the object itself can only mean motion. A cyborg animating as a human. It's not a human.

The spell is what is animating the tree. It animates it as a treant. That means it becomes a treant. This is how the spell reads, and it is the only reading which makes sense.

[Rogue Shadows]

Animate when used by the object itself can only mean motion. A cyborg animating as a human. It's not a human.

I think you mean robot, there; a cyborg could most definitely still be a human as long as their biological parts are genetically human.

[Flickerdart]

The difference is that while a robot and a human are made of different bits (magnificent steel and weak meatbag flesh, respectively) treants and trees are both made out of wood.

[ImperatorK]

2 Szar_Lakol
The tree is animating itself as a treant. An object can't animate itself in the meaning you are trying to convey. It's not animated, it behaves like it is but it is not. It looks like a treant but is just a moving tree. Consider it some sort of mechanical action that is similar to the treant's behavior.
Animate when used by the object itself can only mean motion. A cyborg animating as a human. It's not a human.
All fine and dandy, but it still does not prove anything.

[Taelas]

:smallconfused:
All I see is that the animated trees fight like a treant, have fire vulnerability like a treant and that the ability works similarly to Liveoak exept what is written above.
If you interpret "fight like" as "is like" then please do, but I'm allowed to have my own interpretation.

Read liveoak.

[ImperatorK]

Read liveoak.
Read Animate Trees.

[Rogue Shadows]

The difference is that while a robot and a human are made of different bits (magnificent steel and weak meatbag flesh, respectively) treants and trees are both made out of wood.

So are treants and tables...

...by the way, the spell in my handy-dandy softcover PHB* states that you should go to the Monster Manual's treant for statistics for the animated tree, so I'm on the side that says "use the statistics of a treant except as listed here."

----------------------
*Why didn't they release a Dungeon Master's Kit?! I would have loved a softcover DMG!

[excruciarch]

The spell is what is animating the tree. It animates it as a treant. That means it becomes a treant. This is how the spell reads, and it is the only reading which makes sense.
The spell is not animating the tree, which can be explained both ways allright. It triggers the tree to animate as a treant.
It'll have DR, AC, STR and other stats of a treant, but won't have SLAs since it has no spirit and no other connection to the nature than being an usual tree.

[Talya]

If you interpret "fight like" as "is like" then please do, but I'm allowed to have my own interpretation.


The liveoak spell triggers the tree into animating as a treant.

Thereafter it moves at a speed of 10 feet and fights as a treant in all respects...The ability is otherwise similar to liveoak (caster level 12th).

(1) The Liveoak spell definitely gives the tree all the abilities of a treant. That is what "animating as a treant" means.
(2) Animate Trees causes the animated tree to fight "as a treant in all respects." Animate Trees (Su) itself is one of the primary combat abilities of a treant.
(3) Just in case that wasn't enough, "The ability is otherwise similar to Liveoak." Huh. What does Liveoak do again?
(4) As just clarified by Rogue Shadows, the PHB directly tells you to use the statistics for a treant in the monster manual. SLAs are part of a creature's statistics.

[Taelas]

Read Animate Trees.

:smallconfused:

Animate Trees refer specifically to liveoak ('The ability is otherwise similar to liveoak'), which animates the trees as treants.

The "fights as a treant" clause earlier is entirely redundant, regardless of what interpretation you choose to apply to the situation.


The spell is not animating the tree, which can be explained both ways allright. It triggers the tree to animate as a treant.
It'll have DR, AC, STR and other stats of a treant, but win't have SLAs since it has no spirit and no other connection to the nature than being an usual tree.

Why doesn't it have those things?

Because you say it doesn't, apparently, because the spell says no such thing.

[Divide by Zero]

...that the spell makes the Trees go work for Disney?

Thank you for giving me a laugh in an otherwise terrible thread.

[ImperatorK]

I was talking about Animate Trees, not Liveoak.


(1) The Liveoak spell definitely gives the tree all the abilities of a treant. That is what "animating as a treant" means.
Well, yeah. Where did I say that it doesn't? :smallconfused:


(2) Animate Trees causes the animated tree to fight "as a treant in all respects." Animate Trees (Su) itself is one of the primary combat abilities of a treant.
Not exactly:

Treants prefer to watch potential foes carefully before attacking. They often charge suddenly from cover to trample the despoilers of forests. If sorely pressed, they animate trees as reinforcements.


(3) Just in case that wasn't enough, "The ability is otherwise similar to Liveoak." Huh. What does Liveoak do again?
Yeah, I know. It has the same casting time, the same duration, no save and no SR. It animates trees to fight like a treant.


The "fights as a treant" clause earlier is entirely redundant, regardless of what interpretation you choose to apply to the situation.
It isn't for me.

[Rogue Shadows]

Thank you for giving me a laugh in an otherwise terrible thread.

