Can we talk about Speak with Plants?

[ImproperJustice]

Seems like kind of an hidden gem in the 5e spell list.

10 minutes, no concentration (leaving you free to do other things), multi-application spell.

Our Lore Bard picked this up in a mid-high level game running through the lost Shrine of Tamoachan, the Lost Temple, White Plume Mountain, and various home brew adventures.

So far we have seen it used to:
1. Gather intelligence about local creatures, threats, etc, and avoid or even expose a number of threats.
2. Negotiate past Assassin Vines, aid in climbing a difficult mountain by asking the foliage for help, and alert the party to a Shambling Mound Ambush.
3. Negate a Green Dragon’s lair actions to entangle party members / create difficult terrain.
4. Shut down at least in a 30’ radius an enemy Druid’s use of Wrath of Nature and Wall of Thorns.
5. Provide some general crowd control by creating difficult terrain.
6. Clear several areas of difficult terrain.

It seems to keep popping up as a useful ability to the point that every time the party spots vegetation anywhere they call it out.


Anyone else had any positive experiences with this spell they would like to share?

[HappyDaze]

I still don't see where it retroactively gives the plants sensory abilities to gather information on people that have already passed by. Moreover, "limited sentience" doesn't mean that they can count or have any frame of reference to describe those that passed by or their belongings.

[BurgerBeast]

I still don't see where it retroactively gives the plants sensory abilities to gather information on people that have already passed by. Moreover, "limited sentience" doesn't mean that they can count or have any frame of reference to describe those that passed by or their belongings.

True, but it’s a fantasy game and the DM decides the truth if those factors for his world.

I’m running a campaign with two Druids right now, and every time they “think out loud” about communicating with animals it gets quickly shut down by the either party members who have been conditioned into viewing such actions as a waste of resources...

I get super excited and then disappointed because they inevitably try something else. But in my world I plan to give every animal a personality and a social structure such that it is possible to get involved in the political lives of wolves, for example.

There is plenty of leeway, depending on the type of game you want to run.

[JellyPooga]

I still don't see where it retroactively gives the plants sensory abilities to gather information on people that have already passed by. Moreover, "limited sentience" doesn't mean that they can count or have any frame of reference to describe those that passed by or their belongings.

The spell literally says that you can question the plants about events in the area within the past day, including information about creatures that have passed, etc. It's the first paragraph. If that's not giving them retroactive sensory ability I don't know what is. I question what you think the spell does do when it says "the plant gives you information about creatures that have been in the area within the last 24 hours" if not numbers and some kind of frame of reference to describe them.

[Chronos]

One thing to keep in mind with spells like Speak with Animals, and even more so Speak with Plants, is that even if you can talk to those things, they're going to have a very different worldview than people. A plant might only recognize the existence of two kinds of creatures, for instance, "safe" and "dangerous", and would put bugbears, giants, and chimeras into the former category, and deer, sheep, and rabbits into the latter. An ancient oak tree might describe something as happening "recently" (and not be able to express times any more precisely than that), if it happened only a decade ago. A plant likely doesn't have any concept of any location other than where it is, so it might say that a creature wasn't present, and then was, and then wasn't again, but not be able to understand questions like "Where did it come from", or "which way did it go". On the other hand, it might be acutely aware of the difference between 1.2 inches of rain or 1.3 in the last storm, and could give you a discourse in great detail on the quality of the soil.

[JellyPooga]

One thing to keep in mind with spells like Speak with Animals, and even more so Speak with Plants, is that even if you can talk to those things, they're going to have a very different worldview than people. A plant might only recognize the existence of two kinds of creatures, for instance, "safe" and "dangerous", and would put bugbears, giants, and chimeras into the former category, and deer, sheep, and rabbits into the latter. An ancient oak tree might describe something as happening "recently" (and not be able to express times any more precisely than that), if it happened only a decade ago. A plant likely doesn't have any concept of any location other than where it is, so it might say that a creature wasn't present, and then was, and then wasn't again, but not be able to understand questions like "Where did it come from", or "which way did it go". On the other hand, it might be acutely aware of the difference between 1.2 inches of rain or 1.3 in the last storm, and could give you a discourse in great detail on the quality of the soil.

I love the idea of some daffodil waxing lyrical about how the soil was so much damper yesterday than today and how it's good for the roots, while a frustrated Druid is desperately trying to get it answer the question about how many orcs passed by two hours ago. :smallbiggrin:

[HPisBS]

Think of it like in Eragon (specifically Brisingr). Plants already have a form of sentience, but normally have a more sleepy, "long view" of things. Speak With Plants gets them active, sorta wakes them up so they can interact with you. So, since they have such a long view, the last few days are recent enough for them to recount accurately, even though they were half-asleep.

That's my head-cannon, anyway.

[HappyDaze]

The spell literally says that you can question the plants about events in the area within the past day, including information about creatures that have passed, etc. It's the first paragraph. If that's not giving them retroactive sensory ability I don't know what is. I question what you think the spell does do when it says "the plant gives you information about creatures that have been in the area within the last 24 hours" if not numbers and some kind of frame of reference to describe them.

You gain information--within the capability of the plant to know. Plants don't have eyes and don't have blindsight. They can't relay visual information to you. They can sense light, so they might know if those that passed gave off light. They likewise might know if the enemy was dripping something (e.g., blood) and how heavy they were compared to the something else (PC can stand on the same root those that passed by did and the plant can give a comparison) or giving off fumes (e.g., perfumes, smoke, acid).

Overall, I think the spell is crap for information gathering. The other uses are still OK.

[JellyPooga]

You gain information--within the capability of the plant to know. Plants don't have eyes and don't have blindsight. They can't relay visual information to you. They can sense light, so they might know if those that passed gave off light. They likewise might know if the enemy was dripping something (e.g., blood) and how heavy they were compared to the something else (PC can stand on the same root those that passed by did and the plant can give a comparison) or giving off fumes (e.g., perfumes, smoke, acid).

Overall, I think the spell is crap for information gathering. The other uses are still OK.

If you think the spell is "crap" for one thing and otherwise merely "OK", I suggest you're underplaying what it should be capable of. It's worth bearing in mind that it's a 3rd level spell, roughly equivalent to Clairvoyance or Speak with Dead as far as information gathering goes and far far worse than the likes of Sleet Storm in terms of area control. To me, this indicates that it's primary use should be information and mild utility. If you limit its information gathering to the likes of which you describe above, then the spell is clearly not worth the lvl.3 slot and as a GM, I would personally feel remiss in my duty as such to downplay the effect so much. Whilst it's fine to couch the information relayed in terms like those you describe, the spell effect seems clear that it's intended to give more information than just vague allusions about weight and perfume.

Just my interpretation.

[Pex]

Some DMs have a fear of telling players anything. They don't want to give up the mystery. They always need to surprise or shock players never letting them figure things out until it's too late. When there's a game source, usually a spell, where the whole point of that game source is to help players figure things out, they make the spell not give any useful information at all and find a justification in doing it. That is adversarial DMing.

[elyktsorb]

Seems like kind of an hidden gem in the 5e spell list.

10 minutes, no concentration (leaving you free to do other things), multi-application spell.

Our Lore Bard picked this up in a mid-high level game running through the lost Shrine of Tamoachan, the Lost Temple, White Plume Mountain, and various home brew adventures.

So far we have seen it used to:
1. Gather intelligence about local creatures, threats, etc, and avoid or even expose a number of threats.
2. Negotiate past Assassin Vines, aid in climbing a difficult mountain by asking the foliage for help, and alert the party to a Shambling Mound Ambush.
3. Negate a Green Dragon’s lair actions to entangle party members / create difficult terrain.
4. Shut down at least in a 30’ radius an enemy Druid’s use of Wrath of Nature and Wall of Thorns.
5. Provide some general crowd control by creating difficult terrain.
6. Clear several areas of difficult terrain.

It seems to keep popping up as a useful ability to the point that every time the party spots vegetation anywhere they call it out.



Alright so 4 should outright not be possible. Speak with Plants specifies it can counteract the effects of Entangle, a spell 2 levels lower than it, it should not be able to counteract the effects of Warth of Nature, a spell 2 levels higher than it. Same with Wall of Thorns which is 3 lvls higher than Speak with Plants (I mean if you want to cast Speak with plants at a higher lvl to justify it then go ahead, but if your using Speak with Plants to cancel 2 spells of higher lvls just as flavor then that's definitely not something that would fly with most people.) 3 I'm more lenient towards but it stopping a green dragons legendary action rooting also isn't possible RAW since it's not using the Entangle spell specifically.

5:Entangle does this at range of 90ft (for a square 20ft) where as if your using speak with plants then the plants your effecting have to be within' 30ft of the caster since Speak with Plants has a range of self.

I've honestly never even had 6 come up in a game where regular plant life is abundantly making difficult terrain, which is usually for rocks and stuff.

[Dr. Cliché]

The spell literally says that you can question the plants about events in the area within the past day, including information about creatures that have passed, etc. It's the first paragraph. If that's not giving them retroactive sensory ability I don't know what is. I question what you think the spell does do when it says "the plant gives you information about creatures that have been in the area within the last 24 hours" if not numbers and some kind of frame of reference to describe them.

Well, most plants do not have meaningful senses with regard to detecting nearby creatures, and the spell doesn't indicate that it's intended only to be cast on magical plants that happen to possess eyes.

Hence, in order for a plant to be able to give information on creatures that have passed by in the last 24hrs, the plants have to retroactively gain access to senses that they don't normally have.

However, I think the issue is that the spell does not specify the nature (no pun intended) of what senses the plants retroactively gain.

Let's say that a Druid is questioning a tree, looking for some humans who passed by.

- If two men walked past the tree earlier, the tree will be able to tell the party that. Perhaps not in the most useful way (it might not see a meaningful difference between humans and other creatures), but that's not the point I'm making.

- What if, at the time the men pass by the tree, they're within a bubble of silence. Is the tree still aware of them?

- What if the men were invisible at the time they passed by, would the tree be aware of them?

- What if the men were invisible *and* under the effect of pass without trace, would the tree be aware of them?

Put simply, the spell gives absolutely no guidance about how specifically the plants sense creatures passing by, and biologically speaking the DM has nothing to go on. Are the plants just completely infallible in detecting the presence of nearby creatures? If not, what are the limits of what they're able to detect?

[elyktsorb]

Put simply, the spell gives absolutely no guidance about how specifically the plants sense creatures passing by, and biologically speaking the DM has nothing to go on. Are the plants just completely infallible in detecting the presence of nearby creatures? If not, what are the limits of what they're able to detect?

I think the big thing about this spell in the information gathering is if you take it and you use it either 1 of 2 things happens.

Your DM gives you appropriate knowledge from what you could get if making the most out of this spell.

OR

Your DM decides they don't want you using plants to gather info and therefor give you rather vague or downright useless info. Which is basically their way of saying 'nah' to Speak with Plants, so then your just like 'well why am I keeping this around on the off chance I might counter Entangle with it?'

[JellyPooga]

Well, most plants do not have meaningful senses with regard to detecting nearby creatures, and the spell doesn't indicate that it's intended only to be cast on magical plants that happen to possess eyes.

Hence, in order for a plant to be able to give information on creatures that have passed by in the last 24hrs, the plants have to retroactively gain access to senses that they don't normally have.

However, I think the issue is that the spell does not specify the nature (no pun intended) of what senses the plants retroactively gain.

Let's say that a Druid is questioning a tree, looking for some humans who passed by.

- If two men walked past the tree earlier, the tree will be able to tell the party that. Perhaps not in the most useful way (it might not see a meaningful difference between humans and other creatures), but that's not the point I'm making.

- What if, at the time the men pass by the tree, they're within a bubble of silence. Is the tree still aware of them?

- What if the men were invisible at the time they passed by, would the tree be aware of them?

- What if the men were invisible *and* under the effect of pass without trace, would the tree be aware of them?

Put simply, the spell gives absolutely no guidance about how specifically the plants sense creatures passing by, and biologically speaking the DM has nothing to go on. Are the plants just completely infallible in detecting the presence of nearby creatures? If not, what are the limits of what they're able to detect?

If the question is "How much information to give", then the answer is "As much as you, the GM, think is appropriate for a 3rd lvl spell". Given that there are two other information gathering spells of the same level, then you can use those as a pretty solid touch stone for how much that should be, within the parameters of the spell in question and the scenario at hand. The actual senses of a real plant are relatively irrelevant "because magic", what is important is the impact on the game. If you, the GM, don't want the players finding out about two men that passed by, then you are well within your right to deny that information and you can tell yourself any story you like as to why (Invisibility, plants don't have eyes, etc.) if the players use a spell that might otherwise reveal that information. If you think using Speak with Plants is good enough to reveal that information, then it is and you can tell your players any story you like (the impact of their weight on roots, vibrations in the air, etc.) to impart it.

It comes down to whether you think the resource expenditure (a 3rd level spell slot spent on gathering information), in the circumstances (a specific terrain type) is enough to solve the scenario (reveal the information the players are looking for). Everything else is just semantics.

[OracularPoet]

SCAG Tree Ghost totem barbarians get this as a ritual.

[Damon_Tor]

I still don't see where it retroactively gives the plants sensory abilities to gather information on people that have already passed by. Moreover, "limited sentience" doesn't mean that they can count or have any frame of reference to describe those that passed by or their belongings.

It specifically says you can ask them about things that happened nearby in the past, day, including creatures that passed by. It doesn't specifically say they gain any kind of sensory information, but I think it's pretty clearly implied they do otherwise what could they possibly answer about passing creatures?

[BruceLeeroy]

If the question is "How much information to give", then the answer is "As much as you, the GM, think is appropriate for a 3rd lvl spell". Given that there are two other information gathering spells of the same level, then you can use those as a pretty solid touch stone for how much that should be, within the parameters of the spell in question and the scenario at hand. The actual senses of a real plant are relatively irrelevant "because magic", what is important is the impact on the game. If you, the GM, don't want the players finding out about two men that passed by, then you are well within your right to deny that information and you can tell yourself any story you like as to why (Invisibility, plants don't have eyes, etc.) if the players use a spell that might otherwise reveal that information. If you think using Speak with Plants is good enough to reveal that information, then it is and you can tell your players any story you like (the impact of their weight on roots, vibrations in the air, etc.) to impart it.

It comes down to whether you think the resource expenditure (a 3rd level spell slot spent on gathering information), in the circumstances (a specific terrain type) is enough to solve the scenario (reveal the information the players are looking for). Everything else is just semantics.

This guy hits the nail on the head. Don't spout nonsense about "realistically, plants wouldn't know very much" when discussing a magical spell in a fantasy world. The only real question is "how can i make this enhance the story?"

[HappyDaze]

It specifically says you can ask them about things that happened nearby in the past, day, including creatures that passed by. It doesn't specifically say they gain any kind of sensory information, but I think it's pretty clearly implied they do otherwise what could they possibly answer about passing creatures?

They can pass on whatever information the plants were capable of sensing at the time those creatures passed by--which often isn't much that's useful to most adventurers.

If you do decide to grant them retroactive magical senses and memories of using those senses before they ever had them, then what senses do they get and how much contextual knowledge do they have to process it? Are they as perceptive as a human? Do they have darkvision? What part of the plant is the visual sensor on (i.e., does a tree see from the top of its branches or from near its base)? Same for hearing--where are the "ears" of the tree? Could they understand spoken languages? Could they differentiate between a human and an elf? Could they differentiate between a battleaxe and a shovel? Could they identify armor as anything other than "heavy" or "metal" bark?

[HappyDaze]

This guy hits the nail on the head. Don't spout nonsense about "realistically, plants wouldn't know very much" when discussing a magical spell in a fantasy world. The only real question is "how can i make this enhance the story?"

That's a narrative path, and I think it is nonsense. Not all spells are worth taking. I happen to think speak with plants is another true strike.

[Keltest]

That's a narrative path, and I think it is nonsense. Not all spells are worth taking. I happen to think speak with plants is another true strike.

Unlike with True Strike, that would require the writers to have deliberately created a spell that was actively useless, instead of simply misjudging the value. If plants aren't meant to have any useful information, why create a spell to talk to them in the first place?

[HappyDaze]

Unlike with True Strike, that would require the writers to have deliberately created a spell that was actively useless, instead of simply misjudging the value. If plants aren't meant to have any useful information, why create a spell to talk to them in the first place?

It's not useless. It still compels normal plants to obey your simple commands so a tree can help lift you, grasses/shrubs can help conceal you, etc. This can easily grant Advantage on things like Athletics and Stealth checks at the DM's discretion. Beyond that, you can communicate with Plant creatures as if you shared a language (but you don't retroactively grant them new senses), and you can adjust terrain and counter entangle. It's not useless even though the information gathering part of it is of very limited applicability.

[Keltest]

It's not useless. It still compels normal plants to obey your simple commands so a tree can help lift you, grasses/shrubs can help conceal you, etc. This can easily grant Advantage on things like Athletics and Stealth checks at the DM's discretion. Beyond that, you can communicate with Plant creatures as if you shared a language (but you don't retroactively grant them new senses), and you can adjust terrain and counter entangle. It's not useless even though the information gathering part of it is of very limited applicability.

Nah, see, they cant, because plants don't have that kind of motor control either, except for magical plants. If were going to be overly literal about what the plants can and cant do, we need to apply it equally.

[elyktsorb]

Unlike with True Strike, that would require the writers to have deliberately created a spell that was actively useless, instead of simply misjudging the value. If plants aren't meant to have any useful information, why create a spell to talk to them in the first place?

tbf the vagueness of it is what makes it more or less useless, since unless you know your dm is going to put effort into making the spell worth while, you might as well not use it.

[Keltest]

tbf the vagueness of it is what makes it more or less useless, since unless you know your dm is going to put effort into making the spell worth while, you might as well not use it.

I mean, that's true of any non-blasting spell though. Does a knock spell dislodge a chair holding a door propped shut? Does a legend lore convey any remotely accurate or useful information? Any spell that doesn't spell out the exact mechanical effects 100% is subject to having the DM disallow the point of the spell if theyre willing to twist the obvious intent far enough. Doesn't mean we should be judging the spells based on that potential.

[HappyDaze]

Nah, see, they cant, because plants don't have that kind of motor control either, except for magical plants. If were going to be overly literal about what the plants can and cant do, we need to apply it equally.

The spell description says what range of motions they can accomplish. It does not say they gain senses (nor the details of such) and retroactive use of those senses.

[Keltest]

The spell description says what range of motions they can accomplish. It does not say they gain senses (nor the details of such) and retroactive use of those senses.

I mean, youre insisting here that a spell specifically intended to be used to get information about plants... cant actually be used to get information from plants.

[False God]

I love the idea of some daffodil waxing lyrical about how the soil was so much damper yesterday than today and how it's good for the roots, while a frustrated Druid is desperately trying to get it answer the question about how many orcs passed by two hours ago. :smallbiggrin:

If a DM doesn't want to give out information, this is the way to do it. In a way that gives the world life and color and flavor but just like talking to people on the street, doesn't guarantee anyone you speak to is going to be helpful.

And since the spell isn't plant-specific and affects everything within 30ft, you may have suddenly just gone from a quiet woodland meadow to a bustling metropolis where every plant can now understand you, and wants to chime in about how the flowers have no idea whats really going on and only the trees should be trusted but the grass are the secret agents of the forest and the fungus are the shifty untrustworthy fellows who are always willing to trade information for favors.

[Dr. Cliché]

If the question is "How much information to give", then the answer is "As much as you, the GM, think is appropriate for a 3rd lvl spell". Given that there are two other information gathering spells of the same level, then you can use those as a pretty solid touch stone for how much that should be, within the parameters of the spell in question and the scenario at hand. The actual senses of a real plant are relatively irrelevant "because magic", what is important is the impact on the game. If you, the GM, don't want the players finding out about two men that passed by, then you are well within your right to deny that information and you can tell yourself any story you like as to why (Invisibility, plants don't have eyes, etc.) if the players use a spell that might otherwise reveal that information. If you think using Speak with Plants is good enough to reveal that information, then it is and you can tell your players any story you like (the impact of their weight on roots, vibrations in the air, etc.) to impart it.

