Josh's Treant Race (D&D 3.5)

[Barna13]

Prefice: In a conversation I was having with a GM, I was telling him how terrible the Treant race is at any level of optimization. He asked me to make a homebrew Treant that wasn't terrible, so I did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treant:

The Treant is a majestic living tree. They don’t just live in the forest. They are nature given life. They are the forest. They are generally peaceful creatures, but will resort to violence to protect the forest if there is no other option.

Base race:
2 Plant RHD.
Skill list: As druid.
Plant type.
+4 Natural armor.
+4 strength, +2 Con.
Unshakable fire vulnerability: Treants take double fire energy damage. They are unaffected by spells that would reduce or eliminate fire damage to them, such as resist energy(fire), protection from energy(fire), and energy immunity(fire). This does not apply to such spells reducing or eliminating other energy types.

Class progression:
3 RHD: +2 CON. +2 STR. Natural armor +2. Dr 5/slashing
4 RHD: Spellcasting as Druid 1. +4 Wis. Speak with plants.
5 RHD. +4 Con. +2 STR. +1 natural armor Large Size.
6 RHD:+2 WIS +2 Wis +2 INT. Spellcasting as druid 2. Speak with animals. Entangle.
7 RHD: +6 STR. Huge size. DR 10/slashing.


Speak with Plants: A Treant with this feature is constantly under the effect of the speak with plants spell. He can stop and resume it with a free action.


Spellcasting as Druid: A treant with this feature has spellcasting identical to a druid of the given level.

Speak with animals: A Treant with this feature is constantly under the effect of the speak with animals spell. He can stop and resume it with a free action.

(SP). 6 RHD- at will entangle. DC is 10+½ HD+Wisdom modifier.

Treant Druid Racial substitution levels:
Level 1: A Treant druid does not gain wild empathy, nature sense, and animal companion abilities, but gains the following abilities:
Nature’s soul: A Treant druid gains a +10 bonus to handle animal, survival, and knowledge(nature.)
Animal friendship: A Treant druid using his racial speak with animals ability can attempt to befriend any animal he speaks to. Make a handle animal check. Determine the change in the animal’s attitude by comparing the handle animal check with the diplomacy attitude table.
Level 5: A Treant druid does not gain wild shape, and instead increases his racial druid spellcasting level by a number indicated by the following table.




Treant RHD
Additional levels of racial druid casting


2
+2


3-4
+3


5-6
+4


7
+5




For example, a Treant 7/Druid 5 druidic spellcasting level would be 2(the base racial spellcasting level of a treant with 7 RHD)+5(the bonus spellcasting level from this racial substitution level)+5(his druid level)=12 total.

Playing a Treant at ECL 1: To create an ECL 1 Treant remove the base race’s strength and constitution modifiers until they gain their second level. They must take the second level of Treant before they can take any other class levels.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments/constructive criticism are welcome!

[nonsi]

Unshakable fire vulnerability: Treants take double fire energy damage. They are unaffected by spells that would reduce or eliminate fire damage to them, such as resist energy(fire), protection from energy(fire), and energy immunity(fire). This does not apply to such spells reducing or eliminating other energy types.


Savage Species already has a monster class for the Treant (page 197).
I'm assuming that the intent behind Unshakable fire vulnerability is to mitigate level adjustment.
The way I see it, there are three problems with your solution:
1. This feature is an inherent "I lose" button - at any and all levels.
2. It doesn't offset the benefits you offer with each level progression (and no way ECL 9 is enough to contain all the benefits that your proposed 7 levels give).
3. It makes absolutely no sense. Abjuration effects don't change the target internally (that's what Transmutation does), but rather affect it externally. So what this means is that a treant's body actively and magically counteracts certain protection effects. I don't know of any D&D race, class or template that does that.

Also there are already rules of how vulnerability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#vulnerabilitytoEnergy) works.

I think that taking the SS Treant proposal and spreading it over 10 levels (probably losing a HD at levels 3, 6, 9) would be decent.

[Barna13]

Savage Species already has a monster class for the Treant (page 197).
I'm assuming that the intent behind Unshakable fire vulnerability is to mitigate level adjustment.
The way I see it, there are three problems with your solution:
1. This feature is an inherent "I lose" button - at any and all levels.
2. It doesn't offset the benefits you offer with each level progression (and no way ECL 9 is enough to contain all the benefits that your proposed 7 levels give).
3. It makes absolutely no sense. Abjuration effects don't change the target internally (that's what Transmutation does), but rather affect it externally. So what this means is that a treant's body actively and magically counteracts certain protection effects. I don't know of any D&D race, class or template that does that.

