Treant's False Appearance - Acceptable? Cheap? Confusing?

[Boci]

So, treants have false appearance, which read:

False Appearance: While the treant remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from a normal tree.

Indistinguishable. Say, what do treants in D&D look like again?
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/6/65/Treant_-_Lars_Grant-West.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/350?cb=20090519183840

Aha. And tress are...
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/B7B0/production/_101542074_gettyimages-956391468.jpg

Right, right. Kinda hard to tell them apart huh? I mean, I wouldn't say the treant is indistinguishable from a normal tree, it loses some points for not at all looking like it would ever be confused for a tree at anything more than a casual glance, but, you know..

Okay, seriously, snark aside, how do you hand a treant:

1. Keep the ability as it, if the treant wants to fight, the party is likely getting surprised.

2. Change it to proficiency with wisdom check to hide in the forest (maybe with expertise?)

3. Keep it as it, but make it magical, so the party could catch on if they happened to detect magic.

4. Remove it. Treants aren't ambush monsters, the ability doesn't fit them.

5. Something else?

Personally I would likely run with 2 or 3 if I used them as a DM. A potent ability, but not utterly undefeatable. I'm not beyond using False Appearance as written, but it doesn't seem to fit the treant.

What do you think?

[Chronos]

A treant is, basically, an animated tree. If it's not moving, there's no way to tell that it's animated, and so what it looks like is... a tree. And if a party is in the woods and does something that would antagonize treants, then yes, they're likely to get surprised.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think that Treants only live so long because they avoid threats, and most narratives that have Treants have the same conclusion.

It's to keep them alive. How often do you think they have kids?

[Rukelnikov]

You picked particularly unfitting examples of trees and ents. I'm pretty sure you must have seen this one, but here it is anyway:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbV2Hr0qRdo

Also, its not undefeatable, Locate Animals or Plants is a 2nd lvl ritual that Druids, Rangers and Bards get access to. Detect Thoughts is also 2 lvl and would work to detect them.

[Boci]

You picked particularly unfitting examples of trees and ents. I'm pretty sure you must have seen this one, but here it is anyway:

Okay, granted the actual MM art is a bit better, but this:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/1/18/Treant-5e.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/350?cb=20171010162949

Is a far cry from "indistinguishable" from a tree. THough I guess you could argue it would have been a bit of a waste to just draw a trea for the monster entry.


Also, its not undefeatable, Locate Animals or Plants is a 2nd lvl ritual that Druids, Rangers and Bards get access to. Detect Thoughts is also 2 lvl and would work to detect them.

Fair point, hadn't considered those.

[Unoriginal]

What Treants look like in 5e (as an example):

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/1/18/Treant-5e.png/revision/latest?cb=20171010162949

What a forest can look like:

https://avatars.mds.yandex.net/get-pdb/33827/d79fe7b5-2a96-4a71-b82e-f1424c2e8927/orig

And here we can see that if you don't select a strawman to fight against, your argument has no weight.

Your condescension doesn't do you any favor, either.



Is a far cry from "indistinguishable" from a tree.

False Appearance: While the treant remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from a normal tree.

The Treant in the picture is moving.

Do you also complain that the Roper doesn't look exactly like a stalagmite when it's attacking people? Or that the mephits aren't illustrated in their "pretend to be harmless parts of the environment" mode?

[Boci]

And here we can see that if you don't select a strawman to fight against, your argument has no weight

Calm down, there's no need to lash out like that. I started this thread to get opinions, you can just share them without desperatly needing to undermine mine. I gave 4 possible solution, including using the ability as written, with a 5th option incase I'd forgotten something, and all of them are equally valid.

Yes, I could have chosen better pictures, but even then, a tree with legs strikes me as something a high perception character might notice. I can't spot a tiger sneaking up on me either. I assume, I've never tried.

There's nothing wrong with going with the RAW. I does just feel a bit odd to me, but I didn't think I needed to specify that my feelings don't dictate the norm on a monster's ability.

[Segev]

If they're not moving, they presumably have their legs together enough to look like a single trunk. They're not passing for a skinny tree, but old growth can be pretty bulky.

For a really terrifying Treant encounter, have the party come across a hill in a forest, covered by spindly trees. Then have the whole hill rear up, revealing a long-resting treant who just had that much dirt drift onto him, with ground cover growing up out of it, turning his top-most branches into apparently-separate trees.

[sophontteks]

Forests are not all created equal. The picture you posted is very sparse. Those are all young trees. They look the same age too. I wonder is its even man-made. I can at least guarantee they do annual controlled burning there, if the forest isn't completely artificial. The forests of old, the forests before forest control were very, very dense in Europe and America. They are still very dense where I grew up, and that is with many foresters coming in to clear it out. I could only imagine what an untouched forest would look like. The forests where Treeants blend in so well. A treeant could hide in plain sight where I grew up in Northern PA, and it certainly could hide in plain sight of a real forest.

[Boci]

Forests are not all created equal. The picture you posted is very sparse. Those are all young trees. They look the same age too. I wonder is its even man-made. The forests of old, the forests before forest control were very, very dense in Europe and America. They are still very dense where I grew up, and that is with many foresters coming in to clear it out. I could only imagine what an untouched forest would look like. The forests where Treeants blend in so well.

Ture yes, but then I'm also a commoner with at best +1 perception, likely +0. PCs can have anything from that to +11 by the time a treant is a potential encounter.

But certainly theres nothing wrong with just using the ability as written, I was just curious if anyone found it a bit strange or if they liked this new take. Nothing wrong with tweaking the abilities of establish D&D monsters.

[Unoriginal]

Calm down, there's no need to lash out like that. I started this thread to get opinions, you can just share them without desperatly needing to undermine mine.

You started this thread openly mocking the idea that a monster who looks like a tree could look like a tree. That's called trying to undermine something.



Yes, I could have chosen better pictures, but even then, a tree with legs strikes me as something a high perception character might notice.

...the legs aren't visibles while the treant is immobile. Nor are the arms or the face. Those things just look like twists in the bark.

At worse it would look something like this:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7206/6831236830_953083fdae_b.jpg

That's why it has false appearance.



There's nothing wrong with going with the RAW. I does just feel a bit odd to me, but I didn't think I needed to specify that my feelings don't dictate the norm on a monster's ability.

Then I apologize for reacting so strongly. But you have to admit opening the thread by directly dissing and dismissing the concept is not an indicator you wanted a legitimate discussion.

[Boci]

You started this thread openly mocking the idea that a monster who looks like a tree could look like a tree. That's called trying to undermine something.

And then went on to say I would likely:

"2. Change it to proficiency with wisdom check to hide in the forest (maybe with expertise?)"

My actually ruling of giving it +7-11 stealth modifier mean don't mind it hiding. That trumps the lighthearted joking without any actually mechanics.


Then I apologize for reacting so strongly. But you have to admit opening the thread by directly dissing and dismissing the concept is not an indicator you wanted a legitimate discussion.

Again, I gave 4 possible solution, change nothing, nerf a bit, and completly remove, with a floating 5th incase I forgot something, and said my favorite is the nerf, not the removal. I think that should hold more weight on my intent to have a legitimate discussion over some jokes at the start.

[sophontteks]

Ture yes, but then I'm also a commoner with at best +1 perception, likely +0. PCs can have anything from that to +11 by the time a treant is a potential encounter.

But certainly theres nothing wrong with just using the ability as written, I was just curious if anyone found it a bit strange or if they liked this new take. Nothing wrong with tweaking the abilities of establish D&D monsters.
Where I grew up it was common to see trees with human appearances. Two trees that grow into one, or vice-versa is pretty common. Forests are so dense you can't see more then 10-20 feet away anyway. If anything, its unusually exceptional to be able to see anything in a dense forest at 30+ feet, let alone something that looks like a tree.

[Boci]

Where I grew up it was common to see trees with human appearances. Two trees that grow into one, or vice-versa is pretty common. Forests are so dense you can't see more then 10-20 feet away anyway. If anything, its unusually exceptional to be able to see anything in a dense forest at 30+ feet, let alone something that looks like a tree.

But isn't that still a stealth check in D&D (without the need to hide)? That sounds like a stealth check, to me at least. As I said, base it off wisdom, not dex, since they have such a low dex and yeah, they should be able to hide.

[Unoriginal]

Nothing wrong with tweaking the abilities of establish D&D monsters.

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with changing any ability into something you prefer. If you'd rather have the Treants require to do a CHA (Stealth) check vs WIS (Perception) to be hidden while in forest, it's your right as a DM, and nobody should tell you otherwise.

That part wasn't what I was reacting to, btw.



And then went on to say I would likely:

"2. Change it to proficiency with wisdom check to hide in the forest (maybe with expertise?)"

My actually ruling of giving it +7-11 stealth modifier mean don't mind it hiding. That trumps the lighthearted joking without any actually mechanics.


Again, I gave 4 possible solution, change nothing, nerf a bit, and completly remove, with a floating 5th incase I forgot something, and said my favorite is the nerf, not the removal. I think that should hold more weight on my intent to have a legitimate discussion over some jokes at the start.

Well I apologize again, but it didn't sound like a joke to me. But I admit I was wrong to react like that.

[Imbalance]

Make your stealth check when it starts to move, not before.

[MaxWilson]

False Appearance: While the treant remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from a normal tree.

Like Drax the Destroyer, Treants have mastered the art of standing so still... that they become invisible to the eye.

[Unoriginal]

But isn't that still a stealth check in D&D (without the need to hide)? That sounds like a stealth check, to me at least. As I said, base it off wisdom, not dex, since they have such a low dex and yeah, they should be able to hide.

There's only a check if it's possible to detect the creature.

Treants are literally trees. They just learned how to walk and talk by living a long time.

Same way that you couldn't distinguish a Mud Mephit on the ground from mud on the ground... because they're literally made of mud.

[Boci]

There's only a check if it's possible to detect the creature.

Treants are literally trees. They just learned how to walk and talk by living a long time.

Same way that you couldn't distinguish a Mud Mephit on the ground from mud on the ground... because they're literally made of mud.

It still feels odd to me. I guess its because other creatures with false appearance are either ambush predators or small, tricky creature. Mephits are basically elemental fey, small annoying creatures capable of flying. Treants are neither of those, and so I examine the ability more critically. For example footprints. If the treant have moved resently, it seems they could reveal it, or just the fatc that in a world were trees come alieve, a tree with a plit trunk that looks like legs would attract a whole lot more attention.

[Unoriginal]

The ability says that they are indistinguishable from trees, not that they're impossible to detect/be suspicious of or that it's impossible to spot traces of their passage.

Just that if there's two trees and a treant, it's not possible to see which is which


But if you want another example: think of the tree grandma in Pocahontas.

[sophontteks]

But isn't that still a stealth check in D&D (without the need to hide)? That sounds like a stealth check, to me at least. As I said, base it off wisdom, not dex, since they have such a low dex and yeah, they should be able to hide.
In a thick forest you could walk right by a bear and not notice. No stealth check.

[MaxWilson]

In practical game terms, that ability is a license for the DM to say "you see three trees," and then the players can't complain if one of the trees turns out to be a treant. It doesn't stop the players from getting suspicious and asking questions about the trees, and maybe concluding that one or all of them are really (evil?) treants.

Not that DMs need license from the MM anyway, because they can change monster stats all they want, but that's what it's there for.

[Boci]

The ability says that they are indistinguishable from trees, not that they're impossible to detect/be suspicious of or that it's impossible to spot traces of their passage.

How do you handle that then? There's a treant motionless in a forest, how do PC get suspicious about that. What do you tell them beyond "You are in a forest"?


