This came up in my game today. I ruled they do not catch fire. I would have ruled the other way if they were vulnerable to fire, but they are not. I got alot of push back. Just curious on your guys thoughts.
Edit: The spell in question was burning hands. Which states that flammable things that aren't worn or carried do not catch fire. If clothes worn don't catch fire, the bark over a tree wouldn't either IMO.
They're as flammable as a normal person. So, extremely. But since 5e is mean, you can't set creatures on fire with spells like that.
I don't know what people you hang out with, but, for the most part, humans are mostly made of water and are likely to singe or produce weeping sores or blister when briefly encountering a flash of fire for a second or two. We do not burst into flame uncontrollably and we are not generally made up of anything that would be considered an accelerant other than maybe hair which has a flash point.
As for Blights, they are not vulnerable to fire and, as stated above, are more soggy with blood than a dry kindling. They would burn about as easy as any other damp log, which is to say, not very well at all and mostly just produce smoke as the wet wood smolders instead of burns.
Well, of course people don't burst into flame uncontrollably, but with a little bit of help they burn quite well. Really depends on what they're wearing, depending on the material you can get a nice flame going.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
Pulling out a fire spell against a plant monster isn't that clever though. I like that Tree Blight's aren't flammable, it makes them creepier.
"As your flames envelop the creature it recoils at first as the outer layer of bark smaller limbs turn to crispy ash, but the creature remains standing as bloodlike sap seeps through the wounds, giving your fire less dry matter to burn than expected."
My quick take away is if the wood/plant appearance/category creature does not have Damage Vulnerabilities fire in their stat-block then there is no benefit to setting it on fire besides maybe looking cool. Just for personal interest, I reviewed the Treant stat-block and sure enough, the walking tree, categorized like the Blight as a plant, does have such a damage vulnerability to fire.
I guess the take away from this while it may look like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck that does not mean it's a duck.
Yes they are flammable but not easily. The description states
"It looks like a dead tree or treant, 30 feet tall, with spongy wooden flesh, thorny branches, and rubbery roots that trail behind it. It has blood for sap and is so saturated with blood that it doesn't catch fire easily."
I would guess it is about as flammable as a living tree or any other normal creature. It would take damage from fire but isn't vulnerable to it. If a spell or effect does ongoing fire damage then the tree blight would suffer from that. If you lit a fire around its base it would be unhappy and take damage but it would not go up in flames spontaneously.
in any case you are the dm if you want to make a creature that is close to the tree blight and make it flammable that is what i do and you can make things more diverse in YOUR universe or even if its not yours changing one part of a monster as long as its not the bbeg should be fine to do if it is an original thing though go wild
I think I am missing something here. Twigblights have a average of 4 hit points. A Fire Bolt Cantrip does 1d10 damage. Therefore, based on the math, you can pretty much assume that the fire spell (cantrip) will destroy the blight in a single hit. Does it matter if the remnants are smoldering?
I think I am missing something here. Twigblights have a average of 4 hit points. A Fire Bolt Cantrip does 1d10 damage. Therefore, based on the math, you can pretty much assume that the fire spell (cantrip) will destroy the blight in a single hit. Does it matter if the remnants are smoldering?
Creatures are not flammable unless something specifically states it. Simply relying on creature type isn't a good indication either. Plants, generally, don't actually catch fire very well - but it there's a lot of exceptions. Most plants absorb and retain a lot of moisture so won't catch fire until they're dried out. Same goes for trees: dry bark and branches? Yup. Mossy trunk and branches thick with moisture filled leaves? Not so much. Point is, some will and some won't and in either case it can depend on state. So thinking Plant = Flammable is demonstrably incorrect.
You should really only consider things that easily recognised as flammable: like certain object materials or things that specifically state such. There's no hard or fast rule, it's a DM decision. However, there's a reason some spells specifically state flammable objects "not worn or carried". The RAI of course being you don't set a creature alight unless the spell/whatever specifically says so. There's also reason why specifically mentioned flammable objects, like Oil, also specifically detail how much damage is dealt by being set alight.
Personally I think it's a slippery slope to say certain creatures are flammable. If a creature that specifically states it is difficult to catch fire can be set alight easily by a low level spell, why would those same spells fail to set alight the easier to ignite hair on people (which can be quite flammable, as I speak from experience)?
The logic of it doesn't hold up. If you want to make the non-flammable creature flammable as a Rule of Cool then that's fine. But I'd also recommend you lower the CR and any XP because you made it A LOT easier to defeat than it was intended. It's not like you're rewarding creativity. Just casting a fire spell isn't that creature. Now somebody casting Web and setting that on fire to burn targets in it, or dousing the creature in oil then firebolting? That's creative.
To each their own, of course. It most assuredly is not something I would do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Like some already said here, I would like to reward the players for thinking this way. I don't care much for the rules of the game if it stands in the way of creativity or logic. Maybe it's an idea to reduce their ac when they are set on fire. The tree bark surrounding the sap could act as an armor thus burning the bark would make the blight more vulnerable. This way you can reward the players without breaking the encounter.
Like some already said here, I would like to reward the players for thinking this way.
The odds are if they're running into a tree blight this isn't the first blight they've run into, though oddly enough the only blight type that's actually vulnerable to fire is twig blights (and with 4 hp, most players will never notice).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This came up in my game today. I ruled they do not catch fire. I would have ruled the other way if they were vulnerable to fire, but they are not. I got alot of push back. Just curious on your guys thoughts.