Also there are already rules of how vulnerability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#vulnerabilitytoEnergy) works.

I think that taking the SS Treant proposal and spreading it over 10 levels (probably losing a HD at levels 3, 6, 9) would be decent.

Let's examine two possibilities for who might use this race(as I did), and then I'll explain why I created unshakable fire vulnerability.
Possibility one: The Druid Treant. The optimal build here would probably be treant 2/druid 5/treant 3-7/prestige. The first two levels wouldn't even have druid casting, and the next 5 would be normal druid. But from levels 7-12 they get back to full druid casting and some treant goodies like a beefy body, some more wisdom, and the ability to speak with forest creatures. So that makes it broken right? No. Why? They don't get an animal companion or wild shape. A beefy body doesn't come close to the power and utility that wild shape brings. And a bonus to talking to animals can't compare to basically having a pet fighter. So I feel this is completely open and shut, Treant Druid is not objectively better than a human druid, or lesser aasimar druid, or anthropomorphic bat druid, or whatever.

Possibility two: The non-druid Treant. This would probably be a melee class as opposed to I don't know a cleric. In this, let's look at two sets of levels, the first two, and the remaining five. The first two get you +6 in abilities and +4 nat armor. But more than that, it gives you the plant type, which inherently gets you:
Low-light vision.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).
Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, polymorph, and stunning.
Not subject to critical hits.
Not having to sleep(unless regaining spells).

And therein lies the problem with these two levels, the plant type is amazing. The list of immunities is massive. And it's not a Treant without being a plant. I didn't want this to be an overshadowing choice for every fighter/warblade type, where they'd lose 2 levels of class progression and 1 BAB for a massive list of super relevant immunities. So I decided I either had to remove those immunities(through something like the living construct subtype, but for plants), or introduce a major drawback that created a weakness that compensating for the immunities. I settled on a more extreme version of fire vulnerability.

As for why it can't be mitigated by abjuration, I'll give you both a game design reason(what I was primarily focused on), and a lore-reason(which you may or may not find satisfactory).

Game design: It's not a drawback if it can be mitigated by the time it starts to adversely effect you(levels 3-5), and removed entirely in the midlevels onward(level 11/13).

Lore: A Treant(in my conception), is a metaphysical embodiment of the forest it comes from in particular, and nature in general. The magical essence of fire is inherently destructive the the essence of the forest(the treant). And so any attempt to physically shield the body can't stop that adverse reaction from taking place.

As for later levels in treant for a melee character: 2 of those levels only give you druid casting(and wisdom), and while the increased size and big body are nice, they aren't objectively better than say, going warblade for 5 levels.

As for it being a lose-button, let's crunch some numbers.

Let's say we have a Treant 5, with a base constitution of 16. If he had average hit point rolls he'd have 5*CON(=35)+8+4.5*4(=18), for a total of 51 hp. A fireball from a wizard of the same level will do on average 7*5=35 damage to you. That's definitely very scary, but it's not the instant-lose you'd make it out to be. And that's IF you fail the reflex save.

At a higher level, say...level 15, facing down an adult red dragon. Let's say our hypothetical Treant had taken 2 more levels of treant, and then 8 in warblade. Along with an amulet of health +6. That would bring his HP up to 8+4.5*7(=31)+6.5*8(=52)+15*CON(=150), for a total of 241hp. That adult red dragon's breath weapon will deal on average 66 damage. If you fail the reflex. That's a tiny hit relative to the percent of HP your party wizard will be taking.

Now that I feel I've addressed all your complaints about mine, let me address the SS Treant:
It's terrible.
So terrible in fact that I wonder why they hate Treants so much.
In total, for 12 freaking levels, you get:
DR 10/slashing(oh great, so it's ignored by all swords, claws, and bites. Truly the best thing to not have protection against)
Huge size(pretty good)
Animate trees(just a weird and ethically dubious ability. But you get the ability to summon two hillariously slow Treants that are only good if the baddies don't realize they can just ignore them.)
Double damage against objects(Why is this a thing? It's not even good it's just...weird.)
+13 natural armor, +8 CON, +18 STR, +4 WIS, +2 CHA, -4 DEX. (This is a decent stat array, but considering the massive amounts of BAB, saves, skills, hit points, and class features you lose out on from the 7RHD and ridiculous 5LA, it's really not worth it.)