But if you want another example: think of the tree grandma in Pocahontas.

Haven't seen it, but based on the source I assume the tree magically changes into a normal tree and tree-woman, which would be a good way to fluff the ability, though its strange then the ability isn't noted. I guess if its just fluff to explain a given ability...


In a thick forest you could walk right by a bear and not notice. No stealth check.

YOu and me sure, but the wood-elf ranger? (They get expertise in forests right?)


In practical game terms, that ability is a license for the DM to say "you see three trees," and then the players can't complain if one of the trees turns out to be a treant. It doesn't stop the players from getting suspicious and asking questions about the trees, and maybe concluding that one or all of them are really (evil?) treants.

That's the best case scenario. In a forest of 50+ trees, the Dm has no reason to even mention trees once the location is established.

And ofcourse treats are evil. They selvishly hog firewood that humans and other races need for their furnaces. Need dammit!

See on the topic of liscence, false appearance is basically 5e's honest way of handling what 3e did by giving monsters impossible high stealth modifiers. Technically you could spot them, if you rolled a 29 or minmazed your modifier. 5e decided theres not point making such monsters and just flat out chose to ignore the perception check. Which is fine, I just find it wierd treant get that, since they didn't use to be that good at hiding. But maybe this ability actually suits them, especially since they aren't the ambush predator variety.

[Unoriginal]

How do you handle that then? There's a treant motionless in a forest, how do PC get suspicious about that. What do you tell them beyond "You are in a forest"?

Let's imagine the Treant was careless and left "foot"print in the ground.

"You see a bunch of trees with huge footprints going from, or maybe to them."

[Boci]

Let's imagine the Treant was careless and left "foot"print in the ground.

"You see a bunch of trees with huge footprints going from, or maybe to them."

Okay, I like that way of handling it. Not the biggest fan though of giving a monster an ability that that then requires the DM to be kind to the players when they can just as easily say, "You see a tree come to life and attack, roaring words in Sylvan about the wood-greed of the kin. Roll initiative but you are definitly surprised,"

I don't mind monsters that basically ambush the party 95% of the time, but I'm weary of adding new monsters to that list. To me, the purpose of false appearance is to give a surprise round. If you want to make treants very hard to find, allow them to be indistinguishable from trees, but make it so they need to take an action to end this so they cannot use it offensivly.

Speaking of a treant on the offensive, if the treants ability to double its attacks with an action it took an hour before the fight factored into the CR? I need to compare its profile with other CR 9 stuff.

[Unoriginal]

Do you mean the Animate Tree ability?

[Boci]

Yeah, 1/day animate 2 trees that last for the day, they get their own slam. Seems powerful, and that's assuming the PCs realize they need to focus fire the treant and don't waste hits on the trees.

[Unoriginal]

As far as I know, ally-summoning abilities are never taken into account for the CR calculation.

[Boci]

As far as I know, ally-summoning abilities are never taken into account for the CR calculation.

Hmmm, having check the MM. CR 9 fire giant is +11/+11 6d6+7, vs. the CR 9 treant +10/+10 3d6+6. I think the CR assumes the awaken trees are present. I can't see any distinct advantage the treant has otherwise. It has resistance to piercing and bludgeoning, but vulnerability to fire, vs. the fire giant's immunity to fire, and the fire giant has +2 AC.

[stoutstien]

Hmmm, having check the MM. CR 9 fire giant is +11/+11 6d6+7, vs. the CR 9 treant +10/+10 3d6+6. I think the CR assumes the awaken trees are present. I can't see any distinct advantage the treant has otherwise. It has resistance to piercing and bludgeoning, but vulnerability to fire, vs. the fire giant's immunity to fire, and the fire giant has +2 AC.
Treant has a strange ablity of being resistance to magical blunt and piercings damage.

[Boci]

Treant has a strange ablity of being resistance to magical blunt and piercings damage.

Sure, but its also 2 AC lower, vulnerable to the most elemental damage type, with no immunities. The firegiant meanwhile is immune to fire. Even if we say thats still in the treant favour, which it may be, its not enough to make up for the fact that the fire giant hits a little more accuratly, nearly twice as hard, and with reach, which the treant doesn't have.

Unless the firegiant is under CR-ed. I don't think the treant is going to be a CR 9 encounter without its tree buddies.

[stoutstien]

Sure, but its also 2 AC lower, vulnerable to the most elemental damage type, with no immunities. The firegiant meanwhile is immune to fire. Even if we say thats still in the treant favour, which it may be, its not enough to make up for the fact that the fire giant hits a little more accuratly, nearly twice as hard, and with reach, which the treant doesn't have.

Unless the firegiant is under CR-ed. I don't think the treant is going to be a CR 9 encounter without its tree buddies.
True but it is an odd ablity. Treants are more of plot npc in my eyes like flumphs

[MaxWilson]

Sure, but its also 2 AC lower, vulnerable to the most elemental damage type, with no immunities. The firegiant meanwhile is immune to fire. Even if we say thats still in the treant favour, which it may be, its not enough to make up for the fact that the fire giant hits a little more accuratly, nearly twice as hard, and with reach, which the treant doesn't have.

Unless the firegiant is under CR-ed. I don't think the treant is going to be a CR 9 encounter without its tree buddies.

Unless I'm missing something, it is CR 9 on its own merits:

Treant:
Proficiency Bonus: +4
Effective HP: 207 (12d12+60)
Effective AC: 16
Average Damage Per Round: 33
Effective Attack Bonus: +10
Offensive CR: 7
Defensive CR: 10
Challenge Rating: 9

Fire Giant is also CR 9 per DMG tables:

Fire Giant:
Proficiency Bonus: +4
Effective HP: 162 (14d12+70)
Effective AC: 18
Average Damage Per Round: 56
Effective Attack Bonus: +11
Offensive CR: 10
Defensive CR: 8
Challenge Rating: 9

Bottom line: because of the way CR is computed, and because of rounding errors when averaging offensive and defensive CR, there's a wide range of stuff that all gets classified as CR 9.

For extra fun, take a look at the stats of a CR 6 Young White Dragon and a CR 8 Young Green Dragon and how they are almost identical, and ponder why that could be the case.

[CorporateSlave]

How do you handle that then? There's a treant motionless in a forest, how do PC get suspicious about that. What do you tell them beyond "You are in a forest"?


Generally I would say "you don't" and its up to the players to direct their PC's to be suspicious or not. Of course, after it happens once, they will likely be suspicious forever...

Alternately, you could go with something like telling the player whose PC has the highest passive Perception that they thought they saw something moving in the trees just off the path, when (if) they go to check it out, obviously nothing is there but trees.

Once they start making active Perception checks you could assign a high DC and if any make it, tell them a particular tree's branches are slightly swaying in the wind...only there is no wind today.

They could find a party of dead Orcs or Goblins carrying wood cutting axes skewered on what look like broken off branches at some point. That should be pretty obvious without stating it outright.

Something (a backpack, etc) could go missing from camp overnight, and they spot it high up in a tree's branches. If someone with high Perception is on watch, have them hear a rustle of leaves and crackling of branches then notice the pack is missing, and maybe even see that it is now somehow high up in a tree.

Some will probably suspect other creatures that live in forests initially, but that's how suspicion works sometimes!

[OmSwaOperations]

I think you should give the players a high DC perception check chance to spot the Treant, since it'll probably have *some* very non-tree-like features (e.g. a mouth).

Having said that, the photos people have provided earlier are pretty compelling: a treant would really fit in with a gnarled old oak forest (and you could probably imagine subspecies of tall and slender treants who would fit into pine forests, etc.)

[Chronos]

Quoth Boci:

For example footprints. If the treant have moved resently, it seems they could reveal it...
Keep in mind that, to a treant, "recently" means "in the past decade". That's a lot of time to mask tracks.

[Boci]

Keep in mind that, to a treant, "recently" means "in the past decade". That's a lot of time to mask tracks.

No, it means in the past few weeks. I'm well aware treant can stay still for a long time, but if they've been in one spot for 10 years, that still means at one point it had arrieved a few weeks ago.

Plus, thats just one way of handling it. Another poster mentioned a treant taking a backpack, which means the treant is up and moving.

[Imbalance]

Do people really just...struggle...with imagination?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, but its also 2 AC lower, vulnerable to the most elemental damage type, with no immunities. The firegiant meanwhile is immune to fire. Even if we say thats still in the treant favour, which it may be, its not enough to make up for the fact that the fire giant hits a little more accuratly, nearly twice as hard, and with reach, which the treant doesn't have.

Unless the firegiant is under CR-ed. I don't think the treant is going to be a CR 9 encounter without its tree buddies.

Fire giants are right on the guidance (offensive CR 10, Defensive CR ~8, average CR 9).
Treants are a bit under (offensive CR 6.5, defensive CR 9.5, average CR 8).

But CR is an art, not a science. And lots of things are not exactly on the guidance. For CR 9 creatures, the average deviation between the listed CR and the calculated one is +0.44 (ie they're over-CR a little more frequently than they're over CR). Overall the average deviation is less than 0.1, but the extremes are from +9.5 (for the demilich, the listed is 9.5 higher than the calculated due to its wimpy HP) to -5 (the Ki-rin is listed is 5 below the calculated).

But none of that means all that much, really.

[CorporateSlave]

Do people really just...struggle...with imagination?

Having a hard time...imagining...such people? :smallbiggrin:

Doesn't seem unreasonable to ask for some different perspectives and hope to see things from another angle.

[No brains]

A treant looks exactly like a tree and you need to find one? Shout "Trees suck!" in common. Then listen for a very slow "You... suck..." in reply.

Also, travel through suspected treant territory on a windy day. Wind keeps trees from being motionless. Does a treant remain incongruously still, or does it sway and attempt deception/ hide check?

A final important note is that they are challenge 9 and have +3 to perception. A party might not notice a treant, but if they move stealthily, it may not notice them either. It has no special senses, so sneaking through the dark is a good way to evade it.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The real kick in the face are gargoyles. A party will likely walk by hundreds of thousands of trees over the course of their career. So PCs would need a specific reason to be suspicious.

Gargoyles on the other hand, aren’t so common. So the ratio of harmless statues to monsters is much higher. Hearing a room, bridge or area is decorated by stone gargoyles will always put PCs on alert. (Especially as many DMs won’t mention statues that don’t animate.) So Wacking every statue you see in the dungeon just to be sure is a little paranoid but not unreasonable. Being that alert around trees would make you a nervious wreck. And probably provolk attack from sylvan creatures due to all the trees you’ve damaged.

In 3.5 or pathfinder “false appearance” could be defeated by a spot/perception check. So I’d wouldnt mention theirs a statue in the room unless the PCs made the check or as part of the gargoyles ambushed them. As a PC I hated having to pretend that the statue the DM just described isn’t an immediate threat even when it’s so obvious.

If I outright mentioned statues they were always inanimate objects which I did a lot until the PCs stopped bending paranoid around statues.

[stoutstien]

The real kick in the face are gargoyles. A party will likely walk by hundreds of thousands of trees over the course of their career. So PCs would need a specific reason to be suspicious.

Gargoyles on the other hand, aren’t so common. So the ratio of harmless statues to monsters is much higher. Hearing a room, bridge or area is decorated by stone gargoyles will always put PCs on alert. (Especially as many DMs won’t mention statues that don’t animate.) So Wacking every statue you see in the dungeon just to be sure is a little paranoid but not unreasonable. Being that alert around trees would make you a nervious wreck. And probably provolk attack from sylvan creatures due to all the trees you’ve damaged.