Edit: The spell in question was burning hands. Which states that flammable things that aren't worn or carried do not catch fire. If clothes worn don't catch fire, the bark over a tree wouldn't either IMO.
From the description, "It has blood for sap and is so saturated with blood that it doesn't catch fire easily".
They're as flammable as a normal person. So, extremely. But since 5e is mean, you can't set creatures on fire with spells like that.
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
I don't know what people you hang out with, but, for the most part, humans are mostly made of water and are likely to singe or produce weeping sores or blister when briefly encountering a flash of fire for a second or two. We do not burst into flame uncontrollably and we are not generally made up of anything that would be considered an accelerant other than maybe hair which has a flash point.
As for Blights, they are not vulnerable to fire and, as stated above, are more soggy with blood than a dry kindling. They would burn about as easy as any other damp log, which is to say, not very well at all and mostly just produce smoke as the wet wood smolders instead of burns.
Well, of course people don't burst into flame uncontrollably, but with a little bit of help they burn quite well. Really depends on what they're wearing, depending on the material you can get a nice flame going.
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
Pulling out a fire spell against a plant monster isn't that clever though. I like that Tree Blight's aren't flammable, it makes them creepier.
"As your flames envelop the creature it recoils at first as the outer layer of bark smaller limbs turn to crispy ash, but the creature remains standing as bloodlike sap seeps through the wounds, giving your fire less dry matter to burn than expected."
I am one with the Force. The Force is with me.
My quick take away is if the wood/plant appearance/category creature does not have Damage Vulnerabilities fire in their stat-block then there is no benefit to setting it on fire besides maybe looking cool. Just for personal interest, I reviewed the Treant stat-block and sure enough, the walking tree, categorized like the Blight as a plant, does have such a damage vulnerability to fire.
I guess the take away from this while it may look like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck that does not mean it's a duck.
Yes they are flammable but not easily. The description states
"It looks like a dead tree or treant, 30 feet tall, with spongy wooden flesh, thorny branches, and rubbery roots that trail behind it. It has blood for sap and is so saturated with blood that it
doesn't catch fire easily."
I would guess it is about as flammable as a living tree or any other normal creature. It would take damage from fire but isn't vulnerable to it. If a spell or effect does ongoing fire damage then the tree blight would suffer from that. If you lit a fire around its base it would be unhappy and take damage but it would not go up in flames spontaneously.
in any case you are the dm if you want to make a creature that is close to the tree blight and make it flammable that is what i do and you can make things more diverse in YOUR universe or even if its not yours changing one part of a monster as long as its not the bbeg should be fine to do if it is an original thing though go wild
I think I am missing something here. Twigblights have a average of 4 hit points. A Fire Bolt Cantrip does 1d10 damage. Therefore, based on the math, you can pretty much assume that the fire spell (cantrip) will destroy the blight in a single hit. Does it matter if the remnants are smoldering?
Tree Blight, not Twig Blight.
Knew I was missing something.
And the moral of this post is... Do not read or post on boards when you are overly tired.
Creatures are not flammable unless something specifically states it. Simply relying on creature type isn't a good indication either. Plants, generally, don't actually catch fire very well - but it there's a lot of exceptions. Most plants absorb and retain a lot of moisture so won't catch fire until they're dried out. Same goes for trees: dry bark and branches? Yup. Mossy trunk and branches thick with moisture filled leaves? Not so much. Point is, some will and some won't and in either case it can depend on state. So thinking Plant = Flammable is demonstrably incorrect.
You should really only consider things that easily recognised as flammable: like certain object materials or things that specifically state such. There's no hard or fast rule, it's a DM decision. However, there's a reason some spells specifically state flammable objects "not worn or carried". The RAI of course being you don't set a creature alight unless the spell/whatever specifically says so. There's also reason why specifically mentioned flammable objects, like Oil, also specifically detail how much damage is dealt by being set alight.
Personally I think it's a slippery slope to say certain creatures are flammable. If a creature that specifically states it is difficult to catch fire can be set alight easily by a low level spell, why would those same spells fail to set alight the easier to ignite hair on people (which can be quite flammable, as I speak from experience)?
The logic of it doesn't hold up. If you want to make the non-flammable creature flammable as a Rule of Cool then that's fine. But I'd also recommend you lower the CR and any XP because you made it A LOT easier to defeat than it was intended. It's not like you're rewarding creativity. Just casting a fire spell isn't that creature. Now somebody casting Web and setting that on fire to burn targets in it, or dousing the creature in oil then firebolting? That's creative.
To each their own, of course. It most assuredly is not something I would do.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Eucalypt blight -- regenerates when burnt.
Like some already said here, I would like to reward the players for thinking this way. I don't care much for the rules of the game if it stands in the way of creativity or logic. Maybe it's an idea to reduce their ac when they are set on fire. The tree bark surrounding the sap could act as an armor thus burning the bark would make the blight more vulnerable. This way you can reward the players without breaking the encounter.
The odds are if they're running into a tree blight this isn't the first blight they've run into, though oddly enough the only blight type that's actually vulnerable to fire is twig blights (and with 4 hp, most players will never notice).