It comes down to whether you think the resource expenditure (a 3rd level spell slot spent on gathering information), in the circumstances (a specific terrain type) is enough to solve the scenario (reveal the information the players are looking for). Everything else is just semantics.

I get what you're saying but as a DM I could really do without having to basically house-rule every other spell, ability and class feature just because the designers couldn't be arsed actually explaining their mechanics properly.

[elyktsorb]

If a DM doesn't want to give out information, this is the way to do it. In a way that gives the world life and color and flavor but just like talking to people on the street, doesn't guarantee anyone you speak to is going to be helpful.

And since the spell isn't plant-specific and affects everything within 30ft, you may have suddenly just gone from a quiet woodland meadow to a bustling metropolis where every plant can now understand you, and wants to chime in about how the flowers have no idea whats really going on and only the trees should be trusted but the grass are the secret agents of the forest and the fungus are the shifty untrustworthy fellows who are always willing to trade information for favors.

Yeah, except you don't have to waste a 3rd lvl spell slot on asking random NPC's and if you cast Speak with Animals (as a lvl 1 ritual) and just happen to find a bird or a squirrel in the same area they could probably tell you the same stuff, without having to wonder how the animals would know because at the very least animals can see and hear normally. Why is making 30ft of plantlife difficult or non-difficult terrain (that only effects the 30ft of plant life around the caster when they cast the spell) and telling Entangle to screw off bump what should be a 1st lvl ritual to a 3rd lvl spell? Like 2nd lvl ritual at best.

[FaerieGodfather]

It's not useless. It still compels normal plants to obey your simple commands so a tree can help lift you, grasses/shrubs can help conceal you, etc.

So the spell doesn't give plants any unusual ability to sense their environments, but it can totally give them muscles?

It's amazing how many spells "aren't worth taking" when you've got a DM who ignores the spell's literal description of what it does.

[HappyDaze]

So the spell doesn't give plants any unusual ability to sense their environments, but it can totally give them muscles?

It's amazing how many spells "aren't worth taking" when you've got a DM who ignores the spell's literal description of what it does.

Yes, you're the one ignoring. It says it gives limited animation and "The spell doesn't enable Plants to uproot themselves and move about, but they can freely move branches, tendrils, and stalks." It does not say it gives them sensory capabilities that they do not have. While the spell gives them sentience, it does not give them sight, hearing, or any other such features.

[MoiMagnus]

You gain information--within the capability of the plant to know.

I disagree.
The spell explicitly says that you have access to informations about things that real life plant cannot know.

The natural conclusion to me is more "in D&D, plant always know what happen around them even though they have no senses, it's just that you cannot have access to those infos without this spell", not "plants are like real life plants, and this spell give as an example of application something that doesn't work".

The strict minimum a spell should be able to do is what is given as an explicit example: know the past weather and the creatures that passed recently (in the form of a set of information that is useful to regular human beings). The number of world-changes and rules of logic and causality it has to break to do so is not relevant.

[HappyDaze]

I get what you're saying but as a DM I could really do without having to basically house-rule every other spell, ability and class feature just because the designers couldn't be arsed actually explaining their mechanics properly.

Quite true. If the spell would have said that the plants can relate what has happened within the last 24 hours as if they were a human commoner standing in the same spot then the questions of what a plant can perceive and relate wouldn't be an issue. Or, make it a type of postcognition where the caster experiences what happened from the vantage point of the plant over the last 24 hours using the caster's own senses and knowledge for context. This would make the "speak" in speak with plants more metaphorical than literal (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

[HappyDaze]

The number of world-changes and rules of logic and causality it has to break to do so is not relevant.

Perhaps not to you. I find it quite relevant.

[Dr. Cliché]

Quite true. If the spell would have said that the plants can relate what has happened within the last 24 hours as if they were a human commoner standing in the same spot then the questions of what a plant can perceive and relate wouldn't be an issue. Or, make it a type of postcognition where the caster experiences what happened from the vantage point of the plant over the last 24 hours using the caster's own senses and knowledge for context. This would make the "speak" in speak with plants more metaphorical than literal (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

Yeah, something like that would be vastly more help in working out what information the plant could reasonably provide.

[Chronos]

You do still have to ask, though, even if we grant that the plant retroactively gains senses, just what senses it gains. You can't even say "it has senses like a normal person", because different kinds of "normal people" have different senses. Like, if the people you're interested in walked past at night, could the plant "see" them then? An elf would have been able to see them; a human wouldn't. If the creatures were trying to be stealthy, were they successful? I don't know; what's a tree's Perception modifier? How good is their memory: If fifty people passed by, and none of them seemed remarkable at the time, can the plant remember a specific one you describe? Many humans (and other humanoids) couldn't do that.

[HappyDaze]

You do still have to ask, though, even if we grant that the plant retroactively gains senses, just what senses it gains. You can't even say "it has senses like a normal person", because different kinds of "normal people" have different senses. Like, if the people you're interested in walked past at night, could the plant "see" them then? An elf would have been able to see them; a human wouldn't. If the creatures were trying to be stealthy, were they successful? I don't know; what's a tree's Perception modifier? How good is their memory: If fifty people passed by, and none of them seemed remarkable at the time, can the plant remember a specific one you describe? Many humans (and other humanoids) couldn't do that.

That's why I'd rather it just allowed the caster to spend 10 minutes reliving the last 24 hours from the vantage point of the plant. The caster's senses, Wisdom (Perception) bonus, languages (if overhearing speech), and knowledge to make out just what was observed would be used. And that would eliminate so much of the vagueness. Of course, you'd need to explain that the caster can still process the information coming in at 144x speed.

[JellyPooga]

Yes, you're the one ignoring. It says it gives limited animation and "The spell doesn't enable Plants to uproot themselves and move about, but they can freely move branches, tendrils, and stalks." It does not say it gives them sensory capabilities that they do not have. While the spell gives them sentience, it does not give them sight, hearing, or any other such features.

In a world where the soul of a tree or the inherent beauty of a location can be given physical and independent form, who is to know what "senses" any given plant has? Perhaps a shrub doesn't have eyes, but it's spirit may yet be able to detect humanoids, even identify them accurately in terms that a "mere" humanoid can understand. Perhaps the network of roots a grove of trees possesses as a single living being, can detect information on a level that humanoids simply fail to understand.

A plant doesn't need to be able to detect and process the information in the same way that a humanoid does to be able to give that information to a humanoid once the information transfer process has been broken (i.e. they share a common language and style of sentience). To put it another way, once you're able to convert .pdf to .txt, the manner of inputting the information is irrelevant, only that the information is able to be converted.

Like I said; it's all semantics compared to the actual game purpose. If you want the spell to be useless in your game, then that's your call as GM, but know and accept that it's nothing but your perception/use that makes it so. I would call it a lack of imagination or adversarial GMing if I were playing at your table, but I'm not and you're free to play a more "hard line" style if that's the way you want to play it.

[HappyDaze]

In a world where the soul of a tree or the inherent beauty of a location can be given physical and independent form, who is to know what "senses" any given plant has? Perhaps a shrub doesn't have eyes, but it's spirit may yet be able to detect humanoids, even identify them accurately in terms that a "mere" humanoid can understand. Perhaps the network of roots a grove of trees possesses as a single living being, can detect information on a level that humanoids simply fail to understand.

A plant doesn't need to be able to detect and process the information in the same way that a humanoid does to be able to give that information to a humanoid once the information transfer process has been broken (i.e. they share a common language and style of sentience). To put it another way, once you're able to convert .pdf to .txt, the manner of inputting the information is irrelevant, only that the information is able to be converted.

Like I said; it's all semantics compared to the actual game purpose. If you want the spell to be useless in your game, then that's your call as GM, but know and accept that it's nothing but your perception/use that makes it so. I would call it a lack of imagination or adversarial GMing if I were playing at your table, but I'm not and you're free to play a more "hard line" style if that's the way you want to play it.

I already explained why it's not useless. You seem to have missed it while coming up with...whatever that stuff you typed is supposed to be.

[HPisBS]

I already explained why it's not useless. You seem to have missed it while coming up with...whatever that stuff you typed is supposed to be.

As though you actually don't understand the implications of magic as described there.

An "adversarial" response if ever there was one.

[JackPhoenix]

Yes, you're the one ignoring. It says it gives limited animation and "The spell doesn't enable Plants to uproot themselves and move about, but they can freely move branches, tendrils, and stalks." It does not say it gives them sensory capabilities that they do not have. While the spell gives them sentience, it does not give them sight, hearing, or any other such features.

I don't remember sight or hearing being listed as a feature anywhere. I guess halflings can't see or hear anything either.

[JellyPooga]

That's a narrative path, and I think it is nonsense. Not all spells are worth taking. I happen to think speak with plants is another true strike.


I already explained why it's not useless. You seem to have missed it while coming up with...whatever that stuff you typed is supposed to be.

That you compare it to True Strike is a pretty heavy indication of your opinion of the spell and of your strict adherence to the rules as written and no further. I think it's a limited way to play the game, but that's me and you're entitled to your style as much as I'm entitled to mine.

[HappyDaze]

I don't remember sight or hearing being listed as a feature anywhere. I guess halflings can't see or hear anything either.

{scrubbed} Halflings are humanoids. Humanoids default to human norms unless noted otherwise. In D&D, plants (not Plant-type creatures) default to being objects.

[JNAProductions]

If a DM wants to rule that plants are incapable of giving you information that the spell says the plants can give, I'd want to know that ahead of time, so I can never pick the spell.

[ImproperJustice]

Continuing the OP:

Re the suppression of Wrath of Nature and Wall of Thorns. The Bard at GM discretion engaged in a Charisma check vs. Druid making a caster check using the spell level and caster mod.
The wall of thorns parted for her when she asked, and she mainly suppressed the plant oriented Wrath features such as entangling grass / difficult terrain.

So maybe not a full use in everyone’s game.

However, feature 7 seems very valuable in:

Can be used to reveal adveserial GMs.

I mean wow. I started in the 80s, so I get the history of the mindset. But really?
A player casts a spell or uses a resource to learn about your world. Is it really that awful?
Does your ego really need that “gotcha” moment of ha ha, you talked to a plant and plants are stupid moment and tell you nothing moment?

So glad I grew put of that phase years and years ago. It is much more fun to treat your players like fellow humans whose time is as valuable as your own.

[MaxWilson]

It is much more fun to treat your players like fellow humans whose time is as valuable as your own.

Seconded! All in favor say 'aye'.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Continuing the OP:

Re the suppression of Wrath of Nature and Wall of Thorns. The Bard at GM discretion engaged in a Charisma check vs. Druid making a caster check using the spell level and caster mod.
The wall of thorns parted for her when she asked, and she mainly suppressed the plant oriented Wrath features such as entangling grass / difficult terrain.

So maybe not a full use in everyone’s game.

However, feature 7 seems very valuable in:

Can be used to reveal adveserial GMs.

I mean wow. I started in the 80s, so I get the history of the mindset. But really?
A player casts a spell or uses a resource to learn about your world. Is it really that awful?
Does your ego really need that “gotcha” moment of ha ha, you talked to a plant and plants are stupid moment and tell you nothing moment?

So glad I grew put of that phase years and years ago. It is much more fun to treat your players like fellow humans whose time is as valuable as your own.

I mean, I would not consider myself an adversarial GM, but I'd have plants be basically nonsentient with nothing useful to say, and animals of fairly limited intelligence.

It doesn't take being adversarial as a GM to disallow it. We may just not want the resulting themes of plants and animals being sufficiently intelligent and perceptive and anthropomorphic on their own merit in the game that would be required for the spell to be useful without also animating it with magical sentience.

[Pex]

I mean, I would not consider myself an adversarial GM, but I'd have plants be basically nonsentient with nothing useful to say, and animals of fairly limited intelligence.

It doesn't take being adversarial as a GM to disallow it. We may just not want the resulting themes of plants and animals being sufficiently intelligent and perceptive and anthropomorphic on their own merit in the game that would be required for the spell to be useful without also animating it with magical sentience.

As long as you tell your players in session 0 you're effectively banning the spells.

[sambojin]

There's the 5th level spell, Commune with Nature, that kinda gives you plenty of information instantly in a 3 mile radius. And it's a ritual.

There's a 3rd level spell, Speak with Plants, that does that a little more locally, but for a little longer, from plants only. It's not a ritual.

There's a 1st level spell, Speak with Animals, that also gives you that kind of stuff, but from beasts. It is a ritual.

It's an upgrade from Speak with Animals, but not nearly as instantaneous as Commune with Nature. It's also not a ritual, you will be burning slots on it when it's prepared. So I don't mind it being pseudo-"powerful". It could have been Conjure Animals, or Dispel Magic, or Sleet Storm. But you went for an information spell instead. So it should be useful.


In DnD, there also *Nature*. It's an all around, everywhere thing, almost like the Weave, and is just as magical and reality warping.

I'd say the plants have a bit of sentience and ability to have enhanced senses while this spell is going. It's kinda like Speak with Animals, but with more stuff to do with it. Where's north, south, east, west to a plant? Relay that information compared to times of day and latitude ("when the sun was.... "). How much magical senses does each individual plant have? Probably not a lot, but you're asking all of them within 30' of you. How powerful is Nature at doing stuff like this to natural things when this spell is cast? Ummm, pretty powerful. This is like Nature's schtick. It does things with natural or nature'y/elemental'y spirit things just as much as the Weave can warp reality with "magic".

It shouldn't be your super-duper-now-I-know-everything spell, but it should certainly have a use for a Druid or a Bard or a Ranger. They do this stuff, Nature does this stuff, it's fine if it breaks the "what can a plant *normally* do?" rules. You're asking all the *plants* (plural) within 30' of you. Combined, they know a fair bit. They all have limited sentience and some sensory abilities because of this magic. It's not an individual daffodil you're talking to, it's every plant within 30'. They all got buffed because you've got this spell going, and you are blessed by Nature as a PC, magically so.

It's Magic. Nature magic. It's what Nature Magic does. That's why your PC is not a singular daffodil.

By our powers combined.....

[ImproperJustice]

I mean, I would not consider myself an adversarial GM, but I'd have plants be basically nonsentient with nothing useful to say, and animals of fairly limited intelligence.

It doesn't take being adversarial as a GM to disallow it. We may just not want the resulting themes of plants and animals being sufficiently intelligent and perceptive and anthropomorphic on their own merit in the game that would be required for the spell to be useful without also animating it with magical sentience.

The very first line of the spell section says you imbue plants within a 30’ radius of you with limited sentience and animation.

Giving them the ability to communicate with you and follow simple commands.

You can question the plants about weather, creatures thy have passed, and other circumstances.

Awaken, at 5th level imbues enough sentience and animation into plants that they can become NPCs.
So there is precedence for this type of ability in the world.

But I get it. It’s your game. You don’t like players gaining information about the world you created through resources available to them. Your not alone.
It is a very common mindset from many GMs, especially of the Gygaxian pedigree unfortunately.

And I am glossing over into generalities. This may not be your foible personally.
I think I just see it a lot, and have run with many players, like our Lore Bard who enjoy being able to uncover mysteries for the benefit of the party, and expend abilities and resources to do so, only tonbe styimed by GMs who feel the need to control the flow of information with an iron fist.

When in truth, those players are just seeking a deeper lore experience and want to know more about the world that’s being built. Heck, they can often add their own insights and see connections the GM doesn’t and build on that world even more.

.....

And I will no climb back down from my soapbox and go to bed :)

[LordCdrMilitant]

But I get it. It’s your game. You don’t like players gaining information about the world you created through resources available to them. Your not alone.
It is a very common mindset from many GMs, especially of the Gygaxian pedigree unfortunately.

And I am glossing over into generalities. This may not be your foible personally.
I think I just see it a lot, and have run with many players, like our Lore Bard who enjoy being able to uncover mysteries for the benefit of the party, and expend abilities and resources to do so, only tonbe styimed by GMs who feel the need to control the flow of information with an iron fist.

When in truth, those players are just seeking a deeper lore experience and want to know more about the world that’s being built. Heck, they can often add their own insights and see connections the GM doesn’t and build on that world even more.

And I will no climb back down from my soapbox and go to bed :)

I am not a adversarial GM, nor am I denying my players the ability to learn about the deeper lore of the world, by deciding that plants and animals are nonsentient when unawakened. I am not controlling information with an iron fist, and if your lore bard was playing in my games, hopefully he'd find it fun. This spell isn't a spell that exists to uncover the deep lore of the world or uncover mysteries. It's a spell that exists to do something stupid [talk to otherwise nonsentient objects] to solve immediate problems like tracking.

No part of my worlds' lores, any of them, and no part of the themes of this campaign, might indicate that plants or nonhumanoid animals have a remote chance of having been sentient at human levels. Animals think about their instincts and needs, and plants don't think at all.

[Kane0]

On the other hand, it might be acutely aware of the difference between 1.2 inches of rain or 1.3 in the last storm, and could give you a discourse in great detail on the quality of the soil.

I am now imagining this discussion with my table. Thank you.

[HPisBS]

Seriously, now. We're talking about a fantasy world in which Nature - literally just Nature - is the source of magic that lets you step into one tree, and out of any other tree you've seen, no matter how far away it is. (Transport Via Plants)

So why try to use our real, non-magical world's logic about plants (i.e. Nature) to say that a spell can't actually do what the spell's description describes it as doing -- interact with plants to "gain information about creatures that have passed, weather, and other circumstances"?

The (Nature) spell says that's what it does, so that's what it does. It doesn't matter what mental hoops it takes to justify it; it is what it is. If you want to imagine that greenery is sensitive to all light, rather than just direct sunlight (including light that's reflected off of passing humans), then fine. If you want to imagine that they absorb the vibrations in the air and/or ground well enough to "hear" what's in their vicinity, then fine. If you'd rather just handwave it as "because, magic," then fine.

But the spell description gives you two specific, concrete examples of what you can learn from it, so at a bare minimum, that's what you can learn from it by RAW - regardless of what head-cannon you use to make it make sense to you.

[HappyDaze]

In DnD, there also *Nature*. It's an all around, everywhere thing, almost like the Weave, and is just as magical and reality warping.


I can't get on board with the idea that "Nature" is about things "magical and reality warping" as that's almost the opposite of what it is supposed to be. There is a reason Druids have access to both Arcana and Nature, and it's because the first one covers the "magical and reality warping" part of their profile.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Seriously, now. We're talking about a fantasy world in which Nature - literally just Nature - is the source of magic that lets you step into one tree, and out of any other tree you've seen, no matter how far away it is. (Transport Via Plants)

So why try to use our real, non-magical world's logic about plants (i.e. Nature) to say that a spell can't actually do what the spell's description describes it as doing -- interact with plants to "gain information about creatures that have passed, weather, and other circumstances"?

The (Nature) spell says that's what it does, so that's what it does. It doesn't matter what mental hoops it takes to justify it; it is what it is. If you want to imagine that greenery is sensitive to all light, rather than just direct sunlight (including light that's reflected off of passing humans), then fine. If you want to imagine that they absorb the vibrations in the air and/or ground well enough to "hear" what's in their vicinity, then fine. If you'd rather just handwave it as "because, magic," then fine.

But the spell description gives you two specific, concrete examples of what you can learn from it, so at a bare minimum, that's what you can learn from it by RAW - regardless of what head-cannon you use to make it make sense to you.

I've never had a player take it, but given that druids know their whole spell list, I'm entirely unfazed if I decide it doesn't work for anything more than the minimum it says it's capable of.



I can't get on board with the idea that "Nature" is about things "magical and reality warping" as that's almost the opposite of what it is supposed to be. There is a reason Druids have access to both Arcana and Nature, and it's because the first one covers the "magical and reality warping" part of their profile.