In 3.5 or pathfinder “false appearance” could be defeated by a spot/perception check. So I’d wouldnt mention theirs a statue in the room unless the PCs made the check or as part of the gargoyles ambushed them. As a PC I hated having to pretend that the statue the DM just described isn’t an immediate threat even when it’s so obvious.

If I outright mentioned statues they were always inanimate objects which I did a lot until the PCs stopped bending paranoid around statues.

That's the issue with a lot of the "I got you" style NPCs. Either the party is completely surprised or not at all.

[Segev]

Gargoyles work best when there's a reason NOT to smash random statues. Otherwise, they're not going to bother hiding as statues.

Reasons might include:

So many statues that it takes forever
Stealth mission; smashing statues is loud
Statues belong to somebody who actually can make the party pay for them
Statues may be petrified people (harder to justify, since gargoyles don't look like humans turned to stone)


Treants do have it easier, mimicking something that doesn't scream "probably going to come alive and kill you" to anyone with a hint of genre savvy.

[Boci]

In 3.5 or pathfinder “false appearance” could be defeated by a spot/perception check.

Sort of. It can take a 20 on the roll, with a +11 modifier, with a firther +6 if the enviroment is stony. So the CR 4 monsters has a 37 stealth check. PF had higher modifiers, but not that high. This is what I mean about False Appeatance being a more honest way of doing what 3.P did, designing monsters with the intention of giving them surprise rounds. Its still cheap in 5th ed, but its honest.

It does though still seem wierd that treant now count among those monsters that are very difficult to detect, largely requiring a DM to throw the players a bone if they are to have any real chance of not getting surprised. I'm fine with mimics, I simply wouldn't use them if I don't want to "gotcha" the PCs, but like it or not, the mimic is a gotcha monster, that ability makes sense. Less so on the treant I feel.

Not a big issue either way, but a little puzzling for me.

[Segev]

Sort of. It can take a 20 on the roll, with a +11 modifier, with a firther +6 if the enviroment is stony. So the CR 4 monsters has a 37 stealth check. PF had higher modifiers, but not that high. This is what I mean about False Appeatance being a more honest way of doing what 3.P did, designing monsters with the intention of giving them surprise rounds. Its still cheap in 5th ed, but its honest.

It does though still seem wierd that treant now count among those monsters that are very difficult to detect, largely requiring a DM to throw the players a bone if they are to have any real chance of not getting surprised. I'm fine with mimics, I simply wouldn't use them if I don't want to "gotcha" the PCs, but like it or not, the mimic is a gotcha monster, that ability makes sense. Less so on the treant I feel.

Not a big issue either way, but a little puzzling for me.

If you go with the flavor usually associated with treants, they're not "gotcha" monsters so much as they are "surprise" encounters. Unless the party are murder-hoboing their way through everything they meet, treant encounters usually are more about the protectors of the forests being aggressive but not violent (at first), giving warnings to leave and do no harm etc. etc. Their purpose is to be surprising when you realize that the grove is actually filled with potential combatants if a fight breaks out, not to ambush-prey upon PCs without warning.

[MaxWilson]

Sort of. It can take a 20 on the roll, with a +11 modifier, with a firther +6 if the enviroment is stony. So the CR 4 monsters has a 37 stealth check. PF had higher modifiers, but not that high. This is what I mean about False Appeatance being a more honest way of doing what 3.P did, designing monsters with the intention of giving them surprise rounds.

Just my opinion, but I wouldn't use False Appearance to grant surprise rounds. I would use it to cut off the PCs' escape routes, by sowing doubt over whether "cleared" areas were really clear or not. A couple of gargoyles aren't a big deal, unless they show up to block your path when you are running away from a Neothelid.

[Segev]

Also, treants are ideal for setting up the "haunted forest" scenario, where the woods shift around behind your back and you can't be sure the trees you used as landmarks are where they were when you last saw them.

[Chronos]

A big difference between treants and gargoyles is that gargoyles are a lot more likely to be antagonistic. If you attack every random statue you see, well, if it really is a gargoyle, it probably was going to attack you, if you gave it the chance. But if you attack every random tree you see, then the treant will become hostile when it might not have been before.

[stoutstien]

Also, treants are ideal for setting up the "haunted forest" scenario, where the woods shift around behind your back and you can't be sure the trees you used as landmarks are where they were when you last saw them.
Smart. Could be a good "boss" for a bunch of blights

[MaxWilson]

I wonder how often regular Treants get used as antagonists. It's not like well-meaning ("Good") creatures never come into conflict with each other in real life. What happens when you've got a bunch of humans who fled from persecution in the cities and settled along the outskirts of the forest 20 years ago, and have spent twenty years since then gradually expanding into the forest (while defending their homes from wicked creatures like hags and redcaps and goblins)... and the local Treant is feeling uneasy about their expansion and wants to put a stop to it? What if the PCs come into the picture because they get word that something is terrorizing the villagers, that homes and equipment have been smashed to bits in the night, and that the people are afraid for their lives?

This adventure might violate the Promise of D&D (https://stirgessuck.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/the-promise-of-dd/) and maybe that's the answer: "Treants don't get used as bad guys in D&D because that makes it more uncomfortable for PCs to solve the problem with violence. Someone who wants to tell stories with morally-ambiguous, sympathetic 'villains' is probably already playing a different system like GURPS instead of D&D." Maybe.

Still, I wonder.

[Unoriginal]

The thing with a Treant-Good Guys conflict is that Treants are wise and smart enough to be reasonable about their issues, at least to explain them, and while they're not flawless individuals they'd probably require the settlers or whoever else to do something pretty big to get violent.

[stoutstien]

The thing with a Treant-Good Guys conflict is that Treants are wise and smart enough to be reasonable about their issues, at least to explain them, and while they're not flawless individuals they'd probably require the settlers or whoever else to do something pretty big to get violent.
Good, bad, the party will try to kill it if it has a stat block. (Satire)

Maybe the human settlement leader blew off the warnings?

[Unoriginal]

Good, bad, the party will try to kill it if it has a stat block. (Satire)

Maybe the human settlement leader blew off the warnings?

Maybe, but at which point do they stop being good guys when they do that?

[stoutstien]

Maybe, but at which point do they stop being good guys when they do that? depending on how binary your good/bad scale is. Could be that the village would freeze if they didn't cut more firewood but by doing so it encroached onto much older growth.
Are we judging outcomes or motives?

[Chronos]

And maybe the villagers actually are the bad guys. It's not like "the questgiver is actually the villain" is a novel or rare twist in D&D games.

[Boci]

Not terrible hard to come up with a reason for the party to be fighting a treant:

1. Treant misunderstands the PCs, thinking they want to cut down trees. In their defence, most humanoid races look the same, and its unlikely the treant can will know the different between a longsword and wood axe
2. Nature protects it boundries from civilization, PC are not welcome in the forest (though this should result in a warning first, then an attack)
3. Lots of wood is needed. Maybe the village will freeze without it, or maybe a fleet needs to be constructed to assail the Black Isles before the Legion of Doom is ready to be unleashed, and then the whole forest will suffer. The treant doesn't know this however, nor does he beleive the PCs (maybe someone tried a similar lie before)
4. As already mentioned, corrupted forest, corrupted treant
5. Evil party

[MaxWilson]

Maybe, but at which point do they stop being good guys when they do that?

Are innocent humans with incompetent leaders bad guys?

[jh12]

I think you should give the players a high DC perception check chance to spot the Treant, since it'll probably have *some* very non-tree-like features (e.g. a mouth).)

I think a Survival check might make more sense. I know Perception in the general noticing things skill, but it seems like the kinds of things you would need to notice to distinguish a Treant fall under Survival instead, such as tracking and identifying beasts by their leavings.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Sort of. It can take a 20 on the roll, with a +11 modifier, with a firther +6 if the enviroment is stony. So the CR 4 monsters has a 37 stealth check. PF had higher modifiers, but not that high.

Level 5, fourteen wisdom and eyes of the eagle +20 modifier. Its difficult especially in a stony environment. But if its perched on a ledge, the DC is only 31.

[JackPhoenix]

Just my opinion, but I wouldn't use False Appearance to grant surprise rounds.

Neither would I, because there's no such thing as surprise round in 5e.

[MaxWilson]

Neither would I, because there's no such thing as surprise round in 5e.

You know perfectly well what Boci meant--a round during which none of the PCs act due to being surprised. Just because 5E doesn't use the term "surprise round" doesn't mean you have to feign ignorance.

[follacchioso]

I think that Treants only live so long because they avoid threats, and most narratives that have Treants have the same conclusion.

It's to keep them alive. How often do you think they have kids?maybe every spring?

[Unoriginal]

Treants don't have kids, they're trees that grow sapient through a long infusion of nature magic.

Which is why they tend to protect the designated groves of trees that might become Treants.

Also, just to say, but even though "Treant" as obviously chosen to avoid copyright issues, I gotta say that IMO it's a better name than "Ent" for a tree creature.

"Ent" is a word for "Giant". "Treant" at least sounds like a natural shift of "Tree-Ent", which is an appropriate kenning for the creature.

[Boci]

Level 5, fourteen wisdom and eyes of the eagle +20 modifier. Its difficult especially in a stony environment. But if its perched on a ledge, the DC is only 31.

5 ranks in a class skill, wis mod 2, +5 for eyes od the eagle. 8 + 2 + 5 = 15. You're a little short.

[noob]

among the reason I burn forests there is the existence of plant creatures.
among the reasons plant creature exists is that people like me burn forests.
thus happens the forest burning loop.

[No brains]

Treants don't have kids, they're trees that grow sapient through a long infusion of nature magic.

Which is why they tend to protect the designated groves of trees that might become Treants.

I wonder if a treant would consider its seeds/nuts/fruits/saplings/sprouts its 'children'. Would it recognize that new trees were born from it and would it care? Is becoming a treant a hereditary trait? While they may not be especially mobile in defending their offspring, trees certainly try hard to produce a lot each year.

I wonder if treants are common enough to have a culture and what stresses would drive their trains of thought. Do treants respect a teacher-student bond more than a parent-child bond?

[Imbalance]

I wonder if a treant would consider its seeds/nuts/fruits/saplings/sprouts its 'children'. Would it recognize that new trees were born from it and would it care? Is becoming a treant a hereditary trait? While they may not be especially mobile in defending their offspring, trees certainly try hard to produce a lot each year.

I wonder if treants are common enough to have a culture and what stresses would drive their trains of thought. Do treants respect a teacher-student bond more than a parent-child bond?

"We are Groot."

"A wizard should know better."

What we've seen so far of this largely untapped bole of sci-fantasy offers little fruit for your budding curiosity, but felling such questions with well-hewn logic rooted in the source material could grow into a lumbering campaign with many storied branches.

[Lord Vukodlak]

5 ranks in a class skill, wis mod 2, +5 for eyes od the eagle. 8 + 2 + 5 = 15. You're a little short.

Yeah your forgetting the +3 for being a class skill making it 18. You were shorter then me.

[Unoriginal]

You were shorter then me.

He was, but then he drank that weird water the Treant gave him, and...

[Boci]

Yeah your forgetting the +3 for being a class skill making it 18. You were shorter then me.

No, 5 ranks in a class skill is 8. 8 + 2 + 5 = 15. You're double counting the +3 class bonus.

[No brains]

"We are Groot."

"A wizard should know better."

What we've seen so far of this largely untapped bole of sci-fantasy offers little fruit for your budding curiosity, but felling such questions with well-hewn logic rooted in the source material could grow into a lumbering campaign with many storied branches.