I'm not always out to be contrary...:smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

Since when does having no spirit stop things from having SLAs? Anaxims (construct) have SLAs, Atropals, Demiliches and Nightshades (undead) have SLAs. Constructs and undead have even less spirit than your average tree.

[excruciarch]

Even something animated as a treant is not a treant, it is just animated as a treant. A robot animated as a human. It can't think as a human, but animated as one. Here animate means mechanical action and nothing else. "To give resemblance of life", not "to give life".
Once again:

triggers the tree into animating as a treant
Basically it just behaves like a treant. Since it is not a treant it has no SLAs.
Consider it a big tree robot animating a treant. It has physical stats of one but mental not. :D It's a stupid animated object guarding something for you and attacking anything that approaches.
Treants are ancient forest spirits. That's why they can animate trees which are just moving trees. Much like the druid does with the spell.

[Taelas]

It isn't for me.

What is your point, exactly? Nothing in the Animate Trees description invalidates the part of liveoak where it triggers trees to animate as treants.

[Shadow Lord]

Hey! To whoever is being floraphobic and saying trees ain't got souls -- quit that ****! This is a rules question. Intent don't matter one ounce. Animate trees is functional as liceoak except w, x, y, and z. None of those says that the Treant created by Animate Trees cannot use Animate Trees, therefore he can.

[Flickerdart]

Since it is not a treant it has no SLAs.
Being a treant is not a requirement for SLAs. :smalltongue:

[excruciarch]

Since when does having no spirit stop things from having SLAs? Anaxims (construct) have SLAs, Atropals, Demiliches and Nightshades (undead) have SLAs. Constructs and undead have even less spirit than your average tree.
They are made to have SLAs.
Usual trees don't have SLAs. Animated usual trees don't have them either. Treants have SLAs, they can animate usual trees, but animated usual trees can't animate other usual trees because they don't have SLAs. (animating as a treant basically means that they are not treants and still usual trees animating as treants)

[Divide by Zero]

Even something animated as a treant is not a treant, it is just animated as a treant. A robot animated as a human. It can't think as a human, but animated as one. Here animate means mechanical action and nothing else. "To give resemblance of life", not "to give life".
Once again:

Disregarding the questionable philosophy, that has absolutely nothing to do with D&D rules.

[Flickerdart]

They are made to have SLAs.
Usual trees don't have SLAs. Animated usual trees don't have them either. Treants have SLAs, they can animate usual trees, but animated usual trees can't animate other usual trees because they don't have SLAs. (animating as a treant basically means that they are not treants and still usual trees animating as treants)
Having the abilities of a treant is part of animating as one - otherwise, the animation is not 100%, and as such it's not really animating as one.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Here animate means mechanical action and nothing else.

Prove that, because resurrecting somebody would be a form of re-animating them, and you wouldn't say that resurrected people have no spirit, would you?


Consider it a big tree robot animating a treant.

Now that's silly, we're not discussing big tree robots, and since they're not in the SRD you should probably provide a source if you want to bring them in (not that I can see the relevance).


It has physical stats of one but mental not.

[citation needed]


Treants are ancient forest spirits. That's why they can animate trees which are just moving trees. Much like the druid does with the spell.

Oh, so now you admit that animate trees gives the animated trees a treant's SLAs? Good, glad we could reach an agreement. :smallsmile:


They are made to have SLAs.
Usual trees don't have SLAs. Animated usual trees don't have them either. Treants have SLAs, they can animate usual trees, but animated usual trees can't animate other usual trees because they don't have SLAs. (animating as a treant basically means that they are not treants and still usual trees animating as treants)

Or not, I guess. You treants are just animated trees, right?

[Taelas]

They are made to have SLAs.
Usual trees don't have SLAs. Animated usual trees don't have them either. Treants have SLAs, they can animate usual trees, but animated usual trees can't animate other usual trees because they don't have SLAs. (animating as a treant basically means that they are not treants and still usual trees animating as treants)

They are not using animate plants. They are referring to liveoak, which explicitly animates them as treants, not animated plants.

[excruciarch]

Having the abilities of a treant is part of animating as one - otherwise, the animation is not 100%, and as such it's not really animating as one.
You really don't understand what *to animate* are and how it came to being, do you? No, even without SLAs it's 100% animation. The acme of animating is giving true life. Giving true life has nothing to do with giving inborn abilities of an unique being the object of animation is desired to behave like.

[ImperatorK]

You really don't understand what *to animate* are and how it came to being, do you? No, even without SLAs it's 100% animation. The acme of animating is giving true life. Giving true life has nothing to do with giving inborn abilities of an unique being the object of animation is desired to behave like.
Citation needed.

[Flickerdart]

You really don't understand what *to animate* are and how it came to being, do you? No, even without SLAs it's 100% animation. The acme of animating is giving true life. Giving true life has nothing to do with giving inborn abilities of an unique being the object of animation is desired to behave like.
Please, please, I beg of you, show me a rules citation that corroborates your claims.