This. As least how I act on it, magical is inherently the opposite of natural and the natural order of things.

[HappyDaze]

Awaken, at 5th level imbues enough sentience and animation into plants that they can become NPCs.
So there is precedence for this type of ability in the world.


Except that awaken doesn't give the plant sentience in the past, only going forward. If speak with plants lasted 24 hours and let you talk to the plants about what happened around them during the duration (hopefully with much better guidance on what they can sense), then I'd have no problem with it. As it is, it's an ugly, kludgy mess of a spell.

[HappyDaze]

As long as you tell your players in session 0 you're effectively banning the spells.

If I've made a decision by session 0, then sure. Some things are not discovered until the game is underway. Unlike speak with plants, I don't have the ability to go back to before I take action and change the past.

[Pex]

If I've made a decision by session 0, then sure. Some things are not discovered until the game is underway. Unlike speak with plants, I don't have the ability to go back to before I take action and change the past.

Players expect the spells to work the way they say they do. If you're nerfing the spell to uselessness but it's such a minor trivia you didn't think of mentioning it in session 0, then when a player casts the spell and discovers suddenly you won't let it work the way it's supposed to work, I trust you'll let the player take back his spell slot and prepare another spell in its place.

[Chronos]

Sure, Nature as a whole can perceive and understand things. And the (higher-level) spell for talking to Nature as a whole makes explicit just what it can and can't tell you. That's fine, the rule is clear. Notably, not included in the list of what it can tell you is non-supernatural creatures who have passed through the area.

But with Speak with Plants, everyone agrees that it gives you information, and everyone agrees that there are limits to that information, but it's not clear at all what those limits are. That's the problem, not that some people have a restrictive view of those limits.

Quoth Kane0:

I am now imagining this discussion with my table. Thank you.
Well, to have the discussion with your table, you'd need to cast both Speak with Plants and Speak with Dead. Assuming it's a wooden table. I don't know what spell you'd use for a metal or plastic table.

[Altheus]

Strange, before reading this thread I would have said that plants don't know much, and if they did it would be in the context of plants and descriptions wouldn't get much beyond "Heavy things passed this way yesterday morning."

After reading this thread and seeing the other perspective, what the caster is really doing is talking to the nature spirit in the local area and asking it for help. Which is why the spell can give useful information and move plants that shouldn't be able to move.

[Guy Lombard-O]

After reading this thread, I'm now imagining an area of forest turning into one big complaint group:


Groundcover 1 whines "I was stepped on five times, they were hard and heavy and crushed my roots." Groundcover 2 chips in "Five?! I was trampled down eight times!" Groundcover 3 says "Nine! I got it nine times, and the last one dug it's hard tips in enough to kick me loose from the soil!"

Tree 1 groans "My branches, ooohh look what they did to my branches! They just kept coming, knocking my leaves off and tearing off my buds."

Bush 1 says "Tore your buds? What about MY leaves! Now THAT is tearing! No natural thing tears up leaves like this! These must have been hard all over from the way my leaves kept getting caught on them and being ripped in two...the monsters!" Bush 2: "Ohhhh. Oh, the horror...."

Even without granting the plants retroactive extra senses, it seems like the mass of them ought to be able to fill in some useful information such that it fits the spell description. Or maybe it creates a limited, short-term form of pyschometry, where the spell's magic divines out the past information (admittedly, using Transformation magic), so what plants would normally "know" is irrelevant? Since the spell says the plants can give you (presumably useful) information, then it seems like it ought to do so. I mean, I know it's just a name, and that's not definitive (looking at you, Friends and Find Traps), but the spell is called "Speak with" Plants.

Without the information gathering portion of the spell being reasonably functional, it basically just becomes "Animate Plants", doesn't it?

[ImproperJustice]

Except that awaken doesn't give the plant sentience in the past, only going forward. If speak with plants lasted 24 hours and let you talk to the plants about what happened around them during the duration (hopefully with much better guidance on what they can sense), then I'd have no problem with it. As it is, it's an ugly, kludgy mess of a spell.

Except there is nothing in Awaken’s description to provide the limitation your describing.

Similarly, you are adding a limitation to speak without plants when the description states they provide information from the past 24 hours about creatures, weather, and other circumstances.

It’s not an ugly kludgy mess.
It’s old adveseial GMing mentality that feels the compulsion to restrict player access to information (which they have legitimate access to through the expenditure of in game resources), that keeps it from working as intended.

I mean, honest moment from the GMs who think this spell should be useless?
Do you believe the design intent of the spell was to be used purely for humor / or uselessness to teach players that plants are dumb and useless sources of information?

I am just trying to imagine the interaction between GM and player when a PC burns a third level slot to gain some intel from the local plant life, and the GM with a straight face says:

1. The grass tells you it rained a little this morning. It rained some more yesterday than today. It can’t see or smell so that’s all it can tell you.

Or:

2. The plants in the area had no sentience before you cast this spell, so they can‘t tell you anything other than what you can perceive forward from this moment. Huh. That’s kinda worthless.
Oh well. Cest La Vie, am I right?
At least you know going forward that you should just use Fireball from now on with that slot.

[HappyDaze]

Except there is nothing in Awaken’s description to provide the limitation your describing.

Similarly, you are adding a limitation to speak without plants when the description states they provide information from the past 24 hours about creatures, weather, and other circumstances.

It’s not an ugly kludgy mess.
It’s old adveseial GMing mentality that feels the compulsion to restrict player access to information (which they have legitimate access to through the expenditure of in game resources), that keeps it from working as intended.

I mean, honest moment from the GMs who think this spell should be useless?
Do you believe the design intent of the spell was to be used purely for humor / or uselessness to teach players that plants are dumb and useless sources of information?

I am just trying to imagine the interaction between GM and player when a PC burns a third level slot to gain some intel from the local plant life, and the GM with a straight face says:

1. The grass tells you it rained a little this morning. It rained some more yesterday than today. It can’t see or smell so that’s all it can tell you.

Or:

2. The plants in the area had no sentience before you cast this spell, so they can‘t tell you anything other than what you can perceive forward from this moment. Huh. That’s kinda worthless.
Oh well. Cest La Vie, am I right?
At least you know going forward that you should just use Fireball from now on with that slot.
Are you suggesting that casting awaken retroactively grants the subject sentience from before thre spell was cast? Because I'm saying it doesn't and you seem to disagree.

[ImproperJustice]

Are you suggesting that casting awaken retroactively grants the subject sentience from before thre spell was cast? Because I'm saying it doesn't and you seem to disagree.

Specifically regarding Awaken:
I am suggesting that a creature imbued with sentience / intelligence can recall information from its life prior to the spell and use it’s newfound senses and capabilities to relay that data.

Example: A an awakened Dog could quickly figure out his master’s name, and determine that the bad smelling men are Zombies with a little PC interaction.

Seems like something similar could be achieved with plants.

I mean. None of us have ever been a plant, so how certain can we be that once they are given intelligence and speech that they cannot perceive what they experience?
In D&D terms they frequently have blindsight. Could a plant be sensitive to the footfalls, touch sensations of creatures passing through underbrush, sounds or rhythms of one creature type over another? And then extrapolate that data with a little player insight?

It’s not that hard of a stretch if the GM is willing.

[Nifft]

Hmm. Lots of funny things to take from this thread.

I haven't needed to come up with the constraints for this spell -- people I play with seem to have ignored it, perhaps burned by using the spell in an earlier edition / under a different DM.


How can the spell be useful and balanced, and provide information which can be useful (or not), and the relative usefulness can be predicted by the players / controlled by the DM?

Here's what I might go with:


Speak With Plants gives plants nearby the ability to speak by borrowing intelligence & knowledge from nearby Fey. The sorts of things the plants know are things that the local Fey would tend to care about. In an environment influenced by a Legendary creature, the plants may speak about things the local Legendary creature cares about instead. In an environment tainted by a Legendary aberration, the plants may speak as if insane.

Thoughts?

[Damon_Tor]

Are you suggesting that casting awaken retroactively grants the subject sentience from before thre spell was cast? Because I'm saying it doesn't and you seem to disagree.

I think it's more likely that the spell implies that plants have always been generally aware of their surroundings, at least as much as any animal. It seems in keeping with druidic lore that every rock and tree and creature has a life, has a spirit, has a name.

Mostly I like this spell for the pun.
"Glarvox, how are we going to find out the emperor's secret plan?"
"Don't worry, I have a plant in the council."
"You have a spy?"
"No a literal plant, a ficus. I put it in the corner of the council chamber three days ago. Its name is Cecil."

[FaerieGodfather]

I haven't needed to come up with the constraints for this spell -- people I play with seem to have ignored it, perhaps burned by using the spell in an earlier edition / under a different DM.

I had a problem with it, once, when my very first AD&D character became a high enough level Monk to speak with plants at will and I had to retire the character because he could no longer walk on grass without every single blade screaming at him.

But my first GM was a special kind of special, and since I hadn't heard of anyone else having this problem in thirty years... I just assumed this was a problem that didn't happen to anyone else because the rules for the spell, in every version of D&D I've played, are perfectly clear about what it does.

[Chaosmancer]

This. As least how I act on it, magical is inherently the opposite of natural and the natural order of things.

This bothers me, despite my desire to just allow people to play their own games.

Where does leave Dryads (Spirit of a Tree) and Naiads (Spirit of a River)? These beings are literally supposed to be "this natural feature of the world given sentience and form" and you want to declare them unnatural? To my mind, that is declaring nature as opposing... nature.

And where does this even leave druids? Their entire deal is that they create a connection to nature and act to preserve the natural order of things... through magic which you are declaring against the natural order of things. It immediately makes any druid who wants to "preserve and heal the land through magic" a hypocrite.

"The power of nature" is a trope with long roots in fantasy, and declaring that power as unnatural just doesn't make sense to me.


Except that awaken doesn't give the plant sentience in the past, only going forward. If speak with plants lasted 24 hours and let you talk to the plants about what happened around them during the duration (hopefully with much better guidance on what they can sense), then I'd have no problem with it. As it is, it's an ugly, kludgy mess of a spell.

To be clear, it is only a mess because you are insisting it must be.


Are you suggesting that casting awaken retroactively grants the subject sentience from before thre spell was cast? Because I'm saying it doesn't and you seem to disagree.

As a side note, in real life there have been studies done on the effects of music on plants. Studies with solid, repeatable results.

Now sure, those results have concluded that it isn't the type of music, but rather the vibrations caused which have led to accelerated plant growth, but the point is they don't need ears, and yet they are still effected by sound. And if they are effected by it and given memory, then they can react to that memory. They also react to light, even infrared light (usually referred to has thermal radiation) so they, again IRL, have a limited Thermal Sensitivity.

So, I don't buy this idea that we can say plants don't see or hear, they can after a fashion, and I don't see any reason to limit this spell to being useless. Sure, maybe the tree can't tell you that the banners were purple and green, but it could easily tell you a large group of humanoids passed from east to west.

And, as to the Awakening, again, I'd say yes, they would gain some retroactive sentience. For example, if a tree survives a fire, that is literally marked on their body. I would see no reason not to allow it to remember the fire. And in fact, I would think since the spell adds to the plant an entire language, it has to find some roots (heh) of understanding to orient that language into being proper communication.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Sure, Nature as a whole can perceive and understand things. And the (higher-level) spell for talking to Nature as a whole makes explicit just what it can and can't tell you. That's fine, the rule is clear. Notably, not included in the list of what it can tell you is non-supernatural creatures who have passed through the area.

But with Speak with Plants, everyone agrees that it gives you information, and everyone agrees that there are limits to that information, but it's not clear at all what those limits are. That's the problem, not that some people have a restrictive view of those limits.

Well, to have the discussion with your table, you'd need to cast both Speak with Plants and Speak with Dead. Assuming it's a wooden table. I don't know what spell you'd use for a metal or plastic table.

Maybe I should write in a "speak with machines" spell as a counterpart. Then they could ask the metal table, or the factory floor machine, what they think.
[It too, would not be much of a conversationalist. "get bolt. tighten bolt. get bolt. tighten bolt. get bolt. tighten bolt." "Uh... have you seen anyone who doesn't belong here come here recently?" "get bolt. tighten bolt. get bolt. tighten bolt."]

[DrKerosene]

I can’t help but remember that japanese cactus that could apparently do math and count up to 10. I’m pretty sure it was mentioned in the book “The Secret Life Of Plants” which clearly has some ideas that would work well in a DnD setting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants

To that end, I’m the kind of DM who would reference The Wild Thornberries, Land Before Time, Jungle Book, etc for Speaking With Animals, and I would probably treat Speak With Plants as providing similarly anthropomorphized changes.

Also, “Spirit Of The Land” was literally a creature template from previous editions. I feel like speaking with a mini-version is pretty reasonable for a 3rd level spell.

[Democratus]

There is a view of the magic inherent within nature which is not incompatible with D&D.

Tolkien's Mirkwood forest is a good example. The trees remember the axes of men. They hate human intruders and the brambles of the forest actively impede their movement. In this kind of world it makes perfect sense to be able to ask a plant, "who passed by recently, my friend?". They clearly can recognize creatures, letting goblins and wood elves pass while stopping humans.

Nature is so incredibly magical that there is an entire class that derives power from it! In past editions there were even cleric domains dedicated exclusively to plants.

This is the world I want to play my game in. Not some strange mash-up of "magical...but only sometimes" where if the DM thinks a spell shouldn't operate the way it's described and will surprise me with a "nope...that isn't how it works in the real world". :smallannoyed:

[LordCdrMilitant]

There is a view of the magic inherent within nature which is not incompatible with D&D.

Tolkien's Mirkwood forest is a good example. The trees remember the axes of men. They hate human intruders and the brambles of the forest actively impede their movement. In this kind of world it makes perfect sense to be able to ask a plant, "who passed by recently, my friend?". They clearly can recognize creatures, letting goblins and wood elves pass while stopping humans.

Nature is so incredibly magical that there is an entire class that derives power from it! In past editions there were even cleric domains dedicated exclusively to plants.

This is the world I want to play my game in. Not some strange mash-up of "magical...but only sometimes" where if the DM thinks a spell shouldn't operate the way it's described and will surprise me with a "nope...that isn't how it works in the real world". :smallannoyed:

Yes, but in many of my worlds [and a lot of other worlds that I play in, so it's not just me], Magic is presented as fundamentally derived from sentient creature's will and is the opposite of being natural.

This is a pretty valid reason entirely unrelated to adversarial GM that might indicate that this spell wouldn't provide anything beyond it's minimum functionality.

[Keltest]

Yes, but in many of my worlds [and a lot of other worlds that I play in, so it's not just me], Magic is presented as fundamentally derived from sentient creature's will and is the opposite of being natural.

This is a pretty valid reason entirely unrelated to adversarial GM that might indicate that this spell wouldn't provide anything beyond it's minimum functionality.

How do you explain druids and rangers casting spells then? Do your settings have no gods of nature, or wilderness, or hunting or whatever?

Certainly there is a distinction to be made between nature magic and "arcane" wizardly magic, but saying "magic is unnatural, period, end of story" seems to be incompatible with the fluff behind the spellcasters who get the spell (except the bard, I guess).

[Democratus]

Yes, but in many of my worlds [and a lot of other worlds that I play in, so it's not just me], Magic is presented as fundamentally derived from sentient creature's will and is the opposite of being natural.

This is a pretty valid reason entirely unrelated to adversarial GM that might indicate that this spell wouldn't provide anything beyond it's minimum functionality.

It's 'minimum functionality' would be to do what the spell says, rather than going all adversarial GM and ignoring what the spell says.

I've been playing and running D&D for decades with hundreds, if not thousands, of players. I've never run into a "plants can't see in the real world so you don't get to have what the spell says". Not once.

The spell is magic. It defies the physics and reason of the normal world. It just does the thing. Whether magic be from an inherent world energy or sentient will - it still breaks reality because it is magic.

[Magicspook]

If a DM doesn't want to give out information, this is the way to do it. In a way that gives the world life and color and flavor but just like talking to people on the street, doesn't guarantee anyone you speak to is going to be helpful.

And since the spell isn't plant-specific and affects everything within 30ft, you may have suddenly just gone from a quiet woodland meadow to a bustling metropolis where every plant can now understand you, and wants to chime in about how the flowers have no idea whats really going on and only the trees should be trusted but the grass are the secret agents of the forest and the fungus are the shifty untrustworthy fellows who are always willing to trade information for favors.

Thisbis so awesome. This is going straight into my feywild. Thank ee!

[Kane0]

Well, to have the discussion with your table, you'd need to cast both Speak with Plants and Speak with Dead. Assuming it's a wooden table. I don't know what spell you'd use for a metal or plastic table.

Heh, I meant the group i play with but that works too.

[Chronos]

I'm perfectly willing to grant that the plants can, somehow, sense and remember things before you cast the spell. But again, how can you tell what they can sense? Do they have darkvision, what's their perception modifier, do they sleep at night? How able are they to distinguish between different creatures, and how well do they remember details? The rules provide no guidance on this.

Someone upthread suggested using the caster's senses and mental abilities. This sounds like a perfectly good houserule to me, and it would have been a reasonable thing for the rules to have said. But they didn't say that.

[Kane0]

Groundcover 1 whines "I was stepped on five times, they were hard and heavy and crushed my roots." Groundcover 2 chips in "Five?! I was trampled down eight times!" Groundcover 3 says "Nine! I got it nine times, and the last one dug it's hard tips in enough to kick me loose from the soil!"

Tree 1 groans "My branches, ooohh look what they did to my branches! They just kept coming, knocking my leaves off and tearing off my buds."

Bush 1 says "Tore your buds? What about MY leaves! Now THAT is tearing! No natural thing tears up leaves like this! These must have been hard all over from the way my leaves kept getting caught on them and being ripped in two...the monsters!" Bush 2: "Ohhhh. Oh, the horror...."


Sounds like a classic case of P-Tree-S-D

[Lord Vukodlak]

I'm perfectly willing to grant that the plants can, somehow, sense and remember things before you cast the spell. But again, how can you tell what they can sense? Do they have darkvision, what's their perception modifier, do they sleep at night? How able are they to distinguish between different creatures, and how well do they remember details? The rules provide no guidance on this.

The rules tell you what information the plants can provide. HOW the plants know that information is irrelevant.

[HappyDaze]

The rules tell you what information the plants can provide. HOW the plants know that information is irrelevant.

Not really. A blind man and a deaf woman can both describe a scene but are likely to leave out some important details. What details get left out when a plant describes the scene? How observant is the plant, and with what senses?

[Keltest]

Not really. A blind man and a deaf woman can both describe a scene but are likely to leave out some important details. What details get left out when a plant describes the scene? How observant is the plant, and with what senses?

They can perceive the weather and that creatures have been able to pass, as well as "other circumstances." If nothing else, they have the ability to perceive weather and activity in their area with enough detail that they can then describe it back to you. They can tell the difference between rain and having a bucket of water dumped on them. Its up to the GM if they know or care about the distinction between "a medium two footed creature with heavy footfalls stomping through the forest" and "an orc passed this way", but they know the orc was there and could distinguish it from an elf, even if they aren't necessarily able to put the names to the creatures.

[LordCdrMilitant]

How do you explain druids and rangers casting spells then? Do your settings have no gods of nature, or wilderness, or hunting or whatever?

Certainly there is a distinction to be made between nature magic and "arcane" wizardly magic, but saying "magic is unnatural, period, end of story" seems to be incompatible with the fluff behind the spellcasters who get the spell (except the bard, I guess).

Rangers are magic because they've learned magic to help them hunt.

Druids are basically clerical shepherds of the natural world to use their magic to help protect and guide it, because it can't protect and guide itself and would ramble on it's evolutionary way on its own. Or, more likely, the players' druids are discount werewolf sort of things and the NPC druids are advisors, naturalists, conservationists, and the like who know magic to do their job.