I appreciate this reply. :smallsmile:

[follacchioso]

To be fair, ents in Tolkien's universe cannot have children because they are all male. They became separated from their "ent-wives" long time before the events in the lord of the rings occurred, as these migrated too far to come back.

[MrStabby]

They kind of fill a niche in the monster manual. There are not many good aligned creatures of that level that can use stealth in the same way.

If you want to have a party surprised by good aligned monsters you don't get a huge amount of choice. Diminishing their surprise seems to be missing an opportunity.

I think indistinguishable from trees avoids a stealth roll, something which requires good dexterity.


Surprising the players isn't bad and can be a very different type of fight. Enjoy it.

[Boci]

I think indistinguishable from trees avoids a stealth roll, something which requires good dexterity.

There's nothing stopping a DM from allowing a monster to hide of another skill, like intelligence or wisdom. If anything, we need more monsters with such abilities so DMs get use to the fact that they are free to modifier which ability modifier applies for a specific use of the skill.


Surprising the players isn't bad and can be a very different type of fight. Enjoy it.

Its not bad, but it is a bit cheap when the only way for the players to avoid the surprise is to luck out with casting a detection ritual. That said, having a good alighned creature with false appearance may explain why treats were given a new ability for 5th ed.

[MrStabby]

There's nothing stopping a DM from allowing a monster to hide of another skill, like intelligence or wisdom. If anything, we need more monsters with such abilities so DMs get use to the fact that they are free to modifier which ability modifier applies for a specific use of the skill.



Its not bad, but it is a bit cheap when the only way for the players to avoid the surprise is to luck out with casting a detection ritual. That said, having a good alighned creature with false appearance may explain why treats were given a new ability for 5th ed.

It isn't really an issue. Yes DMs can do what they like but books like the MM are support for DMs. They might not know it is appropriate to just swap abilities.

That said my view is that I wouldn't allow a perception roll, I would probably be looking at a nature check (high DC) to tell them apart. Maybe a history check to know evildoers had been going missing in these woods and there were rumours about treeants.

[Boci]

It isn't really an issue. Yes DMs can do what they like but books like the MM are support for DMs. They might not know it is appropriate to just swap abilities.

How is that not the issue? DMs not knowing is literally the issue I highlighted. The MM should have more monsters who swap ability mods on checks so DMs get use to the idea that it is appropriate to do.

[MaxWilson]

Its not bad, but it is a bit cheap when the only way for the players to avoid the surprise is to luck out with casting a detection ritual.

What makes you think that's the only way? False Appearance is not mind control. If they use their heads and say, "I think that tree is a bad tree, probably an evil treant or something" then they suspect a threat, and if it animates and attacks them they are not surprised. Whether or not they have something to suspect will depend on the context, e.g. is there a tree where there never used to be a tree before? Is there only one tree, in a spooky location? Etc.

If there's a hundred trees around and one of them just happens to be a treant for no reason then yeah, players probably won't guess--but the same things that lead a DM to place a treant in an adventure location in the first place also give players reasons to suspect that there may be a threat here, which means they will not be surprised when they get attacked.

(In fact, technically you don't even have to suspect the correct threat in order to not be surprised. If the players think there's a green dragon probably hiding in those bushes, they are already in a combat mindset and will not be surprised by a treant attacking them, even if it turns out there was no green dragon in the first place.)

[Boci]

If there's a hundred trees around and one of them just happens to be a treant for no reason then yeah, players probably won't guess

And isn't the most likely scenatio for encountering a treant? In a forest, surrounded by tress? To not be surprised the players need to rely on the DM being kind and tweak the encounter to give them a chance to notice it.

[Rukelnikov]

And isn't the most likely scenatio for encountering a treant? In a forest, surrounded by tress? To not be surprised the players need to rely on the DM being kind and tweak the encounter to give them a chance to notice it.

What is so wrong about the PCs being surprised?

[PhoenixPhyre]

What is so wrong about the PCs being surprised?

Exactly. Many monsters depend for their effectiveness on having surprise, at all levels. The PCs do not have an expectation that they will never be surprised. Unless they take the Alert feat, anyway.

[Boci]

What is so wrong about the PCs being surprised?

Nothing, but when its unavoidable its a little cheap. I have said this multiple times in this thread.

[Unoriginal]

What is so wrong about the PCs being surprised?

This.

Sometime, PCs can't do something. It's not bad, as long as it makes sense.

Note that being indistinguishable from a tree doesn't mean you're good at hiding. If a Treant moves, is seen, then tries to hide, sure they'd look like a tree, but it's likely the PCs can see which one it is.

So really this at best will let an hostile Treant use their Animate Tree action to get reinforcement before the PCs can act. Not a problem.

[MaxWilson]

And isn't the most likely scenatio for encountering a treant? In a forest, surrounded by tress?

I dunno, is it? You're the DM here--you decide where the treant is going to be. In the scenario I posted upthread, where the treant is smashing farms and stuff and terrorizing humans to drive them away, the forest is not the most likely place for the PCs to encounter it. They're probably going to encounter it in town or on a farm, because that's where the conflict is happening. While it can use False Appearance to masquerade as a tree, it's far from impossible for the players or PCs to notice that this tree looks out of place here or didn't used to be here.


To not be surprised the players need to rely on the DM being kind and tweak the encounter to give them a chance to notice it.

Maybe they just need to rely on the DM writing an interesting adventure? There's nothing interesting about "you're travelling through a forest and suddenly a treant attacks you for no reason. You're surprised. Roll initiative."

[Boci]

Maybe they just need to rely on the DM writing an interesting adventure? There's nothing interesting about "you're travelling through a forest and suddenly a treant attacks you for no reason. You're surprised. Roll initiative."

Isn't that exactly what the three posters above are advocating with their variations of "What's wrong with players being surprised"?

[Unoriginal]

An interesting fight encounter could be to put a Treant in an underwater place.

I think I've seen someone suggesting that on this forum, once.

[MaxWilson]

Isn't that exactly what the three posters above are advocating with their variations of "What's wrong with players being surprised"?

Maybe. I'm not responsible for those posters' posts.

[Boci]

Maybe. I'm not responsible for those posters' posts.

But we're talking about how DMs handle the treant, and the other posters are all potential DMs, so it is relevant.

[MaxWilson]

But we're talking about how DMs handle the treant, and the other posters are all potential DMs, so it is relevant.

But we're also talking about whether blind luck is the only possible way to detect a treant, and that depends on how the DM uses the Treant, so how the DM writes the adventure and why the Treant has a conflict with the PCs is also relevant.

[jh12]

So really this at best will let an hostile Treant use their Animate Tree action to get reinforcement before the PCs can act. Not a problem.

Unless there's a barbarian around, of course. An angry, angry barbarian just itching to chop some wood with his handy axe. He doesn't have to wait.

[TyGuy]

"There's a corrupted grove. Nobody who goes in returns. Rumors circulate that the forest is alive. Find out the source of this corruption and cleanse the grove if possible"

There. Corrupted two second quest hook with enough info for treants to not be considered cheap.

[Unoriginal]

Isn't that exactly what the three posters above are advocating with their variations of "What's wrong with players being surprised"?

You can make an interesting fight with PCs/ players being surprised. But the surprise by itself isn't going to make it interesting.

Now, you haven't answered the question.

[JoeJ]

And isn't the most likely scenatio for encountering a treant? In a forest, surrounded by tress? To not be surprised the players need to rely on the DM being kind and tweak the encounter to give them a chance to notice it.

Surprise isn't really an issue because it only matters if it happens at the beginning of combat.

I would think that the most likely scenario would be that the PCs are trying to contact a treant, and searching for it is one chapter of the adventure.

[Boci]

Now, you haven't answered the question.

Yes I did, right before you posted on the topic: Nothing is wrong with being surprised, but unaboidable suprise is a bit cheap.


"There's a corrupted grove. Nobody who goes in returns. Rumors circulate that the forest is alive. Find out the source of this corruption and cleanse the grove if possible"

There. Corrupted two second quest hook with enough info for treants to not be considered cheap.

Possible. How exaxtly do players avoid the surprise? Test every tree in the forest, because they suspect a few may be treants? Or does just knowing that there could be treants allow them to not be surprised? If so, are PCs also not surprised by a roper, cuz they knew there could be one underground?

[JoeJ]

Possible. How exaxtly do players avoid the surprise? Test every tree in the forest, because they suspect a few may be treants?

Make the surprise moot by not behaving in a way that would cause a treant to attack them on sight?

[Boci]

Make the surprise moot by not behaving in a way that would cause a treant to attack them on sight?

The context is a corrupted grove. The PCs existing will make the corrupted treant attack them on sight.

[noob]

Make the surprise moot by not behaving in a way that would cause a treant to attack them on sight?

So the solution as usual is to set the forest on fire so hard the treant will not see you.

[Boci]

So the solution as usual is to set the forest on fire so hard the treant will not see you.

And the treant has to make a wisdom save to stay still whilst on fire, likely at disadvantage due to its fire vulnerability. Otherwise it moves and the PCs see it.

[TyGuy]

How exaxtly do players avoid the surprise?
In all likelihood, they won't. And that's ok. Because they'd likely go into the grove with their guard up if they payed attention to the foreshadowing. And if a DM is worth their salt, the encounters are balanced even with the monsters getting near guaranteed surprise.

[MaxWilson]

Possible. How exaxtly do players avoid the surprise?


In Combat As War: burn down the forest!


Test every tree in the forest, because they suspect a few may be treants? Or does just knowing that there could be treants allow them to not be surprised? If so, are PCs also not surprised by a roper, cuz they knew there could be one underground?

If you're testing a tree to see if it's a treant, you suspect a threat, and therefore cannot be surprised if it is a treant. As I've said before, I wouldn't use False Appearance to try to surprise PCs, I would use it to create uncertainty and tension, e.g. about whether they have a viable escape route. At the risk of repeating myself, "a couple of gargoyles isn't a big deal, but running into a couple of gargoyles blocking your path when you're fleeing from a neothelid is a much bigger deal."

In the corrupted grove scenario, for example, I could use False Appearance to create dramatic tension about whether the PCs have in fact dealt with the corrupted Treant at all.

You're exploring the forest. A tree attacks you. You kill it.
You keep exploring the forest. A tree attacks you. You kill it.
You rest for the night. Two trees attack you. You kill them.

You've now killed four evil trees. Is the grove cleansed now? ...maybe not. Maybe they were just disposable animated trees from a treant. Unless you actually do burn down the forest, you may have to do something clever in order to force the actual treant to show its hand and fight you openly.

[Boci]

In all likelihood, they won't. And that's ok.

Its okay, sure, but a monster getting unavoidable surprise is a little cheap.


And if a DM is worth their salt, the encounters are balanced even with the monsters getting near guaranteed surprise.

Absolutly. Surprise is +1 action for the monster, and maybe some extra damage, depending on its abilities. It should never be the difference between an medium encounter and impossible.

[Unoriginal]

Yes I did, right before you posted on the topic: Nothing is wrong with being surprised, but unaboidable suprise is a bit cheap.

If the PCs want to destroy a bridge for X reason, and they don't have the means to do so, is it cheap to say "you can't destroy that bridge"?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Its okay, sure, but a monster getting unavoidable surprise is a little cheap.


I don't see this as true generally. There are lots of monsters with this trait. It's part of the DNA of D&D.

For example, animated armors have this trait. But you know what my players, even the ones new to D&D assume as soon as they see a suit of armor on display? It's going to come alive and attack them. Same with treants if you've done your work in setting it up.

Plus, treants are non-evil, meaning that they'll rarely be antagonists. If they are, something's gone horribly wrong (or right, if you're in an evil campaign).