[Taelas]

You really don't understand what *to animate* are and how it came to being, do you? No, even without SLAs it's 100% animation. The acme of animating is giving true life. Giving true life has nothing to do with giving inborn abilities of an unique being the object of animation is desired to behave like.

This has nothing to do with the rules.

You cannot say that they are animating "as a treant" unless they have the abilities of a treant.

Repeating your incorrect assumptions ad nauseam does not make them suddenly correct. It merely makes them annoying.

[excruciarch]

They are not using animate plants. They are referring to liveoak, which explicitly animates them as treants, not animated plants.
Even if a tree animated as a treant it's still a tree and doesn't have SLAs. By animating YOU DO NOT COPY A TREANT and YOU DON'T CREATE ONE, you just animating a tree as one. That does not make it one.
A treant is an unique being you can't imitate by animating a tree as one. Imitation means having SLAs, animation does not.

[ImperatorK]

What about me? I have my interpretation and even though I'm not gonna change my mind I would like to know if it's completely wrong before I use it as an argument.

Exruciarch, did you read Liveoak spells description? It animates a tree as a treant.

[Rogue Shadows]

Even if a tree animated as a treant it's still a tree and doesn't have SLAs. By animating YOU DO NOT COPY A TREANT and YOU DON'T CREATE ONE, you just animating a tree as one. That does not make it one.
A treant is an unique being you can't imitate by animating a tree as one. Imitation means having SLAs, animation does not.

That is not what the spell says. In fact the spell specifically tells you to go to the Monster Manual for statistics.

[ImperatorK]

That is not what the spell says. In fact the spell specifically tells you to go to the Monster Manual for statistics.
You mean Liveoak, right? Not Animate Trees?

[Rogue Shadows]

You mean Liveoak, right? Not Animate Trees?

Yes, I mean Liveoak. Liveoak (functionally) creates a treant. Treants have animate trees. Animate trees is specifically like Liveoak except as described in the ability. Which brings you back to Liveoak, which (functionally) creates a treat. Treants have animate trees. Animate trees is specifically like Liveoak except as described in the ability. Which brings you back to Liveoak, which (functionally) creates a treat. Treants have animate trees. Animate trees is specifically like Liveoak except as described in the ability. Which brings you back to Liveoak, which (functionally) creates a treat...

Ad infinitum

[ImperatorK]

Yes, I mean Liveoak.
Okay. I kinda guessed it, but wanted to make sure.

[excruciarch]

This has nothing to do with the rules.

You cannot say that they are animating "as a treant" unless they have the abilities of a treant.

Repeating your incorrect assumptions ad nauseam does not make them suddenly correct. It merely makes them annoying.
By the rules trees don't have SLAs. Trees animated as treants don't have them either.
I really hope u'll understand somehow that animating a tree as a treant doesn't make it one. It makes a tree alive like a treant is but it is still a tree. It has no ability to imitate treants unique abilities because trees don't have ability to imitate abilities.
Gosh i've like repeated myself 10 times already...

[Taelas]

What about me? I have my interpretation and even though I'm not gonna change my mind I would like to know if it's completely wrong before I use it as an argument.

It is incorrect; nothing in the Animate Trees description excludes the part of liveoak which specifies they animate as treants.


By the rules trees don't have SLAs. Trees animated as treants don't have them either.
I really hope u'll understand somehow that animating a tree as a treant doesn't make it one. It makes a tree alive like a treant is but it is still a tree. It has no ability to imitate treants unique abilities because trees don't have ability to imitate abilities.
Gosh i've like repeated myself 10 times already...

Yes, you have. You are still completely wrong. We have explained why you are wrong repeatedly.

By the rules, it animates them as treants, which makes no sense unless they get the abilities of a treant (which includes everything that makes a treant a treant, as the spell does not exclude anything).

[ImperatorK]

By the rules trees don't have SLAs. Trees animated as treants don't have them either.
I really hope u'll understand somehow that animating a tree as a treant doesn't make it one. It makes a tree alive like a treant is but it is still a tree. It has no ability to imitate treants unique abilities because trees don't have ability to imitate abilities.
Gosh i've like repeated myself 10 times already...
And you've been wrong ten times. It's time to stop, I think.


It is incorrect; nothing in the Animate Trees description precludes the part of liveoak which specifies they animate as treants.
It implies that the animated trees don't have all treant abilities, therefore aren't treants. They just fight like a treant and have fire vulnerability like a treant.

[Rogue Shadows]

By the rules trees don't have SLAs. Trees animated as treants don't have them either.
I really hope u'll understand somehow that animating a tree as a treant doesn't make it one. It makes a tree alive like a treant is but it is still a tree. It has no ability to imitate treants unique abilities because trees don't have ability to imitate abilities.
Gosh i've like repeated myself 10 times already...