Like, most games I've been in or run have magic be varying levels of unnatural. I play in a game where divine magic literally caused an apocalypse that shattered the land and twisted all the natural world exposed to it into hideous facsimiles of trees and creatures made out of hamburger, and I usually treat it in my games as a glory of man through human ingenuity and force of will that helps to fuel the fires of progress and is inherent in the advancement of peoples into the industrial age.

[HappyDaze]

They can perceive the weather and that creatures have been able to pass, as well as "other circumstances." If nothing else, they have the ability to perceive weather and activity in their area with enough detail that they can then describe it back to you. They can tell the difference between rain and having a bucket of water dumped on them. Its up to the GM if they know or care about the distinction between "a medium two footed creature with heavy footfalls stomping through the forest" and "an orc passed this way", but they know the orc was there and could distinguish it from an elf, even if they aren't necessarily able to put the names to the creatures.

A blind and deaf man laying on the ground can describe the weather (e.g., rain, wind, heat of a nearby lighting strike) and any creatures that pass over (step on) him by weight and tread. He might not be able to give all the details you want though because he lacks certain senses. Your fern-buddy might be much the same, but we don't know because the spell never says what senses fern-buddy has.

Also, if that man was a dead body (an object) for the last 24 hours and you return him to life now, how much can he tell you about the last 24 hours?

[Keltest]

A blind and deaf man laying on the ground can describe the weather (e.g., rain, wind, heat of a nearby lighting strike) and any creatures that pass over (step on) him by weight and tread. He might not be able to give all the details you want though because he lacks certain senses. Your fern-buddy might be much the same, but we don't know because the spell never says what senses fern-buddy has.

Also, if that man was a dead body (an object) for the last 24 hours and you return him to life now, how much can he tell you about the last 24 hours?

Everything that happened around him, because that's what the spell does.

Also, a blind and deaf man is never going to be able to give you accurate details about the weather except extremely superficial things. "It was raining" or "it was cold and not raining." They cant even tell the difference between a regular shower and a thunderstorm unless they happen to be struck directly.

[Asisreo1]

We have alot of types of people here, but botanists are not one of them.

Plants can absolutely perceive their surroundings. They have chemicals and sensitivity that can relay information. Sound waves are just vibrations in the air, they can just remember how those sound waves worked and used the spell to interpret.

If we say "the spell can't have the plant perceive info," then we need to admit that the spell also doesn't allow plants to extend or retract their limbs and they can only writhe and wiggle. Because moving isn't stretching, retracting, enlarging, or whatever. The spell says they can freely move, but then again, the spell says they can literally inform the player of creatures that passed but we really want to interpret it as hard-*ss that we can to make it bad.

[Deathtongue]

The idea that plants can't see despite having enough cognition to understand language amuses me. Have you looked at the diagram of an eye, especially that of compound insects? Most plants, especially ones with leaves, physically have most of the infrastructure of an eye (wax for lens of different photosensitivity, of course chlorophyll for photoreceptors, depression in chambers for limited directional sensitivity, now multiply that by a millions), what they're missing is a central nervous system to coordinate that information into what vertebrates recognize as sight. But Speak With Plants already gives plants memory and language as recognizable by human cognition, so there's no reason to think the spell doesn't also grant plants the ability to 'see'.

They don't have animal kingdom eyes, therefore they can't see, is the logic. It's just human chauvinism, something you should strive to rid yourself of if you want a D&D game with more complex xeno ethics than 'hyuk, let's go kill goblins and take their stuff'.

[Ghost Nappa]

I can tell you exactly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_IVFfrDJOo) how the Plants can talk or sense things.

I don't see what's wrong with having an actual magical spell give a plant the ability to recall and act in ways that real life plants have not been observed doing with human beings. Magic doesn't have to comply with reality; it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Maybe real and/or fantasy Plants have always had the ability to talk, remember, and think, but just not in a way that we - human beings in the real life world - have ever been able to decode or decipher. then this spell's purpose is to say, "hey, that's really boring. Let's just make some temporary fake treants!" I can think of four different examples of very obviously intelligent talking plants in fiction, and none of them were obviously handicapped because they were plants - The Great Deku Tree, Groot, Flowey, and Treebeard. They were treated as characters that happened to be plants.


If you want there to be a limit on the power, it should be in the vocabulary. The Plant has roughly the intelligence and vocabulary of a child: it can distinguish between the cool gardener lady who waters it everyday, and the mean military orc war leader who just cut down the big tree protecting it. It can distinguish between those two easily but it might struggle to accurately describe details. Maybe a knight in shining, golden armor walked past an hour ago. Does the flower know the word for Golden? No. But if you can show it something of the same color, it can confirm it say a person-shaped thing that was that color. You are essentially temporarily gaining the ability to speak a new language for the duration: and that language is going to be biased towards what a plant needs to know.


The spellcaster that gave it the ability to talk is super cool and interesting, most people can't talk to it. It wants to be helpful. How often does it get to talk to a person like this?

[ImproperJustice]

I guess the big meta here, is that just like any other spell that imparts information to the players from the GM, it’s going to reflect that GM’s style.

Chances are GMs who limit this spell likely limit:

Speak with Dead
Commune
Zone of Truth
Soul Cage
Legend Lore
Commune with Nature

And similar.

Whereas GMs who do not, are likely more forgiving with the above listed spells.


I think I know which game I would prefer to play in.
And likely most others would as well.

I very much lean towards the latter, and thankfully our GM does as well. He seems to be more in the Tolkein camp, that trees, water, nature etc are a living force with memory from which Natural magic extends to Rangers and Druids, and similarly to Bards who seem to be able to access some universal well spring of “life magic”, which he also interprets as the source of magic for Paladins (at least Ancients ones).

Spells like Awaken, Speak with Plants, and Commune with Nature mainly remove the language barrier between man and the natural world.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I guess the big meta here, is that just like any other spell that imparts information to the players from the GM, it’s going to reflect that GM’s style.

Chances are GMs who limit this spell likely limit:

Speak with Dead
Commune
Zone of Truth
Soul Cage
Legend Lore
Commune with Nature

And similar.

Whereas GMs who do not, are likely more forgiving with the above listed spells.


Nope. I wouldn't limit those. Speak with dead calls back the soul of the deceased. Plants do not have souls, unless they're awakened in which case they've been given an artificial soul.

This question, for me, isn't about information. It's about whether nature has power. purely mundane, in the power of a seismic devastation of an earthquake or the inferno of a wildfire or the slow erosion of wind and water and ice.] And I want to keep my worlds this way, because it's thematically coherent with the stories I want to tell which are not about people from quaint hamlets bemoaning the urbanization of society [or loss of the wonder of the past], but are about the wonders of [and human cost] of industry and the future. Nature having magic power and plants being inherently sentient would undermine this major point.

This spell would temporarily awaken the plants to extract information from them, but it wouldn't give insights into their secret lives or something because they're inherently essentially inert and brainless.


Lord of the Rings is essentially about the death of the wonders of the past. That's the whole deal with the end of the Third Age and the elves and all things magical leaving the world to the mundane humans. This spell is wholly coherent with that kind of world, where nature is magic and the human desire for progress is killing it.
The world I usually run is the opposite. The future is awesome and magical and filled with flying magical ships and gatling guns [and at it's darker sides, factories and company stores], and so does the power of the arcane grow and people create it and it's harnessed [magic of course being representative of technology and science]
And the world my GM runs is different from that. Magic is an abomination, unnatural in every way and if you concentrate too much of it, bad things happen and trees turn into glass and creatures turn into shambling piles of hamburgers. Inherent magic in plants probably wouldn't really be a coherent part of this world's story either. [I have not tried to use speak with plants. We laugh at it though.]

[HPisBS]

Sounds like Druids must not exist and Rangers must all be Spell-less, then. Since them getting magic from Nature - that's capital N, Nature - is so antithetical to the underlying structure of such worlds.

[JackPhoenix]

Where does leave Dryads (Spirit of a Tree) and Naiads (Spirit of a River)? These beings are literally supposed to be "this natural feature of the world given sentience and form" and you want to declare them unnatural? To my mind, that is declaring nature as opposing... nature.

Dryads are lesser fey spirits bound to a tree as a punishment. Naiads are... not a thing in 5e, so hard to say what would their fluff be. There are nereids and siren to represent watery tarts, but both are from adventures and have next to no background.


And I want to keep my worlds this way, because it's thematically coherent with the stories I want to tell which are not about people from quaint hamlets bemoaning the urbanization of society [or loss of the wonder of the past], but are about the wonders of [and human cost] of industry and the future. Nature having magic power and plants being inherently sentient would undermine this major point.

You're, of course, free to run your world however you want to. But D&D as written does not use your world. In D&D, nature *does* have magic power.

[LordCdrMilitant]

You're, of course, free to run your world however you want to. But D&D as written does not use your world. In D&D, nature *does* have magic power.

D&D covers a lot of worlds.

Not just mine, not just tolkeinesque, not just my GM's. In canonical settings, there's Dark Sun where magic is definitely unnatural and the cause of nature's collapse. There's Eberron in line with magic is technology, so we're not in poor company making these worlds where it might not be thematically consistent with the tone of our game to have sentient plants and extensive natural magic.

It's not just Greyhawk and FR.

[JackPhoenix]

D&D covers a lot of worlds.

Not just mine, not just tolkeinesque, not just my GM's. In canonical settings, there's Dark Sun where magic is definitely unnatural and the cause of nature's collapse. There's Eberron in line with magic is technology, so we're not in poor company making these worlds where it might not be thematically consistent with the tone of our game to have sentient plants and extensive natural magic.

It's not just Greyhawk and FR.

You're missing the word "arcane" when you talk about magic. Dark Sun has preservers alongside defilers, and priestly elemental magic is fine... and arguably psionic is a form of magic as well..., Eberron has plenty of natural and divine magic, not just the science of arcane.

Not to mention there's no Dark Sun content for 5e, and PHB and MM present a default, (poorly) separated from any specific setting, and clearly shows nature magic is a thing.

[chainer1216]

That's a narrative path, and I think it is nonsense. Not all spells are worth taking. I happen to think speak with plants is another true strike.

It's only like that because you are forcing it to fit that mold by actively ignoring the actual text of the spell.

[BurgerBeast]

I’m just not sure why you would hold a plant to the standard of requiring anatomy, but not... say... skeletons. Or animated armor. Or an air elemental.

[Yora]

Because those are supernatural creatures. Plants are natural.

[Altheus]

D&D covers a lot of worlds.

Not just mine, not just tolkeinesque, not just my GM's. In canonical settings, there's Dark Sun where magic is definitely unnatural and the cause of nature's collapse. There's Eberron in line with magic is technology, so we're not in poor company making these worlds where it might not be thematically consistent with the tone of our game to have sentient plants and extensive natural magic.

It's not just Greyhawk and FR.

Dark Sun magic is perfectly natural, magicians pull the life energy out of biomass to cast spells, too many doing it too often buggered the environment.

[JellyPooga]

Because those are supernatural creatures. Plants are natural.

Are not plants given a semblance of sentience and animation supernatural too? A skeleton or suit of armour is no more supernatural than plants until given their animating magic. How are they any different?

[HappyDaze]

Are not plants given a semblance of sentience and animation supernatural too? A skeleton or suit of armour is no more supernatural than plants until given their animating magic. How are they any different?

If I animate a skeleton right now, do I expect it to retroactively have awareness of the last 24 hours?

On a separate point, it's because I do not ascribe to the idea that "plants in D&D are always aware, they just can't usually communicate what they know."

On a third point, even if you get past the first two based on preferences, there needs to be guidance on what senses the plants have and how perceptive they are to determine what they detected and can relate through the spell.

[Deathtongue]

If I animate a skeleton right now, do I expect it to retroactively have awareness of the last 24 hours?What's your point? That Speak with Plants gives an animated (such as it were) plant with more information than Animate Dead gives an INT 6 skeleton? Well, RAW and RAI, yes? So why are you nerfing Speak with Plants to not do what the spell says?

[Dr. Cliché]

I’m just not sure why you would hold a plant to the standard of requiring anatomy, but not... say... skeletons. Or animated armor. Or an air elemental.

Let's say one of my players wants to taks to an animated skeleton in D&D about what it saw in the past 24 hours (maybe they're a Necromancer and they left it on guard or something). Well, I know that it has Darkvision 60ft so it won't be blind to the presence of creatures even in complete darkness. It also doesn't need to sleep, so I don't need to worry about whether it was taking a break during any of that time. However, it has relatively poor perception, so a creature with invisibility or good stealth may well have been able to sneak by without the skeleton knowing (I'd likely roll against its Passive perception as appropriate).

Basically, in spite of being completely unnatural, I still know a lot about the senses of skeletons and so I have a good idea as to what said skeleton will or won't have noticed during its time on guard.

With Speak with Plants, though, there is zero information as to the senses possessed by the plants in question. Do they have Darkvision? What's the range? Do they have Blindsight? What's the range? Can they detect sight, hearing and smell, or just some of those? What's their perception check? Do they count as sleeping or resting at any point?

Clearly we're not abiding by what plants can detect in the real world (which is fine), but we're never given information on what senses ordinary plants possess in this world. :smallconfused:

[JellyPooga]

If I animate a skeleton right now, do I expect it to retroactively have awareness of the last 24 hours?

If Animate Dead told you that it did then, uh, yes?


On a separate point, it's because I do not ascribe to the idea that "plants in D&D are always aware, they just can't usually communicate what they know."

I don't necessarily ascribe to that either. Unless some magic gets all up in the scenario.


On a third point, even if you get past the first two based on preferences, there needs to be guidance on what senses the plants have and how perceptive they are to determine what they detected and can relate through the spell.

Yes, the spell could be more specific about what senses the plants have, but it doesn't mean the spell should be ignored or downplayed for leaving it open to GM interpretation. Quite a lot of 5ed is left open to GM interpretation and that's not a bad thing. The problem with specifying it would be scenarios where the GM wants the plants to be able to impart more information than the spell allows, or feels that the specific plants should be able to do more. Perhaps there's some "Fung-eye" that has literal eyeballs or "Psychid Bloom" that has a psychic aura on the Astral Plane, either of which a Druid wants to speak to, but the spell says that plants senses are limited to 10ft non-visual Blindsight only...the GM would have to houserule greater senses and greater utility to the spell to represent his fungus of unusual visual acuity and psychicly sensitive flowers. The spell doesn't specify what plants can do with regard to range of motion or motor control either; can a vine tell how hard it's squeezing the halfing to lift it onto the window ledge? How much weight can it lift? How fast does it move? There's plenty that isn't defined about the spell, but you only have a problem with senses and the information gathering part of the spell. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Deathtongue]

Clearly we're not abiding by what plants can detect in the real world (which is fine), but we're never given information on what senses ordinary plants possess in this world. :smallconfused:Speaking from both a perspective of real-world physics and narrative causality, does it matter? Speak with Plants gives plants language and memory despite having no organs to process such things before or after the spell.

Going back to that skeleton example: how does a skeleton see at all? It doesn't have eyeballs or a brain to process visual information. You can handwave the darkvision as being magic, but 5E D&D monsters also default to having 'normal' (such as it were) sight unless otherwise noted, like Grey Oozes. Some people have been trying to close that loophole by going 'Speak with Plants lets the plant see now, but not 12 hours ago from when you cast the spell', forgetting that the plant literally did not have memory 12 hours ago either.

[Chronos]

Quoth Keltest:

Everything that happened around him, because that's what the spell does.
So, can I ask a plant whether anyone walked past carrying a ruby in their pocket, and a scroll of Fireball in a scroll case in their backpack? That's something that happened around the plant, after all.

[Deathtongue]

So, can I ask a plant whether anyone walked past carrying a ruby in their pocket, and a scroll of Fireball in a scroll case in their backpack? That's something that happened around the plant, after all.Good question. I don't think an affirmative answer to this question would be out-of-bounds for, say, a Lithoid extraterrestrial or a magical fairy, but a once-mundane plant? I'm inclined to say 'no', unless it happened to be a special circumstance such as the scroll of Fireball being made of a special plant only found in this grove.

That said, I think sight as defined in D&D game terms is pretty reasonable. 5E D&D gives visible-light spectrum vision as a default unless otherwise noted sense. As a DM, someone asking a fern whether the poacher passing through was wearing a hat with a huge peacock feather in it should get a straight answer. Someone asking the fern if the poacher had a blink dog corpse (which they killed outside the grove) in its sack should probably get a 'I don't know' answer.

[elyktsorb]

Hm... I wonder.

What if you take a plant with you? Like, if you just take a potted plant with you into a conversation and then after use Speak with Plants on it, can it tell you anything you don't already know from the conversation?

[Democratus]

Dryads bond with the soul of Oak trees. Some are made as a punishment. Other's naturally occur. But oak tees have souls - with or without dryads.

For all the information you would ever want about Dryads, check out "What they don't tell you about Dryads" on youtube.

However...at this point we simply have someone who dug in their heels to be an adversarial DM for the sake of doing it. And going through whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to justify it.

Everyone is entitled to their play style, though. So long as the table is happy nothing else really matters. :smallcool:

[Ekzanimus]

You're, of course, free to run your world however you want to. But D&D as written does not use your world. In D&D, nature *does* have magic power.
And how can we decide that something is unnatural? Magic is a legitimate part of the multiverse. ALL magic. We are aware that some of the worlds at least are created by higher powers - not just planets but whole cosmologies. Gods. Laws. Fundamental principles that are not so fundamental. Somebody from these worlds can have different opinions on what is natural and what is not but in the eyes of it's creator - we can name Ao for example - EVERYTHING is natural. Undead is not more or less natural than sheep. Plants are not more or less natural than dragons. There are gods for all of this things - not as rulers but as managers for parts of natural world created by this higher being. And we can only name something "unnatural" I think when it is alien for all of the considered cosmology - Far Realm is coming to mind. Even Ao himself couldn't undo it's influence during Spellplague.

[AHF]

I think I’m going to take this approach to all spells and abilities. If it doesn’t make sense in real life then it doesn’t happen in my game. Going to ban my Paladin from rising a Pegasi because there is going to be wayyyy too much weight for a pair of wings to support flight. Banning an extra attack from GWM when you reduce an opponent to 0 hp because why would it make a difference how many times you can swing a sword whether the opponent is knocked down to 0 or 1 hp? Dwarves will now suffer penalties to speed when wearing heavy armor they lack the strength because let’s get real and acknowledge that someone who is weak would be unable to avoid these penalties in real life.

Oh, and of course I’m not permitting plants to freely move branches etc because that is not physically possible with real plants.

My players are going to love this new “ignore what the books say based on my DM’s interpretation of real life” way of modifying the game. Will report back how the first session goes.

[JackPhoenix]

Dryads bond with the soul of Oak trees. Some are made as a punishment. Other's naturally occur. But oak tees have souls - with or without dryads.

For all the information you would ever want about Dryads, check out "What they don't tell you about Dryads" on youtube.

Check it out, then ignore everything after about 3 minutes in. After that, it talks about stuff from previous editions or just pulled out of the author's behind with no basis in 5e lore.

[Chaosmancer]

I'm perfectly willing to grant that the plants can, somehow, sense and remember things before you cast the spell. But again, how can you tell what they can sense? Do they have darkvision, what's their perception modifier, do they sleep at night? How able are they to distinguish between different creatures, and how well do they remember details? The rules provide no guidance on this.

Someone upthread suggested using the caster's senses and mental abilities. This sounds like a perfectly good houserule to me, and it would have been a reasonable thing for the rules to have said. But they didn't say that.