[Sigreid]

I personally think that calling it false appearance isn't accurate. A treant is a tree that through long life and the right conditions has awakend to intelligence and mobility. In other words, it's a special tree, but it's still a tree. If a tree that can move is not moving, it would naturally seem just like any other tree.

[Boci]

If the PCs want to destroy a bridge for X reason, and they don't have the means to do so, is it cheap to say "you can't destroy that bridge"?

No, because they don't have the means to do so. "Means to do so" is key. What are the "means" to not be surprised by a treant's false appearance? You basically need the DM to help you, or cast a ritual at just the right moment.

You seem no longer interested in discussion and just want to disprove my opinions.


I don't see this as true generally. There are lots of monsters with this trait. It's part of the DNA of D&D.

Yeah, and most of the monsters who have it are "attack you on sight" mosnter (except for mephits maybe, who will use it to get up to no good). Plus as mentioned other monsters false appearances are easier to foil, for the same reason you mentioned. I feel its relevant to note that unlike other false appearance monsters, the treant need to be set up by the DM.

[Unoriginal]

You've now killed four evil trees. Is the grove cleansed now? ...maybe not. Maybe they were just disposable animated trees from a treant. Unless you actually do burn down the forest, you may have to do something clever in order to force the actual treant to show its hand and fight you openly.

Like threatening to burn the forest until the treant reveal themselves, after showing that two animated trees aren't enough to stop you.

[MaxWilson]

Absolutly. Surprise is +1 action for the monster, and maybe some extra damage, depending on its abilities. It should never be the difference between an medium encounter and impossible.

Surprise is a bit more than just +1 action. Surprise also makes some characters squishier: no Bladesong, no Shield spells, no Defensive Duelist, no Rage on a Barbarian below 7th level, no Sentinel opportunity attacks to block movement. It can also lead to being caught out of position, e.g. in Fireball formation or with the back-line squishies in the front line.

Will it turn a cakewalk into an impossible challenge? No, probably not. But it's more than just +1 action and monster-specific bonuses.


Like threatening to burn the forest until the treant reveal themselves, after showing that two animated trees aren't enough to stop you.

Yep. Now does that constitute "something clever" under the circumstances? That depends on why the PCs are trying to cleanse the grove at all, instead of just burning it down in the first place.

Bear in mind BTW that the hypothetical treant has now seen you in action, knows who your glass cannons and squishies are... it gained something from those initial probing attacks. (PCs gained XP too but the hypothetical evil treant doesn't care about that.)

[Boci]

Will it turn a cakewalk into an impossible challenge? No, probably not. But it's more than just +1 action and monster-specific bonuses.

True, but my point still stands.

[JoeJ]

The context is a corrupted grove. The PCs existing will make the corrupted treant attack them on sight.

In which case surprise is not only not cheap, it's actually interesting because the PCs know they'll most likely be surprised and try to come up with a plan to deal with that.

[Boci]

In which case surprise is not only not cheap, it's actually interesting because the PCs know they'll most likely be surprised and try to come up with a plan to deal with that.

That only makes it not cheap if is there is a conciecable plan the PCs can come up with to avoid the surprise. None has been offered so far.

[MaxWilson]

True, but my point still stands.

I acknowledge that.

[Unoriginal]

No, because they don't have the means to do so. "Means to do so" is key.

Actually, "do not have" is the key.

Maybe the bridge is in Mechanius and it's basically indestructible. PCs want to break it, but they can't. Though break, they'll have to find another way to solve their issue.



What are the "means" to not be surprised by a treant's false appearance?

Like MaxWilson said, being wary and expecting a fight.

But even if there were no means to not be surprised, it wouldn't be cheap.


You seem no longer interested in discussion and just want to disprove my opinions.

If I wasn't interested in discussion, I wouldn't discuss.

My point is that you're adding a factor that has no weight on the "cheapness" of the ability.

Rakshasa can't be hurt with magic by a lvl 8 caster. Doesn't mean it's "cheap" if the lvl 8 group runs into one.

Then again, it's just a question of opinion, so it's true there is no "one true answer".

[TyGuy]

Its okay, sure, but a monster getting unavoidable surprise is a little cheap.
Well then D&D is full of cheapness as there are classic staples like mimics and ghosts.

[Boci]

Maybe the bridge is in Mechanius and it's basically indestructible.

Then that is cheap. YOu need to ask if an indestructable bridge is cheap?


Like MaxWilson said, being wary and expecting a fight.

Will that avoid a roper surprise? "Oh we're underground, we could run into a roper,"


Rakshasa can't be hurt with magic by a lvl 8 caster. Doesn't mean it's "cheap" if the lvl 8 group runs into one.

Cantrips can hurt it. Maybe if they couldn't it would be a relevant comparison.

Cheap means theres no way around it. Its not that it should never be in a game, but it should be used sparingly and recognized for what it is.


Well then D&D is full of cheapness as there are classic staples like mimics and ghosts.

Absolutly mimics are cheap. That's doesn't mean there bad, though one poster in this thread did say they disliked such gotcha monsters.

[noob]

That only makes it not cheap if is there is a conciecable plan the PCs can come up with to avoid the surprise. None has been offered so far.

Why is the forest still not on fire?
The point of being adventurers is to set stuff on fire.
Heck the iconic spell is setting stuff on fire.
And adventurer is likely to carry more than one way of setting stuff on fire and will even use ways they did not prepare in advance if they find those.
Where adventurers goes cities are on fire, forests are on fire, mountains are on fire, caverns are on fire and even the seas might be on fire.
Adventurers are in fact creatures coming from the plane of fire.
If setting fire on fire is possible adventurers did it.

[Boci]

Why is the forest still not on fire?
The point of being adventurers is to set stuff on fire.
Heck the iconic spell is setting stuff on fire.
And adventurer is likely to carry more than one way of setting stuff on fire and will even use ways they did not prepare in advance if they find those.
Where adventurers goes cities are on fire, forests are on fire, mountains are on fire, caverns are on fire and even the seas might be on fire.
Adventurers are in fact creatures coming from the plane of fire.

What is your obsession with burning stuff?

Counter point: What is your obsession with leaving things unburned? Curtesy of Yahtzee.

[Unoriginal]

Then that is cheap. YOu need to ask if an indestructable bridge is cheap?

I need, yes. I would like explanations why it is cheap, too.



Will that avoid a roper surprise? "Oh we're underground, we could run into a roper,"

As I said, "wary and ready for a fight". It means advancing carefully with weapon drawn and expecting




Cantrips can hurt it. Maybe if they couldn't it would be a relevant comparison.

Cantrips can't hurt it.



Cheap means theres no way around it. Its not that it should never be in a game, but it should be used sparingly and recognized for what it is.

I don't see how "use carefully and sparingly" equates "cheap".

[Boci]

I need, yes. I would like explanations why it is cheap, too.

Because players can't do anything about it, reguardless of what tactics or resources they hasve. That makes it cheap.


As I said, "wary and ready for a fight". It means advancing carefully with weapon drawn and expecting

And will that negate a roper surprising the party?


Cantrips can't hurt it.

My bad. But a caster can still cast spells. They can do stuff. With false appearance they can't, unless "weapons ready" defeats it, which has its own set of problems.


I don't see how "use carefully and sparingly" equates "cheap".

Wrong way round. You use them carefully and sparingly because they are cheap.

[JoeJ]

That only makes it not cheap if is there is a conciecable plan the PCs can come up with to avoid the surprise.

Why do you think that? Trying to come up with a plan, getting the equipment together, finding whatever it is they think they need, convincing NPCs to help, etc. is inherently interesting, regardless of whether or not the plan actually succeeds. My experience is that players will quite happily spend an hour or more trying to avoid, or mitigate if it's unavoidable, one round of being surprised.

[Boci]

Why do you think that? Trying to come up with a plan, getting the equipment together, finding whatever it is they think they need, convincing NPCs to help, etc. is inherently interesting, regardless of whether or not the plan actually succeeds. My experience is that players will quite happily spend an hour or more trying to avoid, or mitigate if it's unavoidable, one round of being surprised.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. A chance to avoid surprise is fine. No chance is, also finbe, its part of certain monster identities like the roper, but is also cheap and so should be used sparingly.

[JoeJ]

I don't know how much clearer I can be. A chance to avoid surprise is fine. No chance is, also finbe, its part of certain monster identities like the roper, but is also cheap and so should be used sparingly.

Yes, I understand that you claim that. I'm curious as to why you think it's cheap.

[Boci]

Yes, I understand that you claim that. I'm curious as to why you think it's cheap.

Then your "whether or not the plan actually succeeds" doesn't apply. I'm talking about a plan always failing, which is cheap. You're talking a plan that may succeed or may fail. which isn't cheap. That's kinda, the big reason people like playing.

[JoeJ]

Then your "whether or not the plan actually succeeds" doesn't apply. I'm talking about a plan always failing, which is cheap. You're talking a plan that may succeed or may fail. which isn't cheap. That's kinda, the big reason people like playing.

Yes, I am talking about a plan that might succeed or might fail. Are you rejecting the very possibility of success?

[Boci]

Yes, I am talking about a plan that might succeed or might fail. Are you rejecting the very possibility of success?

I'm yet to hear a plan for foiling the false appearance of the treant, or a roper for that matter. You can detect it with a ritual that pings them, but short of that there hasn't been anything so far, and at least one response has been "the party will still be surprised, even knowing there are treants in the wood".

[JoeJ]

I'm yet to hear a plan for foiling the false appearance of the treant, or a roper for that matter.

1. Get a wagon. The barbarian with the Alert feat drives, and the others hide inside crates or barrels. The treant might gain surprise, but it can't attack characters it doesn't know are there. On the second round they pop out and attack.

2. A treant is only indistinguishable from a tree when it's stationary. Find a place where you expect it to be in the near future and set up an ambush (or would that be an amtree?).

[Boci]

1. Get a wagon. The barbarian with the Alert feat drives, and the others hide inside crates or barrels. The treant might gain surprise, but it can't attack characters it doesn't know are there. On the second round they pop out and attack.

Feats are varient rules, they cannot be assumed.


2. A treant is only indistinguishable from a tree when it's stationary. Find a place where you expect it to be in the near future and set up an ambush (or would that be an amtree?).

How do the PCs know where the tree will likely be in the future?

[JoeJ]

Feats are varient rules, they cannot be assumed.

The absence of feats can't be assumed either. In play, the PCs are going to be thinking of plans that involve the actual abilities and resources they have, and the specific details of the location and world.


How do the PCs know where the tree will likely be in the future?

Where has it known or believed to have been before? Analyze its patterns, then use divination to narrow down the possibilities.

[Boci]

The absence of feats can't be assumed either. In play, the PCs are going to be thinking of plans that involve the actual abilities and resources they have, and the specific details of the location and world.

Pretty sure its asumed varient rules aren't in effect by default. That's kinda what varient means.


Where has it known or believed to have been before? Analyze its patterns, then use divination to narrow down the possibilities.

So relying on the DM. Yeah it can be done, but other ambush abilities aren't so dependant, Like foiling invisibility, you don't have to hope the DM throws you a bone.

[JoeJ]

Pretty sure its asumed varient rules aren't in effect by default. That's kinda what varient means.



So relying on the DM. Yeah it can be done, but other ambush abilities aren't so dependant, Like foiling invisibility, you don't have to hope the DM throws you a bone.

If you mean that in order to not be boring, the DM has to create a world that isn't boring, um yes but so what? That's true of everything in the game.

[Boci]

If you mean that in order to not be boring, the DM has to create an adventure that isn't boring, um yes but so what? That's true of everything in the game.