Yes, but you're reapeating something that's wrong. In my previous post, I give an example of repeating something that is right.

[Flickerdart]

You know, there's an easier way about this. Grab a Treant cohort with Leadership, get it to spam Animate Trees (where "fights as a treant' is explicitly stated, and fighting as a treant includes its SLAs, which it explicitly uses in combat) and you're in business. Or hell, just play a Treant, they have an LA and everything.

[ImperatorK]

You know, there's an easier way about this. Grab a Treant cohort with Leadership, get it to spam Animate Trees (where "fights as a treant' is explicitly stated, and fighting as a treant includes its SLAs, which it explicitly uses in combat) and you're in business. Or hell, just play a Treant, they have an LA and everything.
Um... Actually that's what been debated, if Animate Trees makes treants. My interpretation is that it don't.

[Taelas]

It implies that the animated trees don't have all treant abilities, therefore aren't treants. They just fight like treants and have fire vulnerability like a treant.

No, it doesn't. It's just redundant. It doesn't state it has no other abilities treants do, it simply states it has these abilities that treants do, then goes on to say (through the liveoak reference) that it is animated as a treant (which logically means it has all abilities treants do).

[excruciarch]

Yes, I mean Liveoak. Liveoak (functionally) creates a treant. Treants have animate trees. Animate trees is specifically like Liveoak except as described in the ability. Which brings you back to Liveoak, which (functionally) creates a treat. Treants have animate trees. Animate trees is specifically like Liveoak except as described in the ability. Which brings you back to Liveoak, which (functionally) creates a treat. Treants have animate trees. Animate trees is specifically like Liveoak except as described in the ability. Which brings you back to Liveoak, which (functionally) creates a treat...

Ad infinitum
It does not create a treant. It says it makes a tree animate like one. Animating as something means being the same only in the matters of living not being the same altogether.
You are animated as me but I'm a good programmer (artist etc) and you are not. Being animated as something has nothing to do with having its unique abilities. When you animated as something you retain your own.

[ImperatorK]

No, it doesn't. It's just redundant. It doesn't state it has no other abilities treants do, it simply states it has these abilities that treants do, then goes on to say (through the liveoak reference) that it is animated as a treant (which logically means it has all abilities treants do).
I'll stick to my interpretation, if you don't mind.

Exruciarch, what are you debating? Liveoak or Animate Trees? Because Liveoak does create a treant from a tree.

[The Dark Fiddler]

By the rules trees don't have SLAs.

Treants aren't trees, specifically. And neither are animated trees. They run by different rules.


I really hope u'll understand somehow that animating a tree as a treant doesn't make it one.

It's animated as a treant, fights as a treant, and can use a treant's abilities as a treant. Ergo: it can cast a treant's SLAs as a treant.


It makes a tree alive like a treant is but it is still a tree.

No, it isn't a tree. It's an animated tree that fights as a treant (see above).


It has no ability to imitate treants unique abilities because trees don't have ability to imitate abilities.

Trees also aren't animated and can't fight as a treant.


When you animated as something you retain your own.

Not really, when you're animated as something you become that something. Or are you saying a corpse animated as a zombie can't fight, because it retains its own as a corpse?


P.S.


Gosh i've like repeated myself 10 times already...

That's usually a sign to stop :smallwink:

[Flickerdart]

Um... Actually that's what been debated, if Animate Trees makes treants. My interpretation is that it don't.
Ah, I thought we were discussing the SLA capacity of liveoak trees. How do you take "fights as a treant in all respects" to exclude treant combat capabilities?

[Taelas]

I'll stick to my interpretation, if you don't mind.

As long as you are aware that it is not correct by RAW, you are free to interpret it however you wish. :smallwink:

[ImperatorK]

Ah, I thought we were discussing the SLA capacity of liveoak trees. How do you take "fights as a treant in all respects" to exclude treant combat capabilities?
That it's using it's attack routine (slams, trample, double damage on objects).


As long as you are aware that it is not correct by RAW, you are free to interpret it however you wish.
It is as RAW as I interpret it to be.

[Flickerdart]

That it's using it's attack routine (slams, trample, double damage on objects).

But that's not in all respects, now is it.

[Rogue Shadows]

You are animated as me but I'm a good programmer (artist etc) and you are not. Being animated as something has nothing to do with having its unique abilities. When you animated as something you retain your own.

What you're saying does not jive with rules as writen, though. In other cases where a creature shows up but is limited somehow, that limitation is explicitly spelled out.

For example, if you summon a monster, the mosnter is explicitly stated what abilities it can and cannot use. The rules rarely leave such mechanical things up to interpretation.


It is as RAW as I interpret it to be.

That's RAI. RAW and RAI are different.

