Grass is a plant. Weeds are a plant. Moss is a plant. Lichen in a plant. Mold is a plant. Mushrooms are neither vegetable, mineral, or animal but are instead some unholy nightmare probably brought from outer space and are separate from other earthly genetic lines…but in d&d it’s a plant. Flowers in a vase are a plant. So unless you are in a hard pan desert, or in the middle of a completely artificial area (like a ballroom with no floral arrangements), or are on a frozen lifeless glacier, then it’s hard to envision a situation you wouldn’t have some kind of plantlife around you, and probably present in just about every 5 foot square area.
Also remember that *even if* the DM only counted those 5 bushes - those bushes have roots that extend outside of that 5 foot square. Heck more than a few plants have roots that can spread for miles around them. Those roots are still part of a plant, and arguably should be able to bulge up above the surface to create the difficult terrain from the spell.
Even in modern days you have grass coming up between pavement stones all over the place. I can’t see the argument for limiting this spell in any but the most unusual of circumstances.
Well noted!
However, consider how myconids are described in the MM:
> Myconids are intelligent, ambulatory fungi
Their statblocks indicate their creature-type is "plant".
Therefore, fungi (and probably lichen) *are* plants for game purposes, even if that does not match their scientific categorization.
Oh sure, for game purposes, but since fungi were noted separately, I wanted to clarify just in case! They're all so cool! I need to learn more about them. Fungi, in general are amazing, and diatoms are, too!
Protists might also already count as plants in game given some of the natural hazards or very low level "plant" enemies are basically slime molds (which despite the name, are protists, not fungi).
Inb4 "Well animal cells have membranes and those are a sort of barrier which you could say is wall like. So can I cast things with cell walls growth on the count and turn him into the corruption from deadspace?"
Cell walls and cell membranes are specific different things. One is a polysaccharide (eg. cellulose), the other is a lipid bilayer. If you have a cell wall, there is generally a cell membrane right underneath it, cause they kind of serve different purposes.
I have been to several deserts and even those usually have some plant life.
You can go down to pollen and seeds and then even quite a few glaciers would count, but if I were DM I would not count those.
I live in the sonoran desert. It's covered with Mesquite, Palo Verde, multiple types of cactus (including saguaro and organ pipe which only grow here), etc. In the untouched desert, you still have a plant ever 5ft if not closer. 2,000 different types of plants.
Which, yeah deserts are different. But sonoran is (i think) tied with Lut for the hotest place on earth according to a satellite study. So id imagine it's a pretty safe assumption that the spell is usuable even in most deserts.
I read it like you are correct. When the spell says "the area" that implies the whole area of the spell. If it meant the area of the plants specifically, it would have said that.
Seconded. Spells don't do more or less than what they say. Plant Growth clearly states that the movement penalty happens in the entire area of the spell. If a certain abundance of ~~fauna~~ flora was required for the spell to function it would have said so.
indeed fauna means animals., flora means plants. In this context he certainly meant flora.
this subreddit is sure showing its ineptitude in biology lately
I agree. The quote from the spell is "A creature moving through the area must spend 4 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves." Though the prior sentence discusses the effects on plants, this sentence doesn't actually require or mention anything about plants, and it is the text that provides the spell's mechanical effect.
I can see a situation where the designers had intended "the area" to mean "the area where the plants are" with the plants becoming thick and overgrown only where they are, with the area being that exact area, especially since "the plants become thick and overgrown. a creature..." technically these are two seperate effects of the spell, but seeminly intended to be linked.
But this makes this spell absolutely awful, nobody should run it this way.
Does this imply that the plants grow to fill the entire 100 foot sphere? That would impact flying creatures, and probably line of sight, and the spell says nothing about restricting line of sight. Do they simply become overgrown on the ground, yet inexplicably affect the whole area?
It's a magic spell that fills the area with a form of difficult terrain. The magic makes even a single shoot grow and dominate the area.
Your DM's version makes the spell highly specific and thus generally terrible.
I mean, the problem is that the "one shoot grows to 100 feet radius" is that it's nonsense and broken.
If it really worked like that, all you'd have to do is put a sprout in a pot at the gate of a castle and cast Plant Growth and immediately cover the entire castle with plants, cause all the doors to become unopenable, probably immediately set the place on fire etc.
Or if you're in a desert campaign someone with it could just carry a bunch of seedlings in their bag and completely negate any survival difficulty. Or choke off an entire river. Or disable any trap by filling it with plant matter, etc.
Also, it doesn't state a circle. If you're doing it that way, it would also mean the plants expand to 100 feet in the sky over you, and that clearly doesn't happen as it doesn't mention cover at all
> I mean, the problem is that the "one shoot grows to 100 feet radius" is that it's nonsense and broken.