But other monsters don't need the DMs involvement so, they work largely out of the box. I've already mentioned this as being a key line to my reasoning.

[JoeJ]

But other monsters don't need the DMs involvement so, they work largely out of the box. I've already mentioned this as being a key line to my reasoning.

Hunh? There are no monsters that don't need DM involvement. Without the DM there's no game at all.

[Boci]

Hunh? There are no monsters that don't need DM involvement. Without the DM there's no game at all.

Don't need the DM involvement so. The so is relevant, I never said there are monsters that don't require the DM. But there are many monsters, most in fact, that don't require extra thinking from the DM and work out of the box. The treant is not one of them.

[JoeJ]

Don't need the DM involvement so. The so is relevant, I never said there are monsters that don't require the DM. But there are many monsters, most in fact, that don't require extra thinking from the DM and work out of the box. The treant is not one of them.

In the scenario we were discussing, the PCs were trying to end the threat of a corrupted treant that was killing travelers, right? That's not a random encounter, it's an adventure. Obviously adventures require a great deal of thought on the part of the DM.

If you want to just drop a treant as a random encounter, false appearance won't even come into play; either the party will meet the treant when they can see what it is, or they'll walk right on by and never know it's there at all.

[Boci]

In the scenario we were discussing, the PCs were trying to end the threat of a corrupted treant that was killing travelers, right?

And how would your "Analyze its patterns" work in that scenario? What patterns?

"There's a corrupted grove. Nobody who goes in returns. Rumors circulate that the forest is alive. Find out the source of this corruption and cleanse the grove if possible"

Doesn't sound like you'll be able to narrow it down beyond "in this forest area here".

[JoeJ]

And how would your "Analyze its patterns" work in that scenario? What patterns?

"There's a corrupted grove. Nobody who goes in returns. Rumors circulate that the forest is alive. Find out the source of this corruption and cleanse the grove if possible"

Doesn't sound like you'll be able to narrow it down beyond "in this forest area here".

If that's all it is, there's no need to. Just warn people to stay out of that one grove and the problem is solved.

But where are these rumors coming from? Track them down. Somebody must know something. There's also whatever divination magic the party has or can convince an NPC to use on their behalf. The way the set up is described, the adventure is primarily an investigation, so there have to be clues for the players to find. After all, if the dangerous area is too big to quarantine, it's also too big to just wander around aimlessly hoping to stumble over the source of the problem.

[Boci]

If that's all it is, there's no need to. Just warn people to stay out of that one grove and the problem is solved.

The quest was to find out why and clear if possible. Your solution falls short of achieving that.

A reminder we are having this exchange because the treant has false appearance. Otherwise it likely wouldn't be an issue. That is all.

[JoeJ]

The quest was to find out why and clear if possible. Your solution falls short of achieving that.

A reminder we are having this exchange because the treant has false appearance. Otherwise it likely wouldn't be an issue. That is all.

"Find out why" = investigate a mystery. The players find clues and piece together the truth. How they do that depends on exactly what clues the DM plants, but there are definitely clues to be found because otherwise you couldn't have an adventure where the PCs investigate a mystery.

So figure out what's going on, make an educated guess (backed up by divination) of where the culprit can be found, and try to ambush it. It might not work, but there's no reason to assume ahead of time that it won't.

[Boci]

"Find out why" = investigate a mystery.

Nop, it can also mean "Go there and defeat the monster".

If the corrupted treant where a corrupted dryad or a unicorn instead this wouldn't be an issue, because they don't have problomatic abilities like false appearance. I don't know why you don't just accept that.

[JoeJ]

Nop, it can also mean "Go there and defeat the monster".

That doesn't solve the problem. A bad treant doesn't cause a forest to become corrupted; there must be something else that's doing it. Deal with that and you may not even have to fight the treant.


If the corrupted treant where a corrupted dryad or a unicorn instead this wouldn't be an issue, because they don't have problomatic abilities like false appearance. I don't know why you don't just accept that.

Because you haven't convinced me that it's problematic.

Seriously, this set up sounds like it could be a fantastic adventure. Maybe it's not just one treant, but half a dozen and the party is around 5th level. They don't have to destroy the treants, but they do have to somehow get past (by stealth, perhaps, or some sort of deception) them in order to deal with the source of the problem.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Boci, you're the one assuming it's a problem. And then trying to use that "fact" as evidence that it's a problem.

Basically, you're elevating a matter of taste (not liking an ability) to an objective fact. And that's just wrong.

In this case, I have absolutely no problem with this ability, nor would I find it problematic if used against me. Entirely like the mimic, roper, or any number of other such creatures. They're ambush monsters, who depend on that fact for their effectiveness. It's designed into their CR and other abilities.

If used as a steady diet, I'd get sick of it. But then I'd get sick of anything used as a steady diet, because I like variety.

There are lots of things the PCs cannot hope to overcome tactically, or against whom "planning and preparation" are useless, at least in the short term. That does not make them cheap unless the DM uses them that way (and is acting adversarially, in which case it's the DM's fault). And getting ambushed is not something to worry about. No more than getting woken up at an inn because a dragon is attacking. Or camping in a bunch of blights (which also have this ability).

[Boci]

Because you haven't convinced me that it's problematic.

The effort going to to making the false appearance ability fair would say otherwise. It wouldn't be neccissary with a unicorn or dryad. With them, this set up would work out of the box.


Seriously, this set up sounds like it could be a fantastic adventure.

I agree. Feel free to quote me saying it wouldn't be.


Boci, you're the one assuming it's a problem. And then trying to use that "fact" as evidence that it's a problem.

Because effort is being put in to give players a chance against it. That means its a problem. Not a huge problem, but other monster abilities don't require this attention.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Because effort is being put in to give players a chance against it. That means its a problem. Not a huge problem, but other monster abilities don't require this attention.

Assumes facts not in evidence. You're being circular.

Being surprised happens. Sometimes you can predict/prevent it, other times you can't. And that's normal. There are a bunch of encounters in the published adventures where you can only avoid being surprised by a total fluke circumstance--by default you're surprised, full stop. The one I'm thinking of right now involves hell hounds.

[Boci]

Being surprised happens. Sometimes you can predict/prevent it, other times you can't. And that's normal. There are a bunch of encounters in the published adventures where you can only avoid being surprised by a total fluke circumstance--by default you're surprised, full stop. The one I'm thinking of right now involves hell hounds.

Which is cheap. Unavoidable suprise is cheap. Surprise isn't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which is cheap. Unavoidable suprise is cheap. Surprise isn't.

...Seriously, your whole argument is ipse dixit. Which is cheap. I don't find it so. It's a matter of taste.

[Imbalance]

cheap, cheap, cheap

Doesn't anyone else know that treant skat is ridiculously easy to identify? Why, their droppings can be smelt for miles, and it practically glows in the dark! Further, it is highly prized by Aarakocra for its...ahem...aphrodisiac properties. Surely, someone in your setting could tip you off on what to look for...

[Boci]

...Seriously, your whole argument is ipse dixit. Which is cheap. I don't find it so. It's a matter of taste.

I don't understand how an ability the players can do nothing about isn't cheap. That's the definition of cheap, and why JoeJ was putting in so much effort to give the players a chance to not be surprised.

[JackPhoenix]

If it's moving around to kill travelers, it leaves tracks.
If it animates trees to attack the characters without revealing itself, you can track where those trees came from and discern the general area the treant is in... Animate Trees has range of 60', and the trees deanimate if they are more than 120' away. You can even use that to try to lure the animated trees far enough away they deanimate and calculate the treant's position from that. If it tries to reposition itself after animating trees, it reveals itself.
You can use Detect Thoughts to find the treant (though it's got only 30' range), or Locate Creature.
If it attacks travelers, you can send the toughest member of the party as a bait to lure it out without endangering the squishies. You can even use illusions for the same effect.
If you want something cheap (It's your favorite word, it seems), get a warlock to try cast Eldritch Blast on random trees. It only works on creatures, so normal trees aren't affected.
Listen to Alfred. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THzgoCzzkds)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't understand how an ability the players can do nothing about isn't cheap. That's the definition of cheap, and why JoeJ was putting in so much effort to give the players a chance to not be surprised.

There are tons of those abilities. They're a major part of the game, throughout. Ambush monsters have a long tradition, and it's only very recently that anyone has deigned to give you a way to avoid some of them. Now if "ambushed == death", that would be a problem. But ambush just isn't worth that much, especially since most monsters (the treant absolutely included) don't have tons of burst. This is not 3e. Winning initiative/surprise does not imply winning the fight.

My group is running PotA currently. I can't count the number of times we've been surprised. I took Alert as my V. Human feat because it fit the character, but it's come up dozens of times. Starting at level 2, IIRC. And most of those we had little or no chance to do anything about (stealth rolls of 20+). It wasn't cheap.

Things aren't cheap just because you say so. In fact, "cheap" is an entirely subjective thing. And so calling something cheap is identical to saying "I don't like it." And that's fine, but not very persuasive.

[Boci]

Ambush monsters have a long tradition

I know. I ankowledged this. Not sure why you're telling me things I already acknowledged.


Things aren't cheap just because you say so. In fact, "cheap" is an entirely subjective thing. And so calling something cheap is identical to saying "I don't like it." And that's fine, but not very persuasive.

So what would be an example of an ability you would consider cheap?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I know. I ankowledged this. Not sure why you're telling me things I already acknowledged.

So what would be an example of an ability you would consider cheap?

Because you're not seeing the consequences. Things that are built into the game since forever aren't cheap. They're the norm.

And as far something that I would consider cheap: Scry and fry from 3e. Or any of the "you must have immunity or you die" abilities of that same edition. No save, just suck or no save, just die spells. Things that matter, where getting hit with them means you're out. Getting ambushed, when ambush just increases the difficulty marginally doesn't matter. Getting nuked unless you jumped through a bunch of hoops is cheap.

I'd be much more annoyed (as a player) by long-term CC abilities than by getting ambushed. Things like the mind blast of a mind flayer. Being hit with banishment. Or, you know, any other of a dozen spells and abilities that, strangely, monsters don't seem to have many of.

[Boci]

Because you're not seeing the consequences. Things that are built into the game since forever aren't cheap. They're the norm.

Cheap and norm are not mutually exclusive, but not that it matters, since false appearance definitly isn't the norm. So not sure what you mean by that.


And as far something that I would consider cheap: Scry and fry from 3e.

Huh. I ask you of an example of something cheap, in a thread about 5e, and you tell me about something from 3.5, a different game. So, you don;t think anything in 5e is cheap?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Cheap and norm are not mutually exclusive, but not that it matters, since false appearance definitly isn't the norm. So not sure what you mean by that.


Ambush predators are flat out a norm. They're totally normal creatures, iconic even. 3e and 4e were the only edition where they were discernable, and then only by a fluke of the totally screwed up skill system. 4e, for example, required a DC 30 check for a level 14 elite monster (the roper). 2e? No perception skill. So you were surprised if the DM decided you were.



Huh. I ask you of an example of something cheap, in a thread about 5e, and you tell me about something from 3.5, a different game. So, you don;t think anything in 5e is cheap?

Mind flayer's mind blast is closer to what I'd consider cheap in 5e. But really, there isn't much in 5e that I consider cheap, at least if it's not used constantly.

[Boci]

Ambush predators are flat out a norm. They're totally normal creatures, iconic even.

Iconic and cheap are not mutually exclusive. But even if they were, treants aren't ambush predators, unlike most of the false appearance monsters.