RAIn is most important though - Rules as Intended.

[Taelas]

It is as RAW as I interpret it to be.

That makes absolutely no sense. The RAW is what is RAW, not what you interpret RAW to be.

If you mean that you believe your interpretation is RAW, then you have to explain what excludes the part of liveoak that animates trees as treants -- and also why Animate Trees, which is listed under the combat abilities of the treant, isn't a part of 'fighting as a treant'.

[Talya]

Yeah, Excruciarch, you keep saying the same stuff over and over again, but none of it is backed up by the rules as written. Show your work. Not some nebulous perceived difference between "animated as" as "being," but something clearly written in the rules.

Because as written, the rules quoted so far in this thread don't support what you are saying.

[ImperatorK]

I stated how I interpret it. I'm not challenging your interpretation. So, nyah. :smalltongue:

[Taelas]

I stated how I interpret it. I'm not challenging your interpretation. So, nyah. :smalltongue:

So what would you do as GM if I as a player came to you with my interpretation?

[excruciarch]

What you're saying does not jive with rules as writen, though. In other cases where a creature shows up but is limited somehow, that limitation is explicitly spelled out.

For example, if you summon a monster, the mosnter is explicitly stated what abilities it can and cannot use. The rules rarely leave such mechanical things up to interpretation.



That's RAI. RAW and RAI are different.

RAIn is most important though - Rules as Intended.
There is only RAI. Believing in existing of RAW or RAIn out of writer's mind is worse than believing in Space Hamsters irl. Only the author can say what exactly he intended. And don't even say that you think that the author wanted druids to make treant armies. While reading as intended it's clear that you don't get a copy of a treant, you get a tree that is alive like one.
I'm gonna repeat myself the last time, me promises. =)))

Animating as something means being the same only in the matters of living not being the same altogether.
So it's alive as a treant but not a treant.

[ImperatorK]

So what would you do as GM if I as a player came to you with my interpretation?
"Who's the DM here?"
"...You."
"Thought so. Treants don't create treants at will. Period."

[Taelas]

There is only RAI. Believing in existing of RAW or RAIn out of writer's mind is worse than believing in Space Hamsters irl. Only the author can say what exactly he intended. And don't even say that you think that the author wanted druids to make treant armies. While reading as intended it's clear that you don't get a copy a treant, you get a tree that is alive like one.

We cannot read the authors' minds; that is why we go with the rules as written. Rules as intended matter extremely little when we have nothing but the books and what we can interpret from them.

By RAW, this is what happens. If an author makes a mistake and accidentally allows something that is broken, it is still allowed.


"Who's the DM here?"
"...You."
"Thought so. Treants don't create treants at will. Period."
"So you're making a house rule. Got it."

[excruciarch]

We cannot read the authors' minds; that is why we go with the rules as written. Rules as intended matter extremely little when we have nothing but the books and what we can interpret from them.

By RAW, this is what happens. If an author makes a mistake and accidentally allows something that is broken, it is still allowed.


"So you're making a house rule. Got it."
You just want to see it the way you want it to be so bad that you can't even remember what *animate* is. :D There is not even room for discussion and it won't be a house rule.

[The Dark Fiddler]

There is only RAI.

This is blatantly wrong.


Believing in existing of RAW or RAIn out of writer's mind is worse than believing in Space Hamsters irl. Only the author can say what exactly he intended.

While I'll agree with you when you say rules as interpreted is a tricky place to go, rules as written are pretty real and is the default for most discussion on this board. All it does is interpret the rules as... you know, they're actually written.


And don't even say that you think that the author wanted druids to make treant armies.

True, but we're arguing (for the most part, ImperatorK seems to be stating his interpretation and letting us continue with the discussion) rules as written, not as intended.

[dextercorvia]

Wow. I never really thought there was a question. FWIW, excruciarch, I think you need to check your prepositions. "as" has more than one connotation.

[Divide by Zero]

It does not create a treant. It says it makes a tree animate like one. Animating as something means being the same only in the matters of living not being the same altogether.
You are animated as me but I'm a good programmer (artist etc) and you are not. Being animated as something has nothing to do with having its unique abilities. When you animated as something you retain your own.

Am I the only person who got a headache trying to parse this?

[ImperatorK]

You just want to see it the way you want it to be so bad that you can't even remember what *animate* is. :D There is not even room for discussion and it won't be a house rule.
Again, citation needed. Pronto!

[Talya]

There is only RAI. Believing in existing of RAW or RAIn out of writer's mind is worse than believing in Space Hamsters irl.

There is only RAW. RAI exists only in the mind of the writer, and they're not around to ask. Because, as you put it...

Only the author can say what exactly he intended.

Show us what the author intended. Not what you think the author intended, but what he actually intended, as stated by the author himself. Directly.