Yes, they have blindsense out to at least 30 ft as much as 60 ft (found by looking up plant monsters in the monster manual), and it should be remembered that the roots are part of the plant, so not 60 ft from the trunk of the tree, 60 ft from the farthest root

Perception modifier doesn't matter, the individuals didn't have any cover from them

They get drowsy at night but never sleep, advantage of a photosynthetic diet. The only time they sleep is in the winter (and that is if they don't die)

They remember at least anything from within the last 24 hours, according to the spell, and provide as much detail as you decide they do. I mean, it isn't like commoners have a "recognizes three key details about a group" in theri statblock. Same with being able to tell creatures apart. That is always left up to the DM, likely they could tell bipedal, furry or not, and if they were carrying shiny metal.

tada



Rangers are magic because they've learned magic to help them hunt.

Druids are basically clerical shepherds of the natural world to use their magic to help protect and guide it, because it can't protect and guide itself and would ramble on it's evolutionary way on its own. Or, more likely, the players' druids are discount werewolf sort of things and the NPC druids are advisors, naturalists, conservationists, and the like who know magic to do their job.

Like, most games I've been in or run have magic be varying levels of unnatural. I play in a game where divine magic literally caused an apocalypse that shattered the land and twisted all the natural world exposed to it into hideous facsimiles of trees and creatures made out of hamburger, and I usually treat it in my games as a glory of man through human ingenuity and force of will that helps to fuel the fires of progress and is inherent in the advancement of peoples into the industrial age.


Well, that would get a hard pass from me. I don't want to play a druid whose goal is to prevent nature from running its course. I very much prefer to have primal magic be the magic of the world, and the magic of man be different.

[BurgerBeast]

Because those are supernatural creatures. Plants are natural.

And what about a plant having speak with plants cast upon it? Is that natural?

Because the difference between a skeleton - the bony remains of a person - and a skeleton - the monster - is the magic. That’s it.

How does the skeleton judge depth? How does it know to move around a pillar? How does it react to visual stimuli without eyes, a nervous system, and brain?

If you can hand wave all of that with “magic” or “supernatural,” then what is different about a magically altered plant?

[DrKerosene]

Nope. I wouldn't limit those. Speak with dead calls back the soul of the deceased. Plants do not have souls, unless they're awakened in which case they've been given an artificial soul.

...but...
Until the spell ends, you can ask the corpse up to five questions. The corpse knows only what it knew in life, including the Languages it knew. Answers are usually brief, cryptic, or repetitive, and the corpse is under no Compulsion to offer a truthful answer if you are Hostile to it or it recognizes you as an enemy. This spell doesn't return the creature's soul to its body, only its animating spirit. Thus, the corpse can't learn new information, doesn't comprehend anything that has happened since it died, and can't speculate about future events

So no, Speak With Dead does not call back the soul.


Also, if you pay any attention to previous editions for ideas or guidance, then it should be canon that some animals do have souls.


The Great Wheel cosmology is described in the D&D 3rd edition version of the Manual of the Planes. On p. 141, it asserts that some animals may go to the Wilderness of the Beastlands:

It is a domain of natural savagery and plenty. It is the forest eternal. It is where the most loyal animal companions go when they die.

Page 199 of this book asserts that while it's entirely up to the DM, by default any creature with Intelligence and Wisdom scores of 1 may become a petitioner, a soul inhabiting the Outer Planes. Animals are very specifically stated to qualify for petitioner status. This is partly because D&D 3e generally asserted that animals were True Neutral in alignment, rather than Unaligned.

I’d have no problems allowing plants to have “true neutral” and/or unaligned souls, if it was somehow relevant to a game.

[Tawmis]

The spell literally says that you can question the plants about events in the area within the past day, including information about creatures that have passed, etc. It's the first paragraph. If that's not giving them retroactive sensory ability I don't know what is. I question what you think the spell does do when it says "the plant gives you information about creatures that have been in the area within the last 24 hours" if not numbers and some kind of frame of reference to describe them.

^ This.

Correct, plants can't see.
Nor does a man, who has been blind all of his life. But he can probably tell you the difference between touching a dog's face and a person's face.
So while, I wouldn't - as a DM - say, "The plants tell you six goblins passed through here four hours ago."
I would, as a DM, say, "Four humanoids - smaller than you" (assuming the person casting is human in this example) "passed through here awhile ago" or "passed through here before warm fall." (Which is the sunset).

So the plants can - but determination of the weight being placed on the grass currently would know the goblins weighed less than the being standing on the grass currently.

This provides the players that kind of information.

And to me, knowing "their surroundings" - I've always enjoyed the idea that the roots of the grass, trees, they're all connecting - touching - passing information for things like this spell.

[Deathtongue]

Correct, plants can't see.Why do you say that? I claim it's because plants, pre-Speak With Plants, don't have a brain to process visual information. But physically, plants have much of what they need to process light -- as we can see from any experiment that shows plants growing and twisting in the direction of a light source. But Speak With Plants already gives the plant neurology (such as it were) for memory and processing language. They may not be able to see what vertebrates see, but that's more of a failing of our vision than theirs. We don't claim that honeybees and spiders can't see.

[Dr. Cliché]

Why do you say that? I claim it's because plants, pre-Speak With Plants, don't have a brain to process visual information. But physically, plants have much of what they need to process light -- as we can see from any experiment that shows plants growing and twisting in the direction of a light source.

Plants can detect and respond to light, yes, but that's not the same as having actual sight.

I think perhaps you're a little confused here. Plants have what they need to detect light but they don't have what they'd need to actually process it.

Moreover, plants don't have any equivalent to the lens, iris or such that would allow them to meaningfully focus the light. Nor do they have sufficient numbers of photoreceptor cells, let alone ones sufficiently clustered or arranged to form even a primitive eye. Hence, even if you could somehow give plants a brain and neural network through which to process the information, they still wouldn't be able to make out any sort of image from the input.



They may not be able to see what vertebrates see, but that's more of a failing of our vision than theirs.

What. :smallconfused:



We don't claim that honeybees and spiders can't see.

Well yes. That's because those creatures have actual eyes. Moreover, it's actually possible to test at least some aspects of their vision. e.g. you can take a piece of paper with a series of black and white lines (of known width) down it, fold it into a cylinder, and place it around an insect. There is a natural tendency to want to keep one's surroundings still in one's sight. Hence, if you slowly rotate the cylinder, the insect will turn to follow the motion. By using different cylinders with thinner and thinner lines, you can get a very good idea as to the acuity of an insect's vision. When the lines become smaller than its eyes are capable of detecting, it will instead see them just as a mass of grey and so will no longer follow the movement of the cylinder.



Not really related to the spell, I know. Just thought you might find it interesting. :smallwink:

[KorvinStarmast]

Some DMs have a fear of telling players anything. They don't want to give up the mystery. They always need to surprise or shock players never letting them figure things out until it's too late. When there's a game source, usually a spell, where the whole point of that game source is to help players figure things out, they make the spell not give any useful information at all and find a justification in doing it. That is adversarial DMing. You got it in one. (JellyPooga also makes some good points). If the PC is going to burn a third level spell slot, there ought to be a return. Also, there's some rich opportunity for role play, and for doing some "out of the box" stuff with this spell.

This guy hits the nail on the head. Don't spout nonsense about "realistically, plants wouldn't know very much" when discussing a magical spell in a fantasy world. The only real question is "how can i make this enhance the story?" Yeah, let's stretch the box even if we have a hard time thinking outside of it.

That's a narrative path, and I think it is nonsense. Not all spells are worth taking. I happen to think speak with plants is another true strike. It's a fine spell that is a magical interaction with nature, like a lot of Druid spells are.
I mean, youre insisting here that a spell specifically intended to be used to get information about plants... cant actually be used to get information from plants.

And since the spell isn't plant-specific and affects everything within 30ft, you may have suddenly just gone from a quiet woodland meadow to a bustling metropolis where every plant can now understand you, and wants to chime in about how the flowers have no idea whats really going on and only the trees should be trusted but the grass are the secret agents of the forest and the fungus are the shifty untrustworthy fellows who are always willing to trade information for favors. Part of the role play fun I mentioned above.

So the spell doesn't give plants any unusual ability to sense their environments, but it can totally give them muscles? It's amazing how many spells "aren't worth taking" when you've got a DM who ignores the spell's literal description of what it does. At least it reduces the difficulty of spell choice once one is aware of that. Parlaysis by analysis for spell selection is a thing I've seen at our tables among some players. Heck, I've made a few posts here on the playground trying to figure out spells for my Warlock to use.

The spell explicitly says that you have access to informations about things that real life plant cannot know.

The natural conclusion to me is more "in D&D, plant always know what happen around them even though they have no senses, it's just that you cannot have access to those infos without this spell", not "plants are like real life plants, and this spell give as an example of application something that doesn't work". But only real life ents can talk to people - wait, where was I going with this? :smallbiggrin:

In a world where the soul of a tree or the inherent beauty of a location can be given physical and independent form, who is to know what "senses" any given plant has? Perhaps a shrub doesn't have eyes, but it's spirit may yet be able to detect humanoids, even identify them accurately in terms that a "mere" humanoid can understand. Perhaps the network of roots a grove of trees possesses as a single living being, can detect information on a level that humanoids simply fail to understand. Lyrical - I like the way you put that.

But I really like this thread's title. I see what you did there. :smallsmile:

[DrKerosene]

Not really related to the spell, I know. Just thought you might find it interesting. :smallwink:

Well, I suppose that would be an interesting room to find in Kwalish’s Lost Lab, something testing the vision of a monstrously giant fly.

I like the idea of a mad scientist trying to extract information from plants via “water drop torture” and casting speak with plants.

[Deathtongue]

Moreover, plants don't have any equivalent to the lens, iris or such that would allow them to meaningfully focus the light. Nor do they have sufficient numbers of photoreceptor cells, let alone ones sufficiently clustered or arranged to form even a primitive eye. Hence, even if you could somehow give plants a brain and neural network through which to process the information, they still wouldn't be able to make out any sort of image from the input.?? Plants have photoreceptor cells. Now, you only have one or two patches of photoreceptors, obviously you want them to be sensitive to light direction as possible (hence why the lens and iris evolved later) but so long as you have a way to detect differences in light orientation you can 'see'. Morphologically speaking, the easiest way would just be to create chambers containing patches of photocells and some way to compare and process the differences in light reception among the patches. This is of course evolutionarily problematic in terms of maintenance and it'd be easier to just focus on ways of improving sensitivity of the photoreceptor regions (lenses, irises, dark patches, even superposition eyes to create more refraction) but since we're already giving plants the much more complex ability to have language it's kind of moot.

[Chaosmancer]

Plants can detect and respond to light, yes, but that's not the same as having actual sight.

I think perhaps you're a little confused here. Plants have what they need to detect light but they don't have what they'd need to actually process it.

Moreover, plants don't have any equivalent to the lens, iris or such that would allow them to meaningfully focus the light. Nor do they have sufficient numbers of photoreceptor cells, let alone ones sufficiently clustered or arranged to form even a primitive eye. Hence, even if you could somehow give plants a brain and neural network through which to process the information, they still wouldn't be able to make out any sort of image from the input.




What. :smallconfused:




Well yes. That's because those creatures have actual eyes. Moreover, it's actually possible to test at least some aspects of their vision. e.g. you can take a piece of paper with a series of black and white lines (of known width) down it, fold it into a cylinder, and place it around an insect. There is a natural tendency to want to keep one's surroundings still in one's sight. Hence, if you slowly rotate the cylinder, the insect will turn to follow the motion. By using different cylinders with thinner and thinner lines, you can get a very good idea as to the acuity of an insect's vision. When the lines become smaller than its eyes are capable of detecting, it will instead see them just as a mass of grey and so will no longer follow the movement of the cylinder.



Not really related to the spell, I know. Just thought you might find it interesting. :smallwink:


per the Rules, Plants have blindsight, likely between 30 and 60 ft. So, no eyes required to them to detect and identify creatures

[HappyDaze]

per the Rules, Plants have blindsight, likely between 30 and 60 ft. So, no eyes required to them to detect and identify creatures

Can you cite where the rules state that plants have blindsight?

[Chaosmancer]

Can you cite where the rules state that plants have blindsight?

Violet Fungus (a naturally occurring plant monster) has blindsight 30ft
Shambling Mound (magically animated plants) has blindsight 60 ft
Assassin Vine (a naturally occurring plant monster) has blindsight 30ft
Corpse Flower (seems to be a naturally occurring plant monster) has blindsight 120 ft
Gas Spore (a naturally occurring plant monster) has blindsight 30 ft
Kelpie (seems to be a naturally occurring plant monster) has blindsight 60ft
The Mantrap actually has tremorsense 30 ft, but I assume it is buried in the ground
Needle Blight (magically animated plant) has blindsight 60ft
Shrieker (a naturally occurring plant monster) has blindsight of 30 ft
Thorn Slinger ((a naturally occurring plant monster)) has blindsight 60 ft
Tree Blight (magically animated plant) has blindsight 60 ft
Tri-Frond flower (a naturally occurring plant monster) blindsight 30 ft
Twig Blight (magicall animated plant) blindsight 60 ft
Vine Blight (magically animated plant) blindsight 60 ft
Yellow Musk Creeper (a naturally occurring plant monster) blindsight 30 ft


It seems the only plants that do not have blindsight are those that used to be humanoid (spore servants and the like), those that have been awakened (likely a product of the spell), and those that are practically humanoid themselves (myconoids and Vegepygmies)


Edit: And before someone says "well that only means that those specific plants have blindsight" I would like to remind you that no edition of DnD has ever created a statblock for grass, because unless it is special grass, it isn't a threat to the characters. Same with trees, lilies, bushes, and moss.

[Tawmis]

Can you cite where the rules state that plants have blindsight?

Pretty sure they mean - for example - look at any of the Blights in the Monster Manual.

They all say that they have blindsight of 60', blind beyond that.

EDIT - Nevermind, Chaosmancer and I replied at the same time - and they provided even more examples.

[JackPhoenix]

It seems the only plants that do not have blindsight are those that used to be humanoid (spore servants and the like), those that have been awakened (likely a product of the spell), and those that are practically humanoid themselves (myconoids and Vegepygmies)

I'd say that awakened plants lacking blindsight is rather big evidence that normal plants shouldn't either, rather than having anything to do with the spell.

[JellyPooga]

I'd say that awakened plants lacking blindsight is rather big evidence that normal plants shouldn't either, rather than having anything to do with the spell.

I'm genuinely impressed that you can look at a single exception and claim that it's the rule. Can you back your claim? A literal list of evidence suggests that you're wrong and that awakened plants are more likely an oversight compared to other plant creatures.

[Chaosmancer]

I'd say that awakened plants lacking blindsight is rather big evidence that normal plants shouldn't either, rather than having anything to do with the spell.

Normally naturally growing plants like all those on my list?

I mean, the Blight tree has blindsense, but an awakened tree does not. But a blight tree also does not have the ability to speak, and the awakened tree does. I would say it is the alterations from the awakening spell more than the tree's nature itself that is the difference here

[Nifft]

I had a problem with it, once, when my very first AD&D character became a high enough level Monk to speak with plants at will and I had to retire the character because he could no longer walk on grass without every single blade screaming at him.

But my first GM was a special kind of special, and since I hadn't heard of anyone else having this problem in thirty years... I just assumed this was a problem that didn't happen to anyone else because the rules for the spell, in every version of D&D I've played, are perfectly clear about what it does.

That's both terrible and hilarious.

Yeah I can understand why one might give the spell a miss after that experience.

[Chronos]

So, if I take an ordinary oak tree, it has blindsight, but if I then cast Awaken on that oak tree, it takes away that sense? Aren't awakened trees pretty pissed off at druids over that?

[Keltest]

So, if I take an ordinary oak tree, it has blindsight, but if I then cast Awaken on that oak tree, it takes away that sense? Aren't awakened trees pretty pissed off at druids over that?

Maybe, but they "gain senses similar to a human's" so it balances out. They have a much better case to be unhappy for having been dragged out of their home into a world full of violence and chaos to serve as a minion for somebody allegedly looking out for my best interests.

[Chronos]

But if they already had senses better than a human's, then "gain senses similar to a human" is no gain at all.

[JNAProductions]

But if they already had senses better than a human's, then "gain senses similar to a human" is no gain at all.

Would you rather be able to see without light out to 30'/60', or be able to see stuff much farther away, so long as you have light?

It's different. For combat, Blindsight is probably better. But think of Toph-she can't read. Can't write. Can't draw. Can't admire pictures.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm genuinely impressed that you can look at a single exception and claim that it's the rule. Can you back your claim? A literal list of evidence suggests that you're wrong and that awakened plants are more likely an oversight compared to other plant creatures.

And I'm genuinely impressed you can look at a short sentence and fail your reading comprehension enough to think I've made any claims about the rules, much less any claims that require backing.

Well, I'm sure you can provide that "literal list of evidence" you claim you have, then. Just because multiple plant-types creatures have blindsight doesn't mean all of them must have it (as proved by the list of plants that don't), or that non-sentient plants do.

And the fact awakened zurkhwood mushroom from OotA specifically mentions having darkvision in addition to normal traits for awakened tree it is based on is another evidence that the authors take the creature's senses into consideration, and a lack of blindsight is intentional.


Normally naturally growing plants like all those on my list?

I mean, the Blight tree has blindsense, but an awakened tree does not. But a blight tree also does not have the ability to speak, and the awakened tree does. I would say it is the alterations from the awakening spell more than the tree's nature itself that is the difference here

Half of them aren't natural, and there are other natural plant *creatures* (as opposed to normal plants, which are objects) that lack it, so it's hardly an universal trait. In fact, 5e doesn't have traits universally associated with creature type. Most humanoids have darkvision, humans, halflings and some others don't. Most undead are immune to poison, vampires aren't.

I fail to see the part of Awaken that says plants lose blindsight they all allegedly have when non-sentient (you know, when they are objects without any senses at all) in exchange for human-like senses. You can even cast it on plant creature, like Assassin Vine, and it does not lose blindsight, so why are normal plants an exception, and the exception isn't mentioned anywhere? But I have an old PHB, perhaps yours has an errata adding that part?


Would you rather be able to see without light out to 30'/60', or be able to see stuff much farther away, so long as you have light?

Why not have both? Assassin Vine (and some other plants) has blindsight, but without the "blind beyond this radius" part that limits blights and some others.

[HPisBS]

And I'm genuinely impressed you can look at a short sentence and fail your reading comprehension enough to think I've made any claims about the rules, much less any claims that require backing.

Speaking of failed reading comprehension... he wasn't talking about "the rule" as in "the rules [of D&D]."

It was "the rule" as in "the exception to the rule." (You know, as in "There's an exception to every rule"...?)

[JackPhoenix]

Speaking of failed reading comprehension... he wasn't talking about "the rule" as in "the rules [of D&D]."

It was "the rule" as in "the exception to the rule." (You know, as in "There's an exception to every rule"...?)

If I supposedly claimed the "single exception" (to the rule) is the rule, that would imply there's a rule (in D&D, because that's what were talking about) that says "plants have blindsight", from which awakened plants are a single exception (despite plenty of other plants without blindsight).

[JellyPooga]

And I'm genuinely impressed you can look at a short sentence and fail your reading comprehension enough to think I've made any claims about the rules, much less any claims that require backing.

HPisBS covered this one for me :smallwink:


Well, I'm sure you can provide that "literal list of evidence" you claim you have, then.

You mean the one that Chaosmancer provided? I don't feel the need to expand it.


Just because multiple plant-types creatures have blindsight doesn't mean all of them must have it (as proved by the list of plants that don't), or that non-sentient plants do.

You're right, one set of evidence is not necessarily proof, but it can be very suggestive. Your contention, by inference, was that one exception (awakened plants) was so strong that it must have outweighed all the other examples; that's the claim I wanted you back. What makes awakened plants such "big evidence" compared to all the other examples Chaosmancer gave?

[JackPhoenix]

You're right, one set of evidence is not necessarily proof, but it can be very suggestive. Your contention, by inference, was that one exception (awakened plants) was so strong that it must have outweighed all the other examples; that's the claim I wanted you back. What makes awakened plants such "big evidence" compared to all the other examples Chaosmancer gave?

How about the fact we're talking about unawakened (non-creature) version of the same?