Mind flayer's mind blast is closer to what I'd consider cheap in 5e. But really, there isn't much in 5e that I consider cheap, at least if it's not used constantly.

Fair enough, I disagree. I feel anything players can't overcome is cheap, which is why others like JoeJ were trying to flesh out the sample scanrio so the players had a chance to not be surprised.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fair enough, I disagree. I feel anything players can't overcome is cheap, which is why others like JoeJ were trying to flesh out the sample scanrio so the players had a chance to not be surprised.

Feel is the operative word. If the players can't overcome it at all, and it matters, then it might be cheap. That's the "assassins attack and knock you out and you are now in prison" type of railroading. But this is simply an ambush. Undetectable ambushes are not cheap at all in my mind, especially if they're from iconic ambush monsters.

As a note, treants (and ropers, and animated armor, etc) are useless if they don't get to start at point blank range. They're too slow and can be kited to death trivially otherwise. And they just don't hit hard enough to pose a threat. They need the surprise, or at least a pretty darn good chance (> 90%) to work as monsters at all.

[Boci]

As a note, treants (and ropers, and animated armor, etc) are useless if they don't get to start at point blank range.

Ropers sure no argument there, but treants? I seem to recall earlier in the thread it was posted they have defensive abilities above their CR 9, and are just weak in offense, and that's before you factor in their ability to double their attacks with animate tree. Why do you feel treants need to get a surprise to not be useless?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ropers sure no argument there, but treants? I seem to recall earlier in the thread it was posted they have defensive abilities above their CR 9, and are just weak in offense, and that's before you factor in their ability to double their attacks with animate tree. Why do you feel treants need to get a surprise to not be useless?

Because they're weak offensively, and they're vulnerable to fire!

I ran one against a "level appropriate" group. Even had other creatures backing it up. It died. On round 2, IIRC. Without doing much.

[Boci]

Because they're weak offensively, and they're vulnerable to fire!

I ran one against a "level appropriate" group. Even had other creatures backing it up. It died. On round 2, IIRC. Without doing much.

Wouldn't that just imply its a badly designed monster then, and probably shouldn't be used?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Wouldn't that just imply its a badly designed monster then, and probably shouldn't be used?

No, just one that needs special circumstances. Like...50% of the monster manual. The real risk for treants is having them in packs.

But really, like all "good" monsters, they're just there as filler and as allies.

[MaxWilson]

Wouldn't that just imply its a badly designed monster then, and probably shouldn't be used?

No, it implies that "level appropriate" in 5E is a curbstomp.

[JoeJ]

The effort going to to making the false appearance ability fair would say otherwise. It wouldn't be neccissary with a unicorn or dryad. With them, this set up would work out of the box.

What effort? The ability is already fair.

BTW, what do you mean by "out of the box?" An adventure featuring a unicorn or a dryad would require every bit as much preparation as one involving a treant. There's nothing about a treant that makes it any more work for a DM than the other two monsters are.

[MaxWilson]

What effort? The ability is already fair.

BTW, what do you mean by "out of the box?" An adventure featuring a unicorn or a dryad would require every bit as much preparation as one involving a treant. There's nothing about a treant that makes it any more work for a DM than the other two monsters are.

In fact a treant is probably less work, because there are enough "civilization vs. forest" and "corrupted forest" tropes for you to set up a fairly easy conflict. A unicorn though... it's tough for me to come up with a scenario where a unicorn would have any interest in ever opposing the PCs. Running away from the PCs, sure. Fighting them? ...off the top of my head, I got nuthin'.

Partly that's because unicorns bore me and treants don't.

[JoeJ]

In fact a treant is probably less work, because there are enough "civilization vs. forest" and "corrupted forest" tropes for you to set up a fairly easy conflict. A unicorn though... it's tough for me to come up with a scenario where a unicorn would have any interest in ever opposing the PCs. Running away from the PCs, sure. Fighting them? ...off the top of my head, I got nuthin'.

Partly that's because unicorns bore me and treants don't.

With all three of those creatures, the really interesting question is how to find one of them that doesn't want to be found. In each case it's likely to require a great deal of player ingenuity.

[MaxWilson]

With all three of those creatures, the really interesting question is how to find one of them that doesn't want to be found. In each case it's likely to require a great deal of player ingenuity.

I don't feel like that's the really interesting question. (Not just because any question that can be trivially solved by a 7th level druid or cleric is not worth building an adventure around.) I'm more interested in what aspect of the larger adventure motivates the players to want to find it in the first place.

Dryad? Boring. Dryad amazon-manque who rides a T-Rex around the forest looking for excitement? Maybe less boring. Ditzy dryad T-Rex-riding amazon-manque who has charmed a local boy, given him a sword and 30 Goodberries and a map to the nearest troll cave and told him to kill some trolls (because secretly she's trying to turn him into her own powerful nemesis so they can have EPIC FIGHTS with each other)... that starts to maybe become interesting, especially if the PCs' adventure hook is just "headstrong young idiot seeks help killing trolls" and they don't find out about his motivations until later***, maybe after the charm wears off. At that point they've got an emotional connection to headstrong young idiot and a beef with the dryad, so finding her and giving her a piece of their minds may become something they'll actually want to do.

I think I would probably also have the dryad send a beast helper to assist headstrong young idiot, maybe a dire wolf or a giant owl.

It's quite possible that the PCs will ask questions up front, find out who gave him the map, and want to go talk to the dryad up front. I wouldn't prevent that--he won't tell them why he's doing this but he won't keep it secret either if they ask, though he won't know her name or that she's a dryad or anything about her except that she's a beautiful girl who gave him this map and told him to go kill trolls. I'm just saying that in my imagination it would be maximally interesting if the PCs happen NOT to ask questions until they've almost gotten themselves killed a few times, and THEN find out that the mysterious quest they were on really was as hairbrained as it seemed. But the actual events in play could turn out completely differently.

[JoeJ]

Not just because any question that can be trivially solved by a 7th level druid or cleric is not worth building an adventure around.

If by this you mean Locate Creature, that spell has a range of less than a quarter of a mile and doesn't work across streams.

[JackPhoenix]

If by this you mean Locate Creature, that spell has a range of less than a quarter of a mile and doesn't work across streams.

That's still much better range than anything the treant (who, remember, is attacking travelers, so it's not "there's an evil treant somewhere in Siberian forests", but "people were attacked *right over there*") can do. The treant *can* attack and run... but it's a huge, heavy tree. It'd gonna leave easy to follow tracks if it does that.

[CorporateSlave]

Sounds to me like this thread has devolved more into an argument about subjective interpretation of the word "cheap" than anything else. Let's have a look at what Merriam-Webster has to say about it shall we?

Cheap
(noun)
1. a shrill squeaky cry made by a bird, typically a young one which is critical about the quality of common manufactured goods.

Wait..what?

Anyway. While "automatic Surprise" may feel cheap to someone, I don't see the False Appearance ability itself as cheap...nor granting automatic Surprise. Just because maxed out, expertised Perception might not be able to spot something, that doesn't mean it is undetectable. First of all, RAW (and maybe I'm missing something) looking at Surprise in combat, the PHB states "The DM determines who might be surprised. If neither side tries to be stealthy, they automatically notice each other. " False Appearance might be a great way to be stealthy even if in plain sight, but that's all it is if you ask me. Even creatures who are completely invisible only count as being Heavily Obscured, not necessarily Hidden.

I would say the only thing "cheap" would be a DM who ruled False Appearance guarantees surprise, 100% of the time no matter what the PC's do, what information they gather up front, what clues they look for, etc. I see nothing in the description that says it automatically grants Surprise. What I do see is the following wording: "False Appearance. While the treant remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from a normal tree." I also can't help but notice this: Passive Perception 13, and WIS 16 (+3). These guys might be hard to see, but Hot Diggity they are pretty easy to sneak up on! If your party is looking for a corrupted, murdering Treant, all you would need to do is stealth around and keep your eyes open because...While the treant remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from a normal tree. But if it doesn't know you're there, it might well not be remaining motionless (particularly if it is a relatively active...read: ambushing and murdering people...treant).

I guess I just don't see False Appearance is a cheap guarantee of Surprise (or any guarantee of Surprise in Combat going by available RAW). At best, False Appearance could be taken as excellent camouflage that would guarantee the Treant isn't spotted if it doesn't want to be...but only if it remains motionless. Treants are not quick creatures (DEX 8, -1). And there is no way to make a physical attack (slam or throw a rock in this case) that I am aware of while remaining motionless. If they move to strike, branches will crackle, leaves will rustle. If they try to make it an ambush, then they make a Stealth check like anyone else, and it gets compared to Passive Perception or Preception checks of the PC's (depending on what they say they are doing). If it wins, Surprise like anything else. If it doesn't, no Surprise. It moved to Attack, and that ended it's False Appearance benefit. Even if it does win and the PC's are Surprised, there's a decent chance due to Initiative rolls, one or more PC's are going to get their Reactions back before the Treant strikes.

BTW, I would follow the same philosophy for any of the ambush predator type creatures with False Appearance such as a Roper. Sure they can look like a rock while motionless, but rocks don't have tentacles, and tentacles aren't always silent. Whipping those things out to Attack is doing something, not remaining motionless. Roper's don't have Blindsense, and they need to keep the eye shut to look like a rock (per the MM description as well). Opening an eye to see a target is not motionless. If you're not remaining motionless, no False Appearance. Stealth roll like anyone else has to make. There's even a hint right in the Roper's description in the MM: "A roper has the appearance of a stalagmite or stalactite, which often allows it to attack with surprise." Not always. Often.

Sure, it's up to the DM how to handle the Stealth check, but that's often the case, based on circumstances. Just throwing your hands in the air and saying "False Appearance guarantees Surprise in combat" is a bit defeatist. If the game designers had wanted False Appearance to guarantee Surprise, they could easily have added that to the ability description. They did not most likely for the same reason they didn't tie spotting it to a specific DC...to leave the if, how and why up to the DM.*

How I personally would handle False Appearance: If the creature doesn't wish to be spotted, it can remain motionless and nobody passing by will be the wiser (barring detection magic). If it wants to attack, or do anything at all that would require any movement, it makes a Stealth check. I know a Treant sucks at Stealth. This does not bother me. They aren't sneaky. They are huge lumbering oafs covered in noisy bits. But they are very, very well camouflaged if they don't move at all.

*now, shall we begin the debate about my omission of the Oxford Comma above?

[Boci]

That's still much better range than anything the treant (who, remember, is attacking travelers, so it's not "there's an evil treant somewhere in Siberian forests", but "people were attacked *right over there*") can do. The treant *can* attack and run... but it's a huge, heavy tree. It'd gonna leave easy to follow tracks if it does that.

Actually the origional plot hook was:

"There's a corrupted grove. Nobody who goes in returns. Rumors circulate that the forest is alive. Find out the source of this corruption and cleanse the grove if possible."

So, no, you're wrong. Now, the poster did say this was a 2 second plot hook, so they might refine it if actually using it in a game, but they don't strictly need yes. Yes, its not the most realistic that there's no survivors, but "no one who goes there has ever returns" is not exactly out of place in fantasy. Maybe its a bit old school, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker for anyone playing D&D, even if its not your preference.

[CorporateSlave]

To not be surprised the players need to rely on the DM being kind and tweak the encounter to give them a chance to notice it.


To me, the purpose of false appearance is to give a surprise round.

I guess these are the bits you may want to rethink in order to make your DM-ing life easier.

To me (and apparently others here):

The purpose of a Stealth check is to gain Surprise on an enemy.
The purpose of False Appearance is to 1) allow a creature to make a Stealth check in plain sight given appropriate surroundings when it moves/attacks/etc, and 2) to allow a creature to remain undetected to the eye if it chooses to remain still and do nothing.