RAI is a joke. RAW is all that exists. Is playing by RAW a good idea? Probably not, but that's what houserules are for. Anything other than RAW is a houserule, and has no place in this discussion.

You admit here that what you are stating is not RAW. Therefore, you're wrong, because RAW is the only common ground in any of these discussions. If you're not following it, you've already lost the argument. Letter for letter, word for word, that's all that matters here.

[dextercorvia]

Also, remember that Animate Dead animates a creature as a zombie. It creates a real zombie.

[Talya]

Also, remember that Animate Dead animates a creature as a zombie. It creates a real zombie.

But...but...it's only animating them as a zombie. That doesn't make it a real zombie!

Except that's exactly what animated as a zombie or as a treant means. For the duration of the effect, the targets of Liveoak or Animate Trees are treants, with the lone exceptions as stated.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

You just want to see it the way you want it to be so bad that you can't even remember what *animate* is. :D There is not even room for discussion and it won't be a house rule.Projecting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) much? Sometimes the rules fail us. Houseruling silly spells with bad writing is okay. But read dextercovia's signature and own up to the houserule.

[Machinekng]

After checking the SRD, it seems that Animate Trees is listed as a Special Attack, along with its trample abilities and its double damage against objects. As it fights as a treant in all respects, and Animate Trees is listed as an attack, one can only presume that an animated tree has the Animate Trees ability. Although the tree does not become a treant, it has a treant's combat abilities, and animate plants is specifically a combat ability.

I also check the animate dead spell, which does not animate corpses as zombies, but specifically turns them into zombies or skeletons.

Citations (from the online d20srd):
Treant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/treant.htm)
Animate Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm)

[Morph Bark]

Even if a tree animated as a treant it's still a tree and doesn't have SLAs. By animating YOU DO NOT COPY A TREANT and YOU DON'T CREATE ONE, you just animating a tree as one. That does not make it one.
A treant is an unique being you can't imitate by animating a tree as one. Imitation means having SLAs, animation does not.

So there is only one treant in the entire world? That's the meaning of "unique", after all.

I think you would have a stronger case if you stopped arguing the semantics regarding the various tenses of "to animate" and instead focused on the differences between Liveoak and Animate Plants.

[Talakeal]

The problem with language is that it is not perfect. There are very few statements that cannot be twisted if someone goes out of their way to do it, and most statements can be interpreted several different ways entirely by accident.

For example, if I say "That druid is strong as a bear." You could read it either as "That druid has a 19 strength score just like a bear does" OR you could read it as "That druid is very strong when he has turned into a bear".

Real laws require interpretation, there is no clear RAW. It is silly to believe that an RPG, which has very limited space to be printed in as well as limited writing and play testing time, would be explicit in their wording, that just isn't going to happen.

Likewise RAI would be nice, if you had the author or qualified representative there of to answer questions for you, but you seldom have that luxury. And, if someone is in a mood to be argumentative or unwilling to back down even statements from the author won't cause someone to back down.

What I am saying is that neither RAW or RAI are the be all and end all. What is important is Rules as Interpreted by your group. In most groups it is the DM who is responsible for interpretation. This does not make it a "house rule" anymore than two judges interpreting the same law in different ways makes each judge have a "house law", its just the nature of human language as an imperfect tool.

An example to continue to illustrate my point using law. My father is a lawyer, and he told me a story about how when he was in law school one of the first assignments they had was to pretend they were writing a sign telling people to keep their dogs on a leash while in a park. The sign only had room for 25 words or less, and the assignment was to come up with a wording for the sign that the professor couldn't find a way to twist the wording of. No one in the class could solve the problem. The lesson was that going by the letter of the law is impossible unless you take into account the spirit and then making your own interpretation as to what it means.

[gomipile]

If the tree animating as something it is not animated as something.
The author's intent is clear as day.

Your "logic" on the difference between present ant past tense is excruciarching to read.

See, I can do ad-hominem too.

But seriously, what? Why does present tense versus past tense matter? I saw your "explanation," but you did not address the fact that the two words differ only in tense.

[Talakeal]

Your "logic" on the difference between present ant past tense is excruciarching to read.

See, I can do ad-hominem too.

But seriously, what? Why does present tense versus past tense matter? I saw your "explanation," but you did not address the fact that the two words differ only in tense.

I am pretty sure he means to dispute the word AS rather than animated and just failed to properly explain himself (my apologies if this is incorrect).

See my example about the druid in my previous post for what I mean. In this can you can interpret the sentence as:

You animate a tree so that it is animated in the same manner that a treant is animated.
You animate a tree so that is becomes an treant.
You animate a tree in the same way that a treant would animate the tree.

By RAW I believe all three would be correct, and thus it becomes a matter of the player's interoperation.

[Chess435]

Am I the only person who got a headache trying to parse this?

No, no you aren't... I motion that this thread falls in to the fiery depths of later pages, never to be spoken of again.