Chaosmancer claims there's a rule saying a normal, non-sentient, non-creature shrub (or any other normal plant, doesn't really matter, but let's go with a shrub) has a blindsight, just because some other unrelated creatures have blindsight. Yet, when that very same shrub starts walking around and talking (i.e. gets Awakened Shrub stats), it lacks blindsight. That is apparently because the spell used to make the shrub walk around and talk removes the blindsight ability from the normal, non-sentient, non-creature plant and replaces it with human-like senses, even though you can cast the same spell on actual plant creatures, some of which even have blindsight, and they retain blindsight in addition to gaining human-like senses (Spore Servants are actually better example than Assassin Vine, as they are blind beyond their blindsight's radius when un-awakened, which presumably stops being the case when they gain human senses), and even though the spell's description doesn't mention anything like that.

The other possibility is that non-sentient, normal, non-creature plants never had blindsight in the first place, so they don't have it when awakened either.

[SociopathFriend]

A reminder that Monk Ki is explicitly NOT magic yet is clearly still supernatural in 5e.

The rule is not, "It's either a spell or totally mundane".

There are degrees to 'magic' in D&D. The 'magic' that lets a dragon fly or invisible beings see even with light going right through them (and don't even get me started on Time Stop) is not the same as the "magic spells" the setting possesses. Yet both clearly exist and are separate.

[HappyDaze]

I'm genuinely impressed that you can look at a single exception and claim that it's the rule. Can you back your claim? A literal list of evidence suggests that you're wrong and that awakened plants are more likely an oversight compared to other plant creatures.

Comparing the senses of plant creatures to normal plants (objects) makes as little sense as comparing the senses of undead creatures to corpses (objects).

If speaks with plants gave us a creature profile to use for the "limited sentience" plants it creates, it would take care of everything by indicating the plants' senses, ability scores, proficiencies, etc. Unfortunately, it doesn't do that.

[Yora]

I always feel that it's a good idea to go back to earlier editions to figure out what the original intend of a spell use to be. There's always a lot that gets copied over between editions and not properly checked.

For speak with plants, it's really interesting, because that name was used for very different spells in the past.


When cast, a speak with plants spell enables the cleric to converse, in very rudimentary terms, with all sorts of living vegetables. Thus, the cleric can question plants as to whether or not creatures have passed through them, cause thickets to part to enable easy passage, require vines to entangle pursuers, and similar things. The spell does not enable the cleric to animate non-ambulatory vegetation.


This spell gives the cleric the power to talk to plants and request simple favors of them. A request may be granted, if it is within the plants' power to understand and perform. This spell may be used to allow the cleric and party to pass through otherwise impenetrable undergrowth. This spell will also allow communication with plant-like monsters (treants, for example).


When cast, a speak with plants spell enables the priest to converse, in very rudimentary terms, with all sorts of living vegetables (including fungi, molds, and plantlike monsters,such as shambling mounds) and to exercise limited control over normal plants (i.e., not monsters or plantlike creatures). Thus, the caster can question plants as to whether or not creatures have passed through them, cause thickets to part to enable easy passage, require vines to entangle pursuers, and command similar services. The spell does not enable plants to uproot themselves and move about, but any movements within the plants' normal capabilities are possible. Creatures entangled by the 1st-level spell of that name can be released.


You can comprehend and communicate with plants, including both normal plants and plant creatures. You are able to ask questions of and receive answers from plants. A regular plant’s sense of its surroundings is limited, so it won’t be able to give (or recognize) detailed descriptions of creatures or answer questions about events outside its immediate vicinity.
The spell doesn’t make plant creatures any more friendly or cooperative than normal. Furthermore, wary and cunning plant creatures are likely to be terse and evasive, while the more stupid ones may make inane comments. If a plant creature is friendly toward you, it may do some favor or service for you.

The 5th edition version seems to go with "all of the above".

This spell has always been very unclear and blurry. In AD&D and B/X, it even was a 4th level spell, despite being even weaker in power.

The AD&D version appear to imply that the plants don't get any special senses. It says "passed through them" not "moved past them". And also only if there's been any creatures, not what types they might have been.

3rd edition seems to not given them meaningfully greater awareness.

The B/X version does not appear to allow any communication with non-creature plants.

My interpretation from all of this is that the amount of information you're supposed to get with this spell is extremely basic to the point of being useless in almost all situations. It's main function appears to be to let the party travel through and fight in dense undergrowth with no penaltiies for 10 minutes. Which does have some uses and might be worth preparing when travelling through jungle and expecting random encounters. But that's a use that really doesn't have anything to do with communicating with plants.

[JellyPooga]

Comparing the senses of plant creatures to normal plants (objects) makes as little sense as comparing the senses of undead creatures to corpses (objects).

Indeed it does and as a result I can only conclude that given that the plants' senses, ability scores, proficiencies, etc. are left to the discretion of the GM, that the GM should consider the use case of the spell ahead of whatever their perception of real plant senses or what they might be when animated and given sentience by magic. I disagree on your second point, though; it's worth bearing in mind that Speak with Plants does not create a plant-creature; assigning stats to it as if it did would be misleading with regards to the purpose of the spell, as well as limiting the possibilities and verisilimitude of the spell, because there are so many types of plants that the spell can target, that a single stat-block would be insufficient; an oak is very different to a mangrove, which is different again to a patch of grass, etc. etc.

The spell has multiple functions, but the first one mentioned and the one that I think is implied to be most important by the very name of the spell (it's not Animate Plants, after all) is information gathering; to speak to plants and ask them questions about events near them in the last 24 hours. To relegate that use into uselessness because of a lack of guidelines has got to be misguided, at best, or adversarial GMing at worst. The spell is only as good as the GM allows in all cases, so if a GM makes it worth less than the lvl.3 slot expended on it for any reason, then that's entirely the GMs fault for not accounting for the narrative potential of the resource spent and not a result of the spell being vague.

[Bloodcloud]

Just adding...

Some scientist* believes plants IN THE REAL WORLD have some unsuspected sensory and even intelligent abilities
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant

So if that is the state of real-life plant science*, by Sylvanus can we allow a magic spell in a fantasy game to actually do something?

*No idea how good that science is, it might be pseudo science.

[Chaosmancer]

And I'm genuinely impressed you can look at a short sentence and fail your reading comprehension enough to think I've made any claims about the rules, much less any claims that require backing.

Well, I'm sure you can provide that "literal list of evidence" you claim you have, then. Just because multiple plant-types creatures have blindsight doesn't mean all of them must have it (as proved by the list of plants that don't), or that non-sentient plants do.

And the fact awakened zurkhwood mushroom from OotA specifically mentions having darkvision in addition to normal traits for awakened tree it is based on is another evidence that the authors take the creature's senses into consideration, and a lack of blindsight is intentional.

Note that you called it an "awakened" mushroom. Hence having been altered by magic. Now, I don't have a copy of Out of the Abyss handy, but looking at the statblock on DDB, it mentions that the mushroom can't speak it if was created by a Myconid Sovereign. Sovereigns have the exact same 120 ft darkvision and no spellcasting trait to cast Awaken with. So, it is highly possible that this Zurkhwood was awakened through an alternate means instead of the awaken spell, granting it traits more similiar to a myconid than a normal plant.



Half of them aren't natural, and there are other natural plant *creatures* (as opposed to normal plants, which are objects) that lack it, so it's hardly an universal trait. In fact, 5e doesn't have traits universally associated with creature type. Most humanoids have darkvision, humans, halflings and some others don't. Most undead are immune to poison, vampires aren't.

I fail to see the part of Awaken that says plants lose blindsight they all allegedly have when non-sentient (you know, when they are objects without any senses at all) in exchange for human-like senses. You can even cast it on plant creature, like Assassin Vine, and it does not lose blindsight, so why are normal plants an exception, and the exception isn't mentioned anywhere? But I have an old PHB, perhaps yours has an errata adding that part.

Plants aren't objects.

Now, maybe you want to say that in terms of DnD, plants count as objects instead of creatures for the purposes of most spells. I guess? But, that seems like an unnecessary distinction and one not usually made by the game. For example, Fireball catchs objects on fire, right? Well... it also catches people on fire. So whether a plant is a creature or an object, you get the same result. But, take Cone of Cold, doesn't say anything about objects at all, but most players and DMs would likely agree that if you cast Cone of Cold on a rose bush, that bush is going to die from the freezing cold.

And you are correct, Awaken does not specifically say that the plant loses blindsight. This is likely because in 99% of cases, whether or not a tree has blindsight does not matter. It simply says that they "gain senses similiar to a human" which is funny because that means that elves are creating trees that can't see as well in the forest as they can.

But, every plant that is not "like a human" has blindsight. So, we have two possible assumptions.

All those plants, the majority of plants in the game with statblocks, somehow evolved different methods of blindsight either through magic or *handwave* and actual plants without statblocks don't have blindisght. Or, all plants have blindsight, unless they lose it through the application of magic.

And frankly, pick either, I don't care. But, people wanted to bemoan that there was no possible way to know what a plant could sense with Speak with Plants, after all plants don't have any senses. Well, here is the guidance of the rules. Majority of plants with statblocks have blindsight.



Comparing the senses of plant creatures to normal plants (objects) makes as little sense as comparing the senses of undead creatures to corpses (objects).

If speaks with plants gave us a creature profile to use for the "limited sentience" plants it creates, it would take care of everything by indicating the plants' senses, ability scores, proficiencies, etc. Unfortunately, it doesn't do that.


Why would they need ability scores and proficiencies? Heck, I still don't understand why you need senses for them. The spell says you can gain information from the plant on creatures that have passed. That should be the bare minimum of what you can do. But for some reason you want to find any excuse you can to turn a 3rd level spell into a waste of time.

"Did any creature pass through here in the past day"

"I am blind and deaf with no sense of touch, I have no idea, maybe, there was a thing, then a different thing, are those creatures?"

Why? Just, why do that to people? Why are you making a 1st level spell to gather information (speak with animals) hundreds of times more useful than a 3rd level spell?



I always feel that it's a good idea to go back to earlier editions to figure out what the original intend of a spell use to be. There's always a lot that gets copied over between editions and not properly checked.

For speak with plants, it's really interesting, because that name was used for very different spells in the past.


The 5th edition version seems to go with "all of the above".

This spell has always been very unclear and blurry. In AD&D and B/X, it even was a 4th level spell, despite being even weaker in power.

The AD&D version appear to imply that the plants don't get any special senses. It says "passed through them" not "moved past them". And also only if there's been any creatures, not what types they might have been.

3rd edition seems to not given them meaningfully greater awareness.

The B/X version does not appear to allow any communication with non-creature plants.

My interpretation from all of this is that the amount of information you're supposed to get with this spell is extremely basic to the point of being useless in almost all situations. It's main function appears to be to let the party travel through and fight in dense undergrowth with no penalties for 10 minutes. Which does have some uses and might be worth preparing when traveling through jungle and expecting random encounters. But that's a use that really doesn't have anything to do with communicating with plants.

So you want to make it a garbage spell.

First off, I love that we are now saying Speak With Plants has nothing to do with communicating with plants. That's just great.

But secondly, with a 10 minute duration, this spell would be the shortest party movement buff in the game.

Pass Without Trace -> 1 hour
Wind Walk -> 8 hours
Water Walk -> 1 hour and a ritual (pin in this, I'll come back to it)
Find the Path -> 1 day

Heck, even personal movement spells tend to last longer, Longstrider and Freedom of Movement both lasting an hour. In addition to ranger's and druids gaining the ability to move through plant based difficult terrain about level 6 or 7, which is right after they get speak with plants.

Now, unpinning Water Walk, because this is fascinating.

See, swimming through water acts like difficult terrain. If you don't have a swim speed, every foot of movement costs 2. Water Walk removes this, allowing you to simply traverse with your normal speed, ignoring the difficult terrain. It is also a 3rd level spell.

So, if Speak with Plants is all about ignoring difficult terrain, why is does it last 1/10th of the duration of a spell whose entire purpose is to ignore difficult terrain and costs a spell slot when Water Walk is a ritual. And Speak With Plants would mean you have to stay within 30 ft, while Water Walk simply allows 10 people the ability after you cast it.

Now, I have a theory, and it might be a little crazy. But, I think, maybe, the spell called "speak with plants" is supposed to be used to speak. with. plants.

[JellyPooga]

Now, I have a theory, and it might be a little crazy. But, I think, maybe, the spell called "speak with plants" is supposed to be used to speak. with. plants.

Psh. You trippin' fool. It couldn't possibly be that because normal plants can't speak. :smallwink:

[Chronos]

Quoth Chaosmancer:

Why would they need ability scores and proficiencies? Heck, I still don't understand why you need senses for them. The spell says you can gain information from the plant on creatures that have passed. That should be the bare minimum of what you can do. But for some reason you want to find any excuse you can to turn a 3rd level spell into a waste of time.
You just answered your own question. We need ability scores and proficiencies from them because the spell says that you get information from them. And so we need to know what information they can provide. There has to be some limit to the information they have available, but we don't know what that limit is.

[Keltest]

You just answered your own question. We need ability scores and proficiencies from them because the spell says that you get information from them. And so we need to know what information they can provide. There has to be some limit to the information they have available, but we don't know what that limit is.

The limit is whatever the DM wants it to be, the same with talking to literally every other sapient creature in the game.

[Chaosmancer]

You just answered your own question. We need ability scores and proficiencies from them because the spell says that you get information from them. And so we need to know what information they can provide. There has to be some limit to the information they have available, but we don't know what that limit is.

Right, what is the limit to the information a dockworker can give you on ships? What is their wisdom score? Do they have an intelligence score?

Ah, right, we should use a commoner, correct?

So, 10's in all scores and no proficiencies in anything. So they can tell you exactly the same information about ships as the blacksmith in the mountain, who by the way, has no proficiency with blacksmithing tools and can't tell you anymore about blacksmithing than the dockworker who has never been to a forge.

Except, that doesn't make sense, correct? Clearly they should know more about their respective fields than someone who knows nothing. In fact, logically, we can even make assumptions that they might have other interests.

And here is an interesting thing, who is more perceptive? The lazy drunkard who works menial labor at the docks, or the veteran barkeep running a tight ship? They both use the same statblock, so they are both equally perceptive. But, again, that doesn't quite fit does it. Clearly the veteran barkeep is paying more attention and cares more about things than the dockworker does, so clearly he would be a more reliable source of information.

Hmm, which really starts to call something into question. Why am I even bothering to use the commoner statblock? It doesn't tell me anything. Heck, commoners don't have darkvision on their statblock... but since race is "any" they could be a dwarven commoner, and then they would have darkvision.


So, we want a limit on the information the plants can give us? We don't need a statblock for that. They are limited by what happened "nearby". How far is that? I don't know. Even if we look at a statblock and see "Passive Perception 10" what does that even mean? Could you make out the insignia on a banner in a crowded street? Hear yelling from the next house over? How much farther could you see across a field if you had a passive perception of 11?

None of these questions have answers. And yet, we can still have the farmer report to the players that he saw goblins sneaking out of the woods last night. So why is it so hard to let a rose bush say that it noticed six humanoids pass by two hours ago?

[Chronos]

If I think that someone snuck past the dockworker, and ask him if he saw anyone, the DM can check the sneak's Stealth check against the dockworker's perception. And we know what the dockworker's perception is, because we have a statblock for him. As with anything in the game, of course, the DM can alter that statblock, but the point is, it exists.

What if the sneak went by in the dead of night? Does the dockworker have darkvision? Again, we know the answer (or at least, know how to find the answer). Is the dock in a dwarven city? Then yes, the dockworker is probably a dwarf, so he has darkvision. An all-human city? Then he doesn't. A mixed city? Then the DM will have to decide what race the dockworker is, but we can look around to find a dwarf or elf dockworker to ask instead, if this one is human.

Does the plant have a good enough perception, or darkvision? The DM just has to make up an answer without any guidance from the rules. Except that if the answer that he comes up with is no, then people will claim that he's unfairly screwing over the players, because they cast a spell and that means the spell has to be useful.

[JellyPooga]

If I think that someone snuck past the dockworker, and ask him if he saw anyone, the DM can check the sneak's Stealth check against the dockworker's perception. And we know what the dockworker's perception is, because we have a statblock for him. As with anything in the game, of course, the DM can alter that statblock, but the point is, it exists.

What if the sneak went by in the dead of night? Does the dockworker have darkvision? Again, we know the answer (or at least, know how to find the answer). Is the dock in a dwarven city? Then yes, the dockworker is probably a dwarf, so he has darkvision. An all-human city? Then he doesn't. A mixed city? Then the DM will have to decide what race the dockworker is, but we can look around to find a dwarf or elf dockworker to ask instead, if this one is human.

Does the plant have a good enough perception, or darkvision? The DM just has to make up an answer without any guidance from the rules. Except that if the answer that he comes up with is no, then people will claim that he's unfairly screwing over the players, because they cast a spell and that means the spell has to be useful.

The point is that in all cases the GM will have to decide what the parameters are and if the information will be useful to the PCs. In a dwarven city, it might be likely a dockworker will be dwarven, but they might also be human. "Sorry [player], the only witness was human and the best description was vague at best" or "There was an elven mage in the vicinity and he was checking some merch to see if it was magical. Detecting an aura behind him, he sprung a See Invisibility spell and saw the whole thing, even though the culprit was under an Invisibility glamour"...the circumstances are in no way determined by what is average or expected or any stat block in the MM, but by what the GM decides they are.

That's why Speak with Plants doesn't need a stat block, because the stats are irrelevant when the result of the spell is entirely in the hands of the narrative, which is turn is in the hands of the GM. Give Sp.w.Plants a stat block and all that will happen is that GMs will ignore the stats in favour of their narrative, just as much as they might ignore the commoner stats when deciding whether a dockworker or farmer is able to give the players the information they need.

[ImproperJustice]

The very first time it was used in our game, was when the party encountered the Garden outside the lost temple of Umberlee.
It has like 24 zombies that sleep in it, hidden in the soil and overgrowth, that come out at night.

The Bard upon seeing a large and obfuscating garden, used the spell to help clear some of the growth away while asking the plants about creatures which passed by the door of the temple.
With a little creative day interpretation, she was able to learn that there were undead (bad tasting soil things) hidden below them and that they come out at night.

They also revealed that a group of pirates passed through based on weight and taste (two legs, sweat tasted salty like from the sea air, dragging a chest, etc...)

They also alerted her to a hidden passage where the air tasted fowler, hidden at the back of the garden and they moved aside to reveal the hidden entrance.

Overall, it was a fun and enjoyable role-playing encounter with the PCs and GM working together to help them learn about the environment, and make the Bard feel like she was contributing to the overall narrative.

It was cool, and no arguments about the sentience of plant life were really nescessary.
Overall, it was an informative

[Chaosmancer]

If I think that someone snuck past the dockworker, and ask him if he saw anyone, the DM can check the sneak's Stealth check against the dockworker's perception. And we know what the dockworker's perception is, because we have a statblock for him. As with anything in the game, of course, the DM can alter that statblock, but the point is, it exists.

What if the sneak went by in the dead of night? Does the dockworker have darkvision? Again, we know the answer (or at least, know how to find the answer). Is the dock in a dwarven city? Then yes, the dockworker is probably a dwarf, so he has darkvision. An all-human city? Then he doesn't. A mixed city? Then the DM will have to decide what race the dockworker is, but we can look around to find a dwarf or elf dockworker to ask instead, if this one is human.

Does the plant have a good enough perception, or darkvision? The DM just has to make up an answer without any guidance from the rules. Except that if the answer that he comes up with is no, then people will claim that he's unfairly screwing over the players, because they cast a spell and that means the spell has to be useful.


As JellyPooga said, as the DM, I control all the factors. If I want the worker to have seen the thief, then it doesn't matter what anyone's stats were.