I don't think a DM needs to "be kind" and "tweak the encounter" at all. Any type of movement (i.e. to Attack) immediately negates False Appearance, and requires a successful Stealth check to result in Surprise on the target and/or their allies. The PC's have a chance to notice the movement out of the corner of their eye, or hear an unusual sound, see a shadow shift, however you want to flavor it if their Passive Perception or Perception check beats the Treant's Stealth check.

My evidence?

Ropers are ambush predators. They are good at inflicting Surprise. They have False Appearance and Stealth +5.
Clockers are ambush predators. They are good at inflicting Surprise. They have False Appearance and Stealth +5.
Mimics are ambush predators. They are good at inflicting Surprise. They have False Appearance and Stealth +5.
Treants, as you say, are not ambush predators. They just prefer to remain incognito, they are not good at inflicting Surprise. They have False Appearance, but no Stealth, and DEX -1. They are already designed to be less likely to Surprise a PC with a sudden attack.

So my recommendation to your original issue is: don't change anything, just have the Treant make a Stealth check if it wants to attack and compare to the PC's Passive Perception. (I tend to think of a Perception check as more if they are trying to notice something specific, and Passive Perception as general alertness to their surroundings)

[Boci]

Treants, as you say, are not ambush predators. They just prefer to remain incognito, they are not good at inflicting Surprise.

Earlier on this page PhoenixPhyre said:


As a note, treants are useless if they don't get to start at point blank range. They're too slow and can be kited to death trivially otherwise. And they just don't hit hard enough to pose a threat. They need the surprise, or at least a pretty darn good chance (> 90%) to work as monsters at all.

So there appears to be some disagreement on how treant should be used as monsters. That's not neccissary a problem, some monsters will lend themselves to miltiple uses, but it is worth noting. Ropers for example would likely not produce a disagreement on how to use them.

[CorporateSlave]

So there appears to be some disagreement on how treant should be used as monsters. That's not neccissary a problem, some monsters will lend themselves to miltiple uses, but it is worth noting. Ropers for example would likely not produce a disagreement on how to use them.

Well, people always have opinions about things, look I'm just going by their stat blocks and the wording in the PHB and MM, I don't generally consider random forum posts as official rulings. :smallbiggrin: If the developers wanted Treants to be good at ambushes, they would have given them Stealth as well wouldn't they? I mean, why bother with Stealth the Ropers and whatnot if they are guaranteed to inflict Surprise using their False Appearance anyway? And if it is a guarantee, why say the Roper "often" surprises their prey and not "always?"

Regardless...Treants don't need to inflict the Surprise condition to start combat in melee range, they just need to wait until in melee range to reveal themselves. Surprised or not, a PC within melee range is still within melee range. They also have a ranged option, and every Treant is essentially three Treants, two of which can be up to 60' away in opposite directions, possibly in melee range of the archer or wizard who was taking cover behind that particular tree? Personally I would hesitate to call them useless as monsters without inflicting Surprise just because a particular party once managed to handle them efficiently.

The Surprised condition is not the same thing as having something generally unexpected happen (the common use of the word "surprise"). Having three trees surrounding the party suddenly come to life and attack might be unexpected, but it does't necessarily mean the PC's are caught so off guard that they are completely unable to react quickly (i.e. Surprise condition). Treant's are Chaotic Good...probably a lot of the time they just want to scare off pesky humans or goblins and don't feel the need to murder hobo everyone who sets foot in the woods. They don't need an ambush-kill attack like a Roper who is trying to eat, so in game terms, the Surprised condition is probably not so important to them.

[JackPhoenix]

Actually the origional plot hook was:

"There's a corrupted grove. Nobody who goes in returns. Rumors circulate that the forest is alive. Find out the source of this corruption and cleanse the grove if possible."

So, no, you're wrong. Now, the poster did say this was a 2 second plot hook, so they might refine it if actually using it in a game, but they don't strictly need yes. Yes, its not the most realistic that there's no survivors, but "no one who goes there has ever returns" is not exactly out of place in fantasy. Maybe its a bit old school, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker for anyone playing D&D, even if its not your preference.

I know what the original plot hook was. That's why I wrote what I wrote. I know where the threat is, and I may have some idea what it is.

"They say the forest is alive... that suggests there's something that looks like a part of the forest. Hm, what could that possibly be... how about we try searching for things that look like trees, but can move, like treants? Oh, hey, my creature finding radar is detecting one *right over there in the place nobody returns from*. That must surely be just a coincidence!"

It doesn't have to be a treant, but that's OK. We're talking about persistent problem, not "one peasant disappeared in a wood, go find him". There's plenty of time to tell everyone not to go to the grove (which should be redundant, if it's got such a reputation) and then just kept trying to scout or magically detect various possible culprits. It's not like the treant is going anywhere... and if it does, well, it just negated its own method of avoiding detection.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, people always have opinions about things, look I'm just going by their stat blocks and the wording in the PHB and MM. If the developers wanted them to be good at ambushes, they would have given them Stealth wouldn't they? I mean, why bother with Stealth the Ropers and whatnot if they are guaranteed to inflict Surprise using their False Appearance? And if it is a guarantee, why say the Roper "often" surprises their prey and not "always?"

Regardless...Treants don't need to inflict the Surprise condition to start combat in melee range, they just need to wait until in melee range to reveal themselves. Surprised or not, a PC within melee range is still within melee range. They also have a ranged option, and every Treant is essentially three Treants, two of which can be up to 60' away in opposite directions, possibly in melee range of the archer or wizard who was taking cover behind that particular tree? Personally I would hesitate to call them useless as monsters without inflicting Surprise just because a particular party once managed to handle them efficiently.

The Surprised condition is not the same thing as having something generally unexpected happen. Having three trees surrounding the party suddenly come to life and attack might be unexpected, but it does't necessarily mean the PC's are caught so off guard that they are completely unable to react quickly.

Right. Treants want to start in melee range, which False Appearance lets them do. Or conversely, avoiding combat all together (being mostly peace-loving), also something False Appearance aids them in doing. They don't particularly care about having surprise. Ropers want both.

[CorporateSlave]

A common issue with any set of game rules is that common usage words (surprise) may be used to name specific things (Surprised condition) with specific rules governing them. This is the main reason for the unusually frequent capitalization in my comments, to denote if I am using the common word or the game term.

A tree suddenly coming to life would certainly surprise the heck out of any normal person. The question is; would it actually inflict the Surprised condition on a group of PC's? Maybe. If the Treant isn't even trying to be sneaky, it was just waiting until they got close enough, then no Stealth check is even needed, just roll Initiative as it roars to life. No PC's are Surprised. A corrupt Treant who does want to murder-hobo might make that Stealth check to try and inflict Surprise. It may work, it may not...it's not naturally very good at such things. It may work against some of the PC's and not others.

Perhaps, a summary of my position in response to the OP's original questions:


1. Keep the ability as it, if the treant wants to fight, the party is likely getting surprised.
Yes, do this. However, I disagree with the last bit about the party likely getting Surprised. Maybe the low WIS barbarian who isn't proficient in Perception, but the sharp eyed Ranger and the quick witted Rogue, are not very likely to be Surprised, unless that Treant rolls really well on Stealth when it moves to Attack.


2. Change it to proficiency with wisdom check to hide in the forest (maybe with expertise?)
I don't see this as needed or really appropriate, as I've said if the game designers wanted it good at stealth, they would have given it Stealth. It's already hidden as long as it doesn't move.


3. Keep it as it, but make it magical, so the party could catch on if they happened to detect magic.
I don't see this as needed, there are already magical ways to detect such creatures as others have pointed out.


4. Remove it. Treants aren't ambush monsters, the ability doesn't fit them.
Not this - Treants aren't ambush monsters, which is why they don't also get +5 Stealth on top of their False Appearance like the ambush monsters do.


5. Something else?
You could always leave clues as some (as well as myself) have suggested if you want to make the players suspicious, but there's no real need if all you want is for them to not necessarily be Surprised the first round of combat. If you want them freaked out, then by all means, ominous clues work wonders!


Personally I would likely run with 2 or 3 if I used them as a DM. A potent ability, but not utterly undefeatable. I'm not beyond using False Appearance as written, but it doesn't seem to fit the treant.

What do you think?

I guess the biggest "problem" I imagine is if your DM doesn't see things this way, and chooses to use False Appearance to grant automatic Surprise, which is rather cheap as you have said, and frankly enjoys no support in the RAW of 5e, which in fact provides ample evidence that automatic Surprise via False Appearance is not the case.

Hope this helps, either you or some other DM out there!

[stoutstien]

Always thought that the treant's false appearance was nice because they didn't want to be found not that they're going to ambush foes.
I mean they probably have a relationship/communication to the local druids if they think there's somebody who needs to be taken care of discreetly.

[JoeJ]

That's still much better range than anything the treant (who, remember, is attacking travelers, so it's not "there's an evil treant somewhere in Siberian forests", but "people were attacked *right over there*") can do. The treant *can* attack and run... but it's a huge, heavy tree. It'd gonna leave easy to follow tracks if it does that.

My comment about the spell was in reference to my earlier statement that the most interesting use for treants, dryads, and unicorns was trying to find one that doesn't want to be found, not about the murdertree that's deliberately looking for people to kill.

[Boci]

I guess the biggest "problem" I imagine is if your DM doesn't see things this way, and chooses to use False Appearance to grant automatic Surprise, which is rather cheap as you have said, and frankly enjoys no support in the RAW of 5e, which in fact provides ample evidence that automatic Surprise via False Appearance is not the case.

I agree with that, but multiple posters on this thread seemed to disagree, and got kinda annoyed when I said automatic surprise is cheap.

[Rukelnikov]

I agree with that, but multiple posters on this thread seemed to disagree, and got kinda annoyed when I said automatic surprise is cheap.

I don't think automatic surprise is cheap. I don't see a problem with PCs being completely unable to do something.

[Hail Tempus]

I don't understand how an ability the players can do nothing about isn't cheap. That's the definition of cheap, and why JoeJ was putting in so much effort to give the players a chance to not be surprised.
It’s not a problem because that ability is built into the CR of the monster.

The treant is a low-Dexterity creature that would get murdered by a party due to the action economy imbalance if it didn’t have the chance to use its first turn to animate a couple of tree allies.

Without the ability to set up the battlefield, the Treant isn’t a particularly effective opponent.

[MaxWilson]

I agree with that, but multiple posters on this thread seemed to disagree, and got kinda annoyed when I said automatic surprise is cheap.

Some of the posters you're arguing with (like Unoriginal) have the position that the surprise is not automatic (the party could be wary, with weapons out, for other reasons), and yet automatic surprise is not cheap. PhoenixPhyre seems to think surprise would be automatic but as far as I can tell he's in a distinct minority. If you're going to insist that anything less than 100% agreement with your viewpoint is distressing and a problem, I'm sorry, but this is the Internet. There's always going to be at least one person who rules things differently.

[NaughtyTiger]

I agree with that, but multiple posters on this thread seemed to disagree, and got kinda annoyed when I said automatic surprise is cheap.

Automatic surprise is only cheap when the DM does it.

No PC complains that the ranger can give the whole party +10 stealth nearly guaranteeing surprise for the stealthy members of the party.
or the the level 11 rogue has a minimum (passive) 22 stealth roll guaranteeing surprise for the scout.



No, it implies that "level appropriate" in 5E is a curbstomp.
exactly. good encounter challenge is a very manual process.