[dextercorvia]

No, no you aren't... I motion that this thread falls in to the fiery depths of later pages, never to be spoken of again.

I suppose this is probably what happened whenever somebody brought this up before. A brief shouting match and then web obscurity.

[Divide by Zero]

You animate a tree so that it is animated in the same manner that a treant is animated.
You animate a tree so that is becomes an treant.
You animate a tree in the same way that a treant would animate the tree.

Third one is circular, since the treant's ability refers back to liveoak, so we can rule that one out. And without any rules to distinguish the first two, I don't see how there can be any meaningful difference.

[Talakeal]

Third one is circular, since the treant's ability refers back to liveoak, so we can rule that one out. And without any rules to distinguish the first two, I don't see how there can be any meaningful difference.

The word animated means "made or equipped to move or give the appearance of moving in an animallike fashion: animated puppets."

The author could simply be saying that it moves in the same manner that a treant moves.

I am not saying that is how it is, I am just saying that someone could read it in such a manner without deviating from RAW and into the realm of house rules.

You are correct, the third option is written very weirdly and in a circular manner, but I still think that if I had to choose between the three I would go with the third one.

I really don't want to be drawn into the argument, but I come to this conclusion based on the following factors:

1: The notion that treants can reproduce themselves indefinetly and infect an entire forest seems pretty odd, and would probably be mentioned some where in the fluff if it was intended.

2: The ability is almost word for word taken from the second edition treant entry in the monstrous compendium and it was clearly the basis for the third edition text. The second edition entry is longer however, and makes it clear that only the treants physical combat stats are passed on to the animated trees.

3: The idea of treants animating trees clearly came from the Huorns in lord of the rings, who where physically similar to trees but lacked the ents magical or intellectual capabilities.

4: The treant's ability is said to be similar to live oak, not identical.

5: The treant's animate trees ability specifies that animated trees gain a treants vulnerability to fire. If the animated tree was intended to become a treant then this text would be redundant and misleading as they would gain that weakness anyway.

But this is just my interpretation. By RAW there are many ways to read it.

Again, my point is, there can be no one single RAW as the english language is not perfect and the authors did not have the time or the space to write an exhaustive treatise on the subject. People need to come to their own interpretation and recognize that it is just that, their interpretation.

[Divide by Zero]

The word animated means "made or equipped to move or give the appearance of moving in an animallike fashion: animated puppets."

The author could simply be saying that it moves in the same manner that a treant moves.
Perhaps, but that's a completely meaningless statement in game mechanical terms.

1: The notion that treants can reproduce themselves indefinetly and infect an entire forest seems pretty odd, and would probably be mentioned some where in the fluff if it was intended.

2: The ability is almost word for word taken from the second edition treant entry in the monstrous compendium and it was clearly the basis for the third edition text. The second edition entry is longer however, and makes it clear that only the treants physical combat stats are passed on to the animated trees.

3: The idea of treants animating trees clearly came from the Huorns in lord of the rings, who where physically similar to trees but lacked the ents magical or intellectual capabilities.

4: The treant's ability is said to be similar to live oak, not identical.

5: The treant's animate trees ability specifies that animated trees gain a treants vulnerability to fire. If the animated tree was intended to become a treant then this text would be redundant and misleading as they would gain that weakness anyway.

1, 2, and 3 are appeals to RAI, so they don't really prove much. As for 4 and 5, all that tells us is what it is, not what it is not.

It's perfectly reasonable to add in unwritten exceptions for the sake of game balance, but that is not RAW. And since trying to do this in an actual game is going to get books thrown at you no matter what the RAW says, discussing what would be reasonable is kind of pointless.

[Dimers]

Pssh. Talakeal, please stop being reasonable, right away. This is the internet, for heaven's sake. :smalltongue:

[Socratov]

The problem with language is that it is not perfect. There are very few statements that cannot be twisted if someone goes out of their way to do it, and most statements can be interpreted several different ways entirely by accident.

For example, if I say "That druid is strong as a bear." You could read it either as "That druid has a 19 strength score just like a bear does" OR you could read it as "That druid is very strong when he has turned into a bear".

Real laws require interpretation, there is no clear RAW. It is silly to believe that an RPG, which has very limited space to be printed in as well as limited writing and play testing time, would be explicit in their wording, that just isn't going to happen.

Likewise RAI would be nice, if you had the author or qualified representative there of to answer questions for you, but you seldom have that luxury. And, if someone is in a mood to be argumentative or unwilling to back down even statements from the author won't cause someone to back down.

What I am saying is that neither RAW or RAI are the be all and end all. What is important is Rules as Interpreted by your group. In most groups it is the DM who is responsible for interpretation. This does not make it a "house rule" anymore than two judges interpreting the same law in different ways makes each judge have a "house law", its just the nature of human language as an imperfect tool.