[nonsi]

.

Regarding the "I lose" button:

Orb of Fire – orbs being among the more popular Evocation spells – deals 1d6 per level (max 15d6) with no save.
If I were to play a pyromancer, that (and its lesser version) would be the first spell on my list.
You can take Empower Spell and Maximized Spell, then take Arcane thesis and deal terrible amounts of damage. Now your Treant takes 135 hp damage with no save from a 7th level spell.

Greater Fireburst deals 15d10. Same principle as the above, applied as an 8th level spell for 225 HP damage, but with a save allowed.



That said, those 2 racial HD kinda slipped my notice earlier.
I'm assuming that a monster class should require 3 levels above its CR in a no-house-rules game, so a CR 8 monster should require ECL 11.
If your Treant starts with 2 racial HD at 1st level, which put it 1 level behind characters w/o LA or racial HD, then it needs a total of 10 levels to be decent.
If you think that this is unfair, then go for 9 levels and skip HD at levels 4 and 7. Plant type is LA +2 off the bat, so you're ok.
Now you don't need to homebrew an awkward game mechanic for a single creature.






They don't get an animal companion or wild shape

So I feel this is completely open and shut, Treant Druid is not objectively better than a human druid, or lesser aasimar druid, or anthropomorphic bat druid, or whatever.

So you don't need that awkward crippling workaround. There you have it.





I didn't want this to be an overshadowing choice for every fighter/warblade type, where they'd lose 2 levels of class progression and 1 BAB for a massive list of super relevant immunities. So I decided I either had to remove those immunities(through something like the living construct subtype, but for plants), or introduce a major drawback that created a weakness that compensating for the immunities. I settled on a more extreme version of fire vulnerability.

What's wrong with 2 levels w/o HD progression?
It would mean that you're 3 levels (and 2 HD) behind for all those goodies. Seems like a fair trade to me.
In a 3.5e game with little to no house rules, I'd seriously consider it.
And let's not ignore the fact that being a treant – especially a huge one – is a massive drawback RP-wise.
So again - you don't need that awkward crippling workaround.





As for why it can't be mitigated by abjuration, I'll give you both a game design reason(what I was primarily focused on), and a lore-reason(which you may or may not find satisfactory).

Game design: It's not a drawback if it can be mitigated by the time it starts to adversely effect you(levels 3-5), and removed entirely in the midlevels onward(level 11/13).

You still have to put character resources (time, effort, spells, WBL) to mitigate that drawback.





Lore: A Treant(in my conception), is a metaphysical embodiment of the forest it comes from in particular, and nature in general. The magical essence of fire is inherently destructive the the essence of the forest(the treant). And so any attempt to physically shield the body can't stop that adverse reaction from taking place.

Sorry, but that seems totally awkward to me.
IRL, fresh vegetation is no more vulnerable to fire than human flesh.





As for later levels in treant for a melee character: 2 of those levels only give you druid casting(and wisdom), and while the increased size and big body are nice, they aren't objectively better than say, going warblade for 5 levels.

And again - you don't need that awkward crippling workaround for this case either.





At a higher level, say...level 15, facing down an adult red dragon.

Breath weapon is only really a valid combat tactic when metabreath feats are applied to it to produce battlefield control effects.





Now that I feel I've addressed all your complaints about mine, let me address the SS Treant:
It's terrible.

Say no more. 12 levels is definitely outrageous. The more I think of it, the more ECL 10 seems perfectly fine to me.






Btw, Savage Species states (don't remember where ATM) that you have to take monster classes all the way to their highest level before you can multiclass.

[rferries]

Does he want to specifically be a treant? I brewed up a "Treefolk (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?531828-Treefolk-(LA-1-race)-take-2)" a while ago, if you'll pardon the self-promotion.

[rferries]

Sorry for double-posting, but wanted to add that the consensus seems to be that Treants (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22406888&postcount=394) are LA+0 anyways (admittedly only if you start the campaign at a higher level, and only if you're going for a noncaster).