The theif rolled a nat 1 on their stealth. Or the dockworker saw a shadow run past after some dogs started barking. People aren't blind at night (the nightsky I assume counts as dim light) so even darkvision isn't a big deal unless it was a moonless night. And even that is information that I determine as the DM.

The statblocks do nothing to help me, because I am the one that decides what the statblocks even are.

[HappyDaze]

The statblocks do nothing to help me, because I am the one that decides what the statblocks even are.

So why even have a Monster Manual?

[DrKerosene]

So why even have a Monster Manual?

As a source of benchmarks (such as most plant monsters have blindsight, most undead and outsiders are immune to poison, most creatures over CR6 has some resistances and/or immunities, etc), and a bunch of abilities to apply to your freaky creations (a water elemental in the sewers might be slightly more poisonous or disease ridden than a normal water elemental).

[HappyDaze]

As a source of benchmarks (such as most plant monsters have blindsight, most undead and outsiders are immune to poison, most creatures over CR6 has some resistances and/or immunities, etc), and a bunch of abilities to apply to your freaky creations (a water elemental in the sewers might be slightly more poisonous or disease ridden than a normal water elemental).

But if you're of the mind that DMs should just make up whatever strikes their fancy for their narrative, like the one I replied to, then why bother at all?

[Keltest]

But if you're of the mind that DMs should just make up whatever strikes their fancy for their narrative, like the one I replied to, then why bother at all?

Convenience. Making up the stat block of, say, a sewer slime is time and energy consuming. Having a book full of premade creatures saves both. Beyond which, a combat encounter is different than a social encounter. There are no stat blocks telling you how many dock workers saw our thief, or what details they saw or remembered. Making those details is literally your job as DM.

[Chronos]

Yes, the DM can unilaterally decide anything. But too much of that, and it stops being a game, and starts being just storytime, where everyone sits around and listens to the DM reading them his bad Lord of the Rings fanfiction. That might be fun for the DM, but it usually isn't for anyone else. What's most fun is for the players to have a problem to solve, and tools at their disposal to solve it, and have to figure out on their own how to use those tools. And it's a complicated enough game that the DM might not have even anticipated the solution they find. But for that to work, everyone has to have an idea of what those tools can do, which means that if you can talk to plants, you have to have some idea of how much plants can know.

[Keltest]

Yes, the DM can unilaterally decide anything. But too much of that, and it stops being a game, and starts being just storytime, where everyone sits around and listens to the DM reading them his bad Lord of the Rings fanfiction. That might be fun for the DM, but it usually isn't for anyone else. What's most fun is for the players to have a problem to solve, and tools at their disposal to solve it, and have to figure out on their own how to use those tools. And it's a complicated enough game that the DM might not have even anticipated the solution they find. But for that to work, everyone has to have an idea of what those tools can do, which means that if you can talk to plants, you have to have some idea of how much plants can know.
The same as any other NPC: it depends on context and what the DM wants. Plants aren't special about that, the same thing applies to everything that can communicate.

[Chaosmancer]

So why even have a Monster Manual?

Stats for fighting. For going against the players.

Not for telling me how much information to give them about the plot.



Yes, the DM can unilaterally decide anything. But too much of that, and it stops being a game, and starts being just storytime, where everyone sits around and listens to the DM reading them his bad Lord of the Rings fanfiction. That might be fun for the DM, but it usually isn't for anyone else. What's most fun is for the players to have a problem to solve, and tools at their disposal to solve it, and have to figure out on their own how to use those tools. And it's a complicated enough game that the DM might not have even anticipated the solution they find. But for that to work, everyone has to have an idea of what those tools can do, which means that if you can talk to plants, you have to have some idea of how much plants can know.


Okay. Open up the Dungeon Master's Guide. Read to me the plot of the Wererats in the sewers of Silverymoon. Or you can tell me what the plot of The Green Dragon of the Mountains of Despair is?

No, you can't. Because as the DM I have to make that up.

So, when you are gathering clues about those wererats or that dragon, I as the DM have to decide what exists, who saw it, and how the players learn it. So, if someone casts speak with plants near a sewer entrance, that is a great time to give a clue, I probably was hinting at something anyways that got them to cast the spell.

I don't understand why I need to know they have a passive perception of 10 to do that, when I never do that for any other NPC

[Bardon]

As JellyPooga said, as the DM, I control all the factors. If I want the worker to have seen the thief, then it doesn't matter what anyone's stats were.

The theif rolled a nat 1 on their stealth. Or the dockworker saw a shadow run past after some dogs started barking. People aren't blind at night (the nightsky I assume counts as dim light) so even darkvision isn't a big deal unless it was a moonless night. And even that is information that I determine as the DM.

The statblocks do nothing to help me, because I am the one that decides what the statblocks even are.

When you state "If I want the worker to have seen the thief, then it doesn't matter what anyone's stats were" you immediately change from playing a game with others to them acting out your movie, with you as director.

If the thief player rolls nat20 and you have the worker notice him because that suits you, you remove all ability of the players to affect the outcome.

I'd quit that game on the spot.

[JellyPooga]

When you state "If I want the worker to have seen the thief, then it doesn't matter what anyone's stats were" you immediately change from playing a game with others to them acting out your movie, with you as director.

If the thief player rolls nat20 and you have the worker notice him because that suits you, you remove all ability of the players to affect the outcome.

I'd quit that game on the spot.

We're not talking about an encounter a player character is in, though, are we? We're talking about setting information, we're talking about plot. If the plot calls for the thief to be seen by a dockworker, then the stats of the thief are entirely as irrelevant as those of the dockworker and there are certainly not going to be any dice rolled. It's setting the parameters of the scenario for the players to discover and interact with NPCs based on it. That's not "storytime GMing"...that's just GMing.

[Azuresun]

When you state "If I want the worker to have seen the thief, then it doesn't matter what anyone's stats were" you immediately change from playing a game with others to them acting out your movie, with you as director.

If the thief player rolls nat20 and you have the worker notice him because that suits you, you remove all ability of the players to affect the outcome.

I'd quit that game on the spot.


Now I have the image in my mind of the PC's undertaking a quest to find the Loremaster of Sunspire Keep, the only one who can tell them the secret weakness of the demon lord Ash'boreth in time for them to save the world....

.....and then the Loremaster rolls a 1 on the Arcana check the DM decided to have him make, so the legendary sage just shrugs and goes "Dunno, mate.". Epic quest doesn't happen, the PC's world gets blown up.

[Bardon]

We're not talking about an encounter a player character is in, though, are we? We're talking about setting information, we're talking about plot. If the plot calls for the thief to be seen by a dockworker, then the stats of the thief are entirely as irrelevant as those of the dockworker and there are certainly not going to be any dice rolled. It's setting the parameters of the scenario for the players to discover and interact with NPCs based on it. That's not "storytime GMing"...that's just GMing.

Ahh. Okay, it looks like I misunderstood the scenario. Mea culpa!

As long as you're not railroading the party, fair enough. Plot should never take precedence over PC choice, and if the GM arranges things so that the players only really have one way to go/deal with an issue, that's a problem.

[JellyPooga]

Ahh. Okay, it looks like I misunderstood the scenario. Mea culpa!

As long as you're not railroading the party, fair enough. Plot should never take precedence over PC choice, and if the GM arranges things so that the players only really have one way to go/deal with an issue, that's a problem.

Indeed. In the context of Speak with Plants, the same applies; it doesn't matter if "average" plants have normal human vision, blindsight or tremorsense any more than if they have passive perception 10 or effective strength 12...what matters is whether the GM decides that those plants were in a position for the PCs to learn something useful if/when they cast Speak with Plants. There are enough plant creatures in the MM to get a decent enough idea of what stats might apply to a specific scenario without outlining it in the spell description.

[Chronos]

Quoth Chaosmancer:

Okay. Open up the Dungeon Master's Guide. Read to me the plot of the Wererats in the sewers of Silverymoon. Or you can tell me what the plot of The Green Dragon of the Mountains of Despair is?

No, you can't. Because as the DM I have to make that up.

Yup, the DM has to decide the motivations for every NPC, either planning it out in advance or on the fly as it comes up. The motivation for this oak tree is that it wants to grow enough taller than the building next to it so it can catch the best sunlight, and it wants to spread its acorns as far as it can. Done. Now tell me where it says how much the oak tree is able to know about who or what passes by it. As you say, the plants affected by this spell aren't special, any more than any other NPCs. And all other NPCs have information on what they can sense, so why should plants be any different?

And yes, when I'm running an adventure, there are some NPCs who I specifically plan out what they know, and what they'll tell the PCs under what circumstances. If the players go the most obvious routes in their information-gathering, then I have answers ready to go for them. But they could come up with something else, and pursue unexpected avenues of investigation, and talk to NPCs I haven't planned out. And a plant is almost certainly one of those unplanned NPCs. They're exactly the ones whose stats I need the most.

It's no answer at all to just say "They'll find out what the DM wants them to find out". What I want my players to find out is everything. I put a lot of work into creating all of this detail, and I don't want it to go to waste. Does that mean that I start the adventure by having someone walk into the tavern and detail the villain's entire plot? Of course not. They have to figure it out on their own, because that's how games work. And that means knowing who to ask what, which means knowing who is even capable of knowing what.

[JellyPooga]

Yup, the DM has to decide the motivations for every NPC, either planning it out in advance or on the fly as it comes up. The motivation for this oak tree is that it wants to grow enough taller than the building next to it so it can catch the best sunlight, and it wants to spread its acorns as far as it can. Done. Now tell me where it says how much the oak tree is able to know about who or what passes by it. As you say, the plants affected by this spell aren't special, any more than any other NPCs. And all other NPCs have information on what they can sense, so why should plants be any different?

What senses do Humanoids have?

Do they have darkvision? Some do. Some don't.
Can they see invisible? It's possible.
What is the perception modifier for a humanoid? Depends on the character in question.

The question is nonsense and as valid as the question of what senses plants have. Not all plants are the same or have the same capabilities as other plants. There are multiple plant creatures in the MM, displaying a variety of senses and abilities in the exact same manner that there are examples of humanoids. If you want or need stats, they exist.

[Derpy]

I've been reading this thread since it's been up, it's been an interesting read. I have a few thoughts on it.

First off, everything in the game is open to DM interpretation, and how they want the world to be. If a DM's players enjoy that world and game then something is being done right. If I spend a third level spell slot that explicitly grants me information and the DM pulls a gotcha moment I, personally, would not have fun with that. Almost every player I play with would not have fun with that. Depending on the personal interaction regarding that, things like forgiving the spell slot because it didn't do as written in the PHB, or covering that the DM changed what the spell could do in session zero would mitigate those feelings, which brings me to point two.

RAW, the spell says what it can do in regards to information gathering;


You can question plants about events in the spell’s area within the past day, gaining information about creatures that have passed, weather, and other circumstances.

Emphasis mine. RAW says you can gain information, specifically about creatures that have passed. If the DM want's to say, "a few medium creatures passed this way", that's fine. It's information. If they want to say, "two humans in plate with an orc in hide and a dwarf in chain passed this way in the morning," that's fine too. It's information. If they want to say, "A tree chopper, who was wearing the bark of malleable metal, with a hunter with the skin of a grass eater upon it, and two shiny statues trod upon the path when the warmth chased away the dark," that's fine too. It's information. As a DM this is their choice to make, but claiming it's too hard to make because there is no stat block is a disservice to a player who cast the spell, with an honest and justified expectation it would do what it said in the book. If someone uses the spell to gain that information and the DM wants to houserule the information isn't granted, because trees and plants don't have senses, that's fine, it's their game. But it's not RAW.

RAI, I, personally, would at least the give the spell the same knowledge that could be granted by a high survival skill check, not in tracks and such, but in who passed by; how long ago, weather in the past day, or anything else pertinent to that type of information gathering. A third level spell slot isn't exactly cheep to spend in most campaigns on the information that could be gathered, potentially by a character who might not shine in more urban situations and now has an opportunity to help the party. Throwing that away because the book doesn't detail to me the specifics and hold my hand seems a waste of opportunity and player/character potential. Plus, me and my players could probably have a bit of fun giving personality to plants and interacting with that, though I can see why some games would want a quick, 'this, that, and the other passed this way within the past 24 hours.'

[Chaosmancer]

Yup, the DM has to decide the motivations for every NPC, either planning it out in advance or on the fly as it comes up. The motivation for this oak tree is that it wants to grow enough taller than the building next to it so it can catch the best sunlight, and it wants to spread its acorns as far as it can. Done. Now tell me where it says how much the oak tree is able to know about who or what passes by it. As you say, the plants affected by this spell aren't special, any more than any other NPCs. And all other NPCs have information on what they can sense, so why should plants be any different?

And yes, when I'm running an adventure, there are some NPCs who I specifically plan out what they know, and what they'll tell the PCs under what circumstances. If the players go the most obvious routes in their information-gathering, then I have answers ready to go for them. But they could come up with something else, and pursue unexpected avenues of investigation, and talk to NPCs I haven't planned out. And a plant is almost certainly one of those unplanned NPCs. They're exactly the ones whose stats I need the most.

It's no answer at all to just say "They'll find out what the DM wants them to find out". What I want my players to find out is everything. I put a lot of work into creating all of this detail, and I don't want it to go to waste. Does that mean that I start the adventure by having someone walk into the tavern and detail the villain's entire plot? Of course not. They have to figure it out on their own, because that's how games work. And that means knowing who to ask what, which means knowing who is even capable of knowing what.


There are no stats for mice, the closest you could get is a Rat. Do Mice have the same wisdom as a rat?

There are no stats for squirrels either. Sparrows. Bluebirds. Moles.

All of these are animals that players might need to use Speak with Animals on.

Ah, but you know how animals work right? You can intuit what they can sense because they have eyes and ears. You can't do that with plants.

And we showed, that many plants have Blindsight. That is as close as you can get to a natural plant with no magic, is looking at the plants like the Assassin Vine or the Tri-Color Flower and working from there.

But you don't need stats. Once you have that they have blindsense 30 to 60 ft, then you can do everything you need to do.

[JackPhoenix]

But you don't need stats. Once you have that they have blindsense 30 to 60 ft, then you can do everything you need to do.

Except you can't, because blindsight still doesn't tell you how it works and what information you can get with it. Yes, yes, "you can perceive your surroundings without relying on sight".... but a blind human can do that without any special sense. Hearing, touch, scent and taste allow you to do that too, each will give you different information, and at least we know how it works. Hell, tremorsense is more useful in telling you what information it can provide.

[HappyDaze]

Once you have that they have blindsense 30 to 60 ft, then you can do everything you need to do.
Plant-type creatures may have blindsense, but non-creature plants are objects. If you use animated objects as a guide, they too have blindsight...except they didn't have it until the spell is cast. If I animate a bed and ask it about the last 24 hours, its blindsight doesn't let it somehow tell me about who was shagging in it last night. The same goes for plants in my view.

[HPisBS]

Plant-type creatures may have blindsense, but non-creature plants are objects. If you use animated objects as a guide, they too have blindsight...except they didn't have it until the spell is cast. If I animate a bed and ask it about the last 24 hours, its blindsight doesn't let it somehow tell me about who was shagging in it last night. The same goes for plants in my view.

Except, unlike Speak With Plants, Animate Objects doesn't say you can get that info.

[HappyDaze]

Except, unlike Speak With Plants, Animate Objects doesn't say you can get that info.

And, unlike animate objects, speak with plants doesn't say that the targets of the spell get blindsight.

[HPisBS]

And, unlike animate objects, speak with plants doesn't say that the targets of the spell get blindsight.

Uh-huhhhh...

Still waiting for how leaving it to the DM to determine the specific mechanisms by which the spell does what the spell says it does (if the DM even cares) is supposed to prevent the spell from actually doing what the spell plainly says it does.

[Chaosmancer]

Except you can't, because blindsight still doesn't tell you how it works and what information you can get with it. Yes, yes, "you can perceive your surroundings without relying on sight".... but a blind human can do that without any special sense. Hearing, touch, scent and taste allow you to do that too, each will give you different information, and at least we know how it works. Hell, tremorsense is more useful in telling you what information it can provide.

Then how do you determine what an Adult Ooblex (an intelligent slime) can tell the party?

A dragon has blindsense, if they used it, what could they tell the party?

A balhannoth has blindsense and can communicate, what about them?

Snakes?

Creatures with Blindsense and the ability to communicate with the party have existed this entire time. Why is this suddenly different?


Plant-type creatures may have blindsense, but non-creature plants are objects. If you use animated objects as a guide, they too have blindsight...except they didn't have it until the spell is cast. If I animate a bed and ask it about the last 24 hours, its blindsight doesn't let it somehow tell me about who was shagging in it last night. The same goes for plants in my view.

Your view completely ignores the RAW of the spell. Which states that the plants affected by the spell can communicate to the party what has happened over the last 24 hours. If two people were shagging on a bed of moss, and you animate that moss a few hours later, it by RAW can tell you that two people were shagging on it.




And, unlike animate objects, speak with plants doesn't say that the targets of the spell get blindsight.

Then don't give them blindisght.

In fact, why don't you just wait until someone casts the spell to gather information and then tell them that the plants don't respond because they can't hear you talking, because they are deaf, mute and dumb.

I'm sure the party will be thrilled that their attempt to learn information was declared null and void because the spell isn't allowed to do what the spell says it can do.

Which is talk to plants, and learn what happened in that area over the last 24 hours.

Edit: I'm getting frustrated with this, because it seems like an excuse to me. "I'm sorry Druid, I know you thought talking to the Ivy outside the princesses window where she was kidnapped might give you clues, but plants aren't like animals. They just don't have senses to know what happens. And yes, she did have a pet parrot,but animals are stupid, so when you use speak with animals it can only tell you it like bird seed and thinks you are shiny."

Just let players use their spells to learn information. It isn't this difficult.

[Deathtongue]

Wait, why are plants objects in 5E D&D? That sounds like people projecting their unscientific, chauvinistic biases yet again -- like the idea that you need eyes to see, rather than the ability to distinguish direction and/or wavelength of light.

[Chaosmancer]

Wait, why are plants objects in 5E D&D? That sounds like people projecting their unscientific, chauvinistic biases yet again -- like the idea that you need eyes to see, rather than the ability to distinguish direction and/or wavelength of light.

I assume it is because they do not normally have an hp value, since "creature" is generally anything with stats.

[Delicious Taffy]

It isn't this difficult.

It's really not, but people insist on making it difficult. The game is like 50% imagination, but somehow people are physically incapable of imagining this one specific idea. The plants aren't real, they don't have to adhere to your strict, unyielding concept of what real-life plants can or can't do.

If you don't want your players casting a PRETEND MAGICAL SPELL to make pretend plants talk because "Plants aren't sentient in real life" then just don't let them take this one particular spell that bends your mind like a Lovecraftian horror. Not everything has to be explicitly stated, spelled out, and covered in precise mathematics for people to comprehend it.

[Chronos]

Quoth JellyPooga:

What senses do Humanoids have?

Do they have darkvision? Some do. Some don't.
Can they see invisible? It's possible.
What is the perception modifier for a humanoid? Depends on the character in question.

The question is nonsense and as valid as the question of what senses plants have. Not all plants are the same or have the same capabilities as other plants. There are multiple plant creatures in the MM, displaying a variety of senses and abilities in the exact same manner that there are examples of humanoids. If you want or need stats, they exist.
If the players question a human, I can look up humans and see, nope, no darkvision. If the players question an elf, I can look up elves and see, yup, darkvision. If the players question a patch of grass, I can look up shambling mounds, and see... wait, why am I looking up shambling mounds here?


Quoth Derpy:

Emphasis mine. RAW says you can gain information, specifically about creatures that have passed. If the DM want's to say, "a few medium creatures passed this way", that's fine. It's information. If they want to say, "two humans in plate with an orc in hide and a dwarf in chain passed this way in the morning," that's fine too. It's information. If they want to say, "A tree chopper, who was wearing the bark of malleable metal, with a hunter with the skin of a grass eater upon it, and two shiny statues trod upon the path when the warmth chased away the dark," that's fine too. It's information.
Or maybe just "A bunch of really heavy things trampled all over me"? That is, just as the spell says, providing information about creatures that passed. The spell works. But if that's the limits of what the spell does, it's not very useful.