An example to continue to illustrate my point using law. My father is a lawyer, and he told me a story about how when he was in law school one of the first assignments they had was to pretend they were writing a sign telling people to keep their dogs on a leash while in a park. The sign only had room for 25 words or less, and the assignment was to come up with a wording for the sign that the professor couldn't find a way to twist the wording of. No one in the class could solve the problem. The lesson was that going by the letter of the law is impossible unless you take into account the spirit and then making your own interpretation as to what it means.

this discussion wouldn't have happened if the rules had been written in infernal, ofcourse, to play DNd you woudl have been able to read Infernal, which would severly limit the number of players world wide :smallamused:

Oh language, thou art a heartless [dog of the female descriptor]!

[excruciarch]

{{scrubbed}}

The word animated means "made or equipped to move or give the appearance of moving in an animallike fashion: animated puppets."

Animating as something means being the same only in the matters of living not being the same altogether.
I don't see why you just don't understand it. Treant is a type of beings. You can animate a tree and it will resemble a treant. They are animated as treants, they are not treants. You can animate a clay doll as a human, but it will be a clay doll animated as a human.

[ImperatorK]

{{scrubbed}}


I don't see why you just don't understand it. Treant is a type of beings. You can animate a tree and it will resemble a treant. They are animated as treants, they are not treants. You can animate a clay doll as a human, but it will be a clay doll animated as a human.
I don't understand how you can ignore the fact that your arguments have ZERO backing from the rules. -_-

[The Dark Fiddler]

Tree is animated as something by someone (something).
Tree is animating as something by itself.

And then, following the second one, the tree is animateded as something, so there's no difference. :smalltongue:

[dextercorvia]

I don't see why you just don't understand it. Zombie is a type of beings. You can animate a corpse and it will resemble a zombie. They are animated as zombies, they are not zombies.

Except wait.... Maybe its magic.

[Machinekng]

I don't see why you just don't understand it. Zombie is a type of beings. You can animate a corpse and it will resemble a zombie. They are animated as zombies, they are not zombies.

Except wait.... Maybe its magic.

Actually, it's a template :smalltongue:.

But seriously, does it matter wether the tree becomes a treant or not :smallconfused:? It says that the tree gains a treant's combat abilities, and one of those abilities is Animate Plants. It's an attack, so it's a combat ability, eveb though there are many uses for it outside if combat.

I'd assume that the designer's idea was to have the treants animate the trees as allies in combat, not to make armies, but there doesn't seem to be anything that precludes the animated tree from gaining animate tree.

@ excruciarch

We all "admire" your "knowledge in the field of sematics" but I don't think the tense of the word applies. You can argue RAI till the end of time, but I assume that the designers did not intend to have players use a dictionary to resolve rule disputes. You need a Player's Handbook to play the game, not a degree in linguistics.

An excerpt from the SRD, specifically from the treant's monster entry


Combat

Treants prefer to watch potential foes carefully before attacking. They often charge suddenly from cover to trample the despoilers of forests. If sorely pressed, they animate trees as reinforcements.

Animate Trees (Sp)

A treant can animate trees within 180 feet at will, controlling up to two trees at a time. It takes 1 full round for a normal tree to uproot itself. Thereafter it moves at a speed of 10 feet and fights as a treant in all respects. Animated trees lose their ability to move if the treant that animated them is incapacitated or moves out of range. The ability is otherwise similar to liveoak (caster level 12th). Animated trees have the same vulnerability to fire that a treant has.

The fluff gives us insight into the designers intent.

The ability itself is the RAW. Animate Plants is a combat ability. Fighting and combat are synonyms (maybe that dictionary can come in handy).

[Dimers]

As if the evidence already presented weren't enough: I give you changestaff.

... your staff turns into a creature that looks and fights just like a treant. However, it is by no means a true treant; it cannot converse with actual treants or control trees.
In the same book as liveoak we find this other spell that specifies differences between a true treant and the treant-like being it creates. That implies heavily that even RAI is in favor of liveoak's treants (or treant-like beings) having SLAs.

How many more nails do you suppose this coffin needs? :smallamused:

[dextercorvia]

As if the evidence already presented weren't enough: I give you changestaff.

In the same book as liveoak we find this other spell that specifies differences between a true treant and the treant-like being it creates. That implies heavily that even RAI is in favor of liveoak's treants (or treant-like beings) having SLAs.

How many more nails do you suppose this coffin needs? :smallamused:

Any more and it won't be able to cast druid spells any longer.

[ImperatorK]

As if the evidence already presented weren't enough: I give you changestaff.

In the same book as liveoak we find this other spell that specifies differences between a true treant and the treant-like being it creates. That implies heavily that even RAI is in favor of liveoak's treants (or treant-like beings) having SLAs.

How many more nails do you suppose this coffin needs? :smallamused:
Meh. Writer inconsistency.