[Keltest]

If the players question a human, I can look up humans and see, nope, no darkvision. If the players question an elf, I can look up elves and see, yup, darkvision. If the players question a patch of grass, I can look up shambling mounds, and see... wait, why am I looking up shambling mounds here?


Or maybe just "A bunch of really heavy things trampled all over me"? That is, just as the spell says, providing information about creatures that passed. The spell works. But if that's the limits of what the spell does, it's not very useful.

Im going to be a radical here and suggest that if your interpretation of the spell results in it being considerably less useful than it should otherwise be, the problem is your interpretation, not the spell. Past a point, you really need to ask yourself "is my reading allowing the spell to accomplish what it is intended for?" In this case, any interpretation that prevents the players from actually getting any meaningful information from the plants is stopping the spell from performing its basic function, and should probably be reconsidered.

[Derpy]

Or maybe just "A bunch of really heavy things trampled all over me"? That is, just as the spell says, providing information about creatures that passed. The spell works. But if that's the limits of what the spell does, it's not very useful.

If you want to be an antagonistic and combative DM, sure. But just like other senses, nothing says that tree roots are the sole way, let alone a way at all, that trees can sense something in the books. They don't have nerves the rest of the tree doesn't. That's 100% on you. If you feel that's worth a third level spell slot, I hope your players have fun with that ruling.

[HappyDaze]

I see the term "antagonist DM/GM" being thrown around a lot. Let's be honest, there are far more antagonistic players out there that take advantage of the power imbalance to play the victim card even when bullying the DM/GM. They abuse the term antagonistic until it's almost meaningless (i.e., it's whatever doesnt favor the player's wants) and becomes the equivalent of throwing out loaded terms like racist, misogynistic, or fascist. So, stop doing that.

[JellyPooga]

If the players question a human, I can look up humans and see, nope, no darkvision. If the players question an elf, I can look up elves and see, yup, darkvision. If the players question a patch of grass, I can look up shambling mounds, and see... wait, why am I looking up shambling mounds here?

What about a human that has cast a Darkvision spell? What about a blind elf? The statblocks you're using are irrelevant in such cases. How many HP does an Orc have? The correct answer is "however many the GM wants/needs", not the 15 listed on their statblock in the MM. In the end, you can only use the MM as a guideline for any NPC. Given that plant creatures in the MM have a strong tendency towards having Blindsight, it would be a safe assumption to make if you were to attribute it to plants under the effect of Speak with Plants, but you are under no obligation to.

Do you really expect the MM or the spell to list the differences between a mangrove, a cactus and an oak tree? How about a water lily? A potted ficus? What about the difference between bull-rushes, crab-grass and moss? Does fungus count? What if it's a gargantuan puffball? What about the difference between an ancient, centuries old oak and a young willow sapling? Each of these have their own physical characteristics that separate them from other types of plant. Each could have different senses, perception, even personalities and I would hate to have to ignore all those possibilities because a spell says that all non-creature plants, regardless of type, will always have normal human vision out ot 60ft or whatever. The designers hardly had the space in the spells chapter to outline every different type of possible plant that the spell could affect, even if they thought it was worth bothering, because at the end of the day; it's one spell that's not going to be commonly used, that has limited function in combat and is about talking to plants in the same way that you might talk to any other damned NPC, both categories (plants and NPCs) of which are as varied as there are colours under the sun. Even the Awaken spell says "eh, let the GM decide the stats" because the devs acknowledged the fact that different plants would have different stats under magical influence that gratns them sentience and animation. Yeah, there's stats for an awakened shrub in the MM, but it's a guideline, not a rule.

[Keltest]

I see the term "antagonist DM/GM" being thrown around a lot. Let's be honest, there are far more antagonistic players out there that take advantage of the power imbalance to play the victim card even when bullying the DM/GM. They abuse the term antagonistic until it's almost meaningless (i.e., it's whatever doesnt favor the player's wants) and becomes the equivalent of throwing out loaded terms like racist, misogynistic, or fascist. So, stop doing that.

How else would you describe a DM that is actively preventing a spell from doing what the description says it does? If a DM said "Sorry, the air mix in my world isn't flammable enough for fireball to work, so it doesn't deal damage except when the enemy is standing in flammable gas." what would you call that?

[Chronos]

To be clear, I'm not saying that that's my interpretation. I'm saying that the fact that it's so subject to interpretation is a problem. If one DM says that the spell doesn't tell you anything but that someone touched the plants, and another says that the plants know what was in their pockets because that's "information about creatures who passed by", and both DMs are completely within the rules for what the spell says, then that means that the player has no idea how useful the spell is going to be, and doesn't know whether it's even bother learning. It reduces the rules to "This spell does something, but you have no idea what, but you don't need to know because the DM's going to just tell his story anyway". That's terrible rule design.

[HappyDaze]

To be clear, I'm not saying that that's my interpretation. I'm saying that the fact that it's so subject to interpretation is a problem. If one DM says that the spell doesn't tell you anything but that someone touched the plants, and another says that the plants know what was in their pockets because that's "information about creatures who passed by", and both DMs are completely within the rules for what the spell says, then that means that the player has no idea how useful the spell is going to be, and doesn't know whether it's even bother learning. It reduces the rules to "This spell does something, but you have no idea what, but you don't need to know because the DM's going to just tell his story anyway". That's terrible rule design.

Yep. Well said.

[Keltest]

To be clear, I'm not saying that that's my interpretation. I'm saying that the fact that it's so subject to interpretation is a problem. If one DM says that the spell doesn't tell you anything but that someone touched the plants, and another says that the plants know what was in their pockets because that's "information about creatures who passed by", and both DMs are completely within the rules for what the spell says, then that means that the player has no idea how useful the spell is going to be, and doesn't know whether it's even bother learning. It reduces the rules to "This spell does something, but you have no idea what, but you don't need to know because the DM's going to just tell his story anyway". That's terrible rule design.

But that's true of every social interaction in the game. If you go speak to a commoner, you have no idea what they do or do not know about what youre asking them.

[Pex]

To be clear, I'm not saying that that's my interpretation. I'm saying that the fact that it's so subject to interpretation is a problem. If one DM says that the spell doesn't tell you anything but that someone touched the plants, and another says that the plants know what was in their pockets because that's "information about creatures who passed by", and both DMs are completely within the rules for what the spell says, then that means that the player has no idea how useful the spell is going to be, and doesn't know whether it's even bother learning. It reduces the rules to "This spell does something, but you have no idea what, but you don't need to know because the DM's going to just tell his story anyway". That's terrible rule design.

Welcome to 5E.

[Deathtongue]

But that's true of every social interaction in the game. If you go speak to a commoner, you have no idea what they do or do not know about what youre asking them.There's varying degrees of narrative plausibility for this kind of intransigence. It's more plausible for a detective's investigation into a murder be derailed because everyone in a hamlet has red-green colorblindness than everyone in a big city's mansion having red-green colorblindness. Sure, the DM might have an explanation as for why the non-inbreeding castle staff and court members of all species are partially colorblind (i.e. there's a conspiracy where people are poisoning the district's water supply) but they still have to come up with an explanation.

But with that interpretation of Speak With Plants, you will never get any useful information and the DM never has to supply a reason.

[JellyPooga]

That's terrible rule design.

If we were talking about a board game or field sport, I would agree. The fact is, though, that this isn't either of those any more than it's a strategy tabletop wargame or miniatures skirmish game. The rules in an RPG can and by necessity, must allow for a lot more interpretation and flexibility than any other style of game. Leaving the spell as open to GM interpretation as any other social interaction is not only ok, but required. This isn't bad rule design, it's the nature of the game. If you want to play a "choose your own adventure" or board game, fine; the cards, tables, rules, etc will guide you down a merry and predictable path. RPGs are different. Do other RPGs have more detailed or more entertaining social rules? Yeah, maybe. The point is that given the social rules and plot delivery of D&D 5e, Speak with Plants is consistent with them.

The fact is that unless the GM is intentionally trying to negate the purpose of the spell, the intention of the spell is quite clear. It's right there in the first paragraph of the spell description. To what degree the information is useful to the player is open to interpretation, yes, but the same can be said of any other spell being used to gather information. Casting Dominate Person or Zone of Truth doesn't require the player to get any more useful information and is just as open to GM interpretation as Speak with Plants is.

[Chronos]

Both of the interpretations I mentioned there are consistent with the "clear intention of the spell". And while there will necessarily be places where the rules are vague because it's not possible for them to be otherwise, this isn't one of those places. A sentence or two added to the spell description would have made this entire thread unnecessary.

[Democratus]

Both of the interpretations I mentioned there are consistent with the "clear intention of the spell".

No. Not really.

[Derpy]

I see the term "antagonist DM/GM" being thrown around a lot. Let's be honest, there are far more antagonistic players out there that take advantage of the power imbalance to play the victim card even when bullying the DM/GM. They abuse the term antagonistic until it's almost meaningless (i.e., it's whatever doesnt favor the player's wants) and becomes the equivalent of throwing out loaded terms like racist, misogynistic, or fascist. So, stop doing that.

A DM should exist to facilitate the game with the players, not fight against them. If the player uses a spell that they have a reasonable expectation of it doing what the description says, and the DM goes; 'naw, don't like it. not gonna work.' I'm gonna call it like I see it, and not blame the player for reasonable expectations when it's the DM's fault for limiting the spell. They should stop fighting their players instead.

That isn't to say every disagreement between players and DMs/GMs is antagonistic, or fighting the players. I outlined a few instances of ways the resolve the DMs point of view on this in ways I think many people would find equitable. There are certainly more ways out there, but if a DM pulled a 'gotcha' moment on their player who acted in good faith with this spell, and was unwilling to compromise and just had them blow a third level spell for no gain, I'd call that antagonistic; and I'd be right to do so.

[Chaosmancer]

I see the term "antagonist DM/GM" being thrown around a lot. Let's be honest, there are far more antagonistic players out there that take advantage of the power imbalance to play the victim card even when bullying the DM/GM. They abuse the term antagonistic until it's almost meaningless (i.e., it's whatever doesnt favor the player's wants) and becomes the equivalent of throwing out loaded terms like racist, misogynistic, or fascist. So, stop doing that.

If a player is falsely playing the victim, I would agree with you.

But, since this is getting thrown around so much (and by a few people who I think like me are primarily DMs) you may want to question why?

Why are you getting pushback for declaring a third level spell useless because you want to say it cannot do what it says it can do. Or, if you want to take Chronos's latest stance, to do so in the way that is most useless.

To give an example, reducing Speak with Plants to "well something stepped on me at some point" is equivalent to me to having a player declare they cast firebolt at a stack of papers and the DM rule they burn a single piece of paper and nothing else, "because you can only target one item with the spell at a time, and a piece of paper is a single item."

If you want to force the spell to be useless, it is on you.



To be clear, I'm not saying that that's my interpretation. I'm saying that the fact that it's so subject to interpretation is a problem. If one DM says that the spell doesn't tell you anything but that someone touched the plants, and another says that the plants know what was in their pockets because that's "information about creatures who passed by", and both DMs are completely within the rules for what the spell says, then that means that the player has no idea how useful the spell is going to be, and doesn't know whether it's even bother learning. It reduces the rules to "This spell does something, but you have no idea what, but you don't need to know because the DM's going to just tell his story anyway". That's terrible rule design.

Ah, apologies for thinking you were going with that interpretation.

But, I think you are both wildly underestimating the player's ability to figure out this spell and how reasonable the examply you gave was.

Let us take Detect Thoughts for a second. The spell allows you to read the surface thoughts of a creature. Which thoughts are those? What specifically can you learn from that. If the creature is speaking, and focused on say, a rehearsed speech, do you just hear an echo of what the creature is saying? Do surface thoughts include the feeling of pain if they are sitting with a sharp object poking into them?

Or, how about speak with Dead? It says that the target of the spell can only know what it knew in life? When exactly does life end? If they got stabbed in the heart, but their eyes still saw for another second, does anything they see in that second count, or were they already dead and that information is lost? The spell says they need a mouth but they don't need a head, so if they died from an exploding brain, and their heart kept beating for a few seconds after, could they tell you what crawled out of their skull? They might have felt something after all.

Augury asks about a "specific course of action" (that is kind of vauge) and specifically doesn't take into account the casting of other spells or loss of companions. Does that mean that a cleric casting augury is assumed to cast zero spells if they are entering a combat? If they ask "What will be the results if we go to the Duke and demand an answer" and they are standing in the guard barracks with 50 men-at-arms, do those men-at-arms count as part of we? Do you give a weal result, because 50 additional fighters means they would easily win, but knowing that those guards won't go and the real answer is that it is woe, because the party will have to fight a powerful demon?

We can do this sort of thing with pretty much every single information gathering spell in the book. Piece it down into the most constrictive language we can and say "well, technically, the spell says-" but that doesn't mean we should, and it doesn't mean we want the designers to go in and specify every single little detail they could possibly mean for these spells.



Both of the interpretations I mentioned there are consistent with the "clear intention of the spell". And while there will necessarily be places where the rules are vague because it's not possible for them to be otherwise, this isn't one of those places. A sentence or two added to the spell description would have made this entire thread unnecessary.

Saying what?

What if the spell said "Plants affected by this spell are considered to have blindsense of sixty feet and a wisdom score of 16." Would that make everything better?

[Chronos]

Well, the simplest sentence to add would be something like "plants are assumed to have had senses similar to a human's, for purpose of determining what they know". If that's not the intended interpretation, then one might need a little more to nail it down, but probably not much more.

[HappyDaze]

I prefer the older edition text where it says that the plants can tell you about things that passed through them. That's still clearer than trying to figure out if a tree overheard a whispered conversation from 50' away.

[Chaosmancer]

I prefer the older edition text where it says that the plants can tell you about things that passed through them. That's still clearer than trying to figure out if a tree overheard a whispered conversation from 50' away.

So Oak trees would never be able to tell you anything? Because nothing "passes through them"

And why are they whispering? If we assume the people are in the forest, no reason to whisper

[HappyDaze]

So Oak trees would never be able to tell you anything? Because nothing "passes through them"

And why are they whispering? If we assume the people are in the forest, no reason to whisper

Re: Oak trees, flying creatures might pass through their leaves and branches, other creatures may have climbed them or tripped on a root. Besides, you speak with all plants in the area, not one of them. The oak may not have much to add, but a bit from it and a bit from the grass and maybe a bit from another bush might all come together (or maybe not).

Re: You've never been attacked in the woods by sylvan elf bandits? They don't have telepathy, and hand signs are not all that practical while carrying weapons, so as they sneak up on you, they use whispers and low voices (still audible to their hearing) to communicate.

[Chaosmancer]

Re: Oak trees, flying creatures might pass through their leaves and branches, other creatures may have climbed them or tripped on a root. Besides, you speak with all plants in the area, not one of them. The oak may not have much to add, but a bit from it and a bit from the grass and maybe a bit from another bush might all come together (or maybe not).

Re: You've never been attacked in the woods by sylvan elf bandits? They don't have telepathy, and hand signs are not all that practical while carrying weapons, so as they sneak up on you, they use whispers and low voices (still audible to their hearing) to communicate.

So roots count, even though that isn't "through" the tree it is "over" the tree.


Why is it important to know what the bandits whispered for the plot? Since we established that the grass works for essentially anything walking on the ground, why do we care about if the whispers could be heard from 50 ft away, we can go and ask the grass they were standing on, or the bush they were in.

Or maybe they were hiding in the top of that tree you were talking about, not 50 ft away, but directly there.

[HappyDaze]

So roots count, even though that isn't "through" the tree it is "over" the tree.


Why is it important to know what the bandits whispered for the plot? Since we established that the grass works for essentially anything walking on the ground, why do we care about if the whispers could be heard from 50 ft away, we can go and ask the grass they were standing on, or the bush they were in.

Or maybe they were hiding in the top of that tree you were talking about, not 50 ft away, but directly there.

That depends on whether the area moves with you for the duration or is only those within 30 feet when cast. If the latter, it might require another casting to check with the plants "over there." Also, this matters more for the areas with limited plants--like a few palm trees on a sandy beach, a cactus in the desert, or a potted plant in a home--where there might not be a closer plant to ask.

[Magicspook]

Holy hell I'd hate to be in some people's game judging from what has been said in this thread. Provided the people who are insisting they need a statblock before they could even begin to provide any player some info based on speak with plants are even DM's,because it sounds like they are on a whole different world from me.

You're the game master. You control the game, it's in the name. One of your players casts a spell which says you get some info. You mentally go through the following steps:

-what info is there to know? What do I really not want them to know and what do I want them to know?
-what part of all the available information is worth a 3rd level spell?
-what cool flavour can I give to the way I provide that information? Do the plants grow faces, does the player hear whispers on the wind or a voice in their head? Go crazy, you're the DM!

The reason why DnD is such a great game is, in my opinion, the fact that instead of some computer program, the world is being run by an actual person. A computer program can only read its rules and provide prerecorded information. A DM can improvise, adapt and personalise the content he delivers. USE THAT POWER.

[MaxWilson]

...I'd hate to be in some people's game judging from what has been said in this thread. Provided the people who are insisting they need a statblock before they could even begin to provide any player some info based on speak with plants are even DM's,because it sounds like they are on a whole different world from me.

You're the game master. You control the game, it's in the name. One of your players casts a spell which says you get some info. You mentally go through the following steps:

-what info is there to know? What do I really not want them to know and what do I want them to know?
-what part of all the available information is worth a 3rd level spell?
-what cool flavour can I give to the way I provide that information? Do the plants grow faces, does the player hear whispers on the wind or a voice in their head? Go crazy, you're the DM!

The reason why DnD is such a great game is, in my opinion, the fact that instead of some computer program, the world is being run by an actual person. A computer program can only read its rules and provide prerecorded information. A DM can improvise, adapt and personalise the content he delivers. USE THAT POWER.

Yeah, it's like when people say things like, "you can't Polymorph into a regular squirrel because it doesn't have a published stat block." And I'm like, "That's your DM's job, to invent a stat block when needed."

Ditto for "Unicorns are the only CR 5 Celestials so Conjure Celestial IX is useless, worse than Conjure Celestial XII."

[Chaosmancer]

That depends on whether the area moves with you for the duration or is only those within 30 feet when cast. If the latter, it might require another casting to check with the plants "over there." Also, this matters more for the areas with limited plants--like a few palm trees on a sandy beach, a cactus in the desert, or a potted plant in a home--where there might not be a closer plant to ask.

Considering the spell says: Range- Self (30 ft radius) I do not know how you could possibly assume the area does not move with the player. Especially since it is supposed to also affect difficult terrain.

And yes, it might matter more where there are few plants. Doesn't change much about the situation. Asking a single cactus out in the desert is much the same as asking a single lizard or a single traveler.

[Chaosmancer]

Holy hell I'd hate to be in some people's game judging from what has been said in this thread. Provided the people who are insisting they need a statblock before they could even begin to provide any player some info based on speak with plants are even DM's,because it sounds like they are on a whole different world from me.

You're the game master. You control the game, it's in the name. One of your players casts a spell which says you get some info. You mentally go through the following steps:

-what info is there to know? What do I really not want them to know and what do I want them to know?
-what part of all the available information is worth a 3rd level spell?
-what cool flavour can I give to the way I provide that information? Do the plants grow faces, does the player hear whispers on the wind or a voice in their head? Go crazy, you're the DM!

The reason why DnD is such a great game is, in my opinion, the fact that instead of some computer program, the world is being run by an actual person. A computer program can only read its rules and provide prerecorded information. A DM can improvise, adapt and personalise the content he delivers. USE THAT POWER.


Agreed, I just don't get it