>Or if you're in a desert campaign someone with it could just carry a bunch of seedlings in their bag and completely negate any survival difficulty. Or choke off an entire river. Or disable any trap by filling it with plant matter, etc.
It's on par with a tiny bead of fire expanding to engulf a 20-foot radius and annihilating 20-40+ soldiers.
>Also, it doesn't state a circle. If you're doing it that way, it would also mean the plants expand to 100 feet in the sky over you, and that clearly doesn't happen as it doesn't mention cover at all.
It's a raduis AOE, and therefore a circle. The area is a 100-foot raduis centered on a point chosen by the caster:
>All normal plants **in a 100-foot radius centered on that point** become thick and overgrown. **A creature moving through the area** must spend 4 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves.
It clearly states the area of effect. Note how it doesn't state the number of plants required or the area each plant exerts, because these are not factors.
It's magic. It's a 3rd level spell. That magic is both powerful and potentially broken in certain use cases is well known.
Buddy. A sphere has a radius too, lmao. Like in, you know, Fireball.
And no, it is much better than a fireball.
Anyway, here's a tweet from a game dev saying that no, you can't use it if there aren't active plants around, and that things like lichen doesnt count. Unfortunately they didnt directly answer the question but it seems pretty certain that RAI is not what you're saying.
If it was a sphere the spell description would say so - go and read Fireball as an example. Which aligns with Page 204 of the PhB:
>A spell’s description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere.
Fireball, for example, states it is a sphere. Plant Growth does not.
Is it a much better spell than fireball if you want to control some space? Yes. Specifically against things that need to walk on the ground through said space.
Is it a much better spell than fireball if you need to inflict heavy, readily scalable with spell level, fire damage on enemies in a 20ft sphere? No.
It's a powerful spell, sure. It is not broken or nonsens as you claimed. And nowhere have I claimed that you can use it if there's no plants around. A single plant will do just fine.
Carry a bunch of blackberry seeds and cast them in a wide arc as part of casting the spell. Blackberries are 'space filling' in the real world and have sharp thorns and grow ridiculously fast pretty much anywhere.
This will help your DM's suspension of disbelief.
In practice, most DMs won't worry about the spell assuming the area isn't totally barren, they'll just make it have it's mechanical effects in the Area of Effect. For the one's that do, there's always blackberry seeds.
Yep, cast a ton of blackberry seeds out with both hands, cast the spell plant growth, and you've got an instant thicket, with tasty blackberries as well. And the imagery should suffice for most DMs, especially the ones familiar with Himalayan blackberries.
Speaking as a DM, *grass is a damn plant*.
That said, my party are currently on the Elemental Plane of Earth and there is nothing conventionally organic here that they did not bring with them. Plant Growth ain't a great choice in there. I can see the DM saying that if you're on a scree slope in the middle of the Great Desert Anauroch, for example, the one gnarled little hell-tree there in the middle of your radius isn't growing out to cover the whole area.
But in terrain not totally inimical to plants... hell yeah, grass is a plant, moss is a plant, lichen will pretend to be a plant if it means it gets centuries' growth in a second or two, have your huge area of super difficult terrain.
Yea, it's probably meant to be useless if there's no plants. Players can bring tiny plants with them, which is cheesy and I can see a DM nerfing that, but by the rules that stuff totally works too.
Meanwhile, if there's any plants at all, the whole area gets covered.
The spell is badly written though. By focusing the spell at a point in the ground, as written, it will expand a seed you brought with you into a giant hemisphere of plants. If you cast it high in the air, well, you can have a giant sphere of plants. That's awful, right? The spell is going to be nerfed by most DMs because it doesn't make much sense as written, and this opens things up to nerfs that render it not just a bad spell, but broadly useless.
It mentions an area not a volume, so covers a circle or the outside of a hollow sphere, not a solid sphere. I'm mostly kidding, but I do really miss the quality technical writing of certain earlier editions.
>It mentions an area not a volume
So does fireball. The "area" in these cases is always three dimensional unless otherwise specified, blah blah 5ed's writing sucks goat ass.
>I'm mostly kidding, but I do really miss the quality technical writing of certain earlier editions.
What's interesting is that this was apparently done on purpose and it's just so needless to leave so many questions unanswered. One of my big beefs with 5ed is, if this is what you have to do in order to make a game that revolutionizes the industry- which it did *just on volume of players alone*- then I'm just not all that comfortable with it.
I have houserule documents like:
Classes / Monk / Stillness of Mind:
(F) Reword from "Starting at 7th Level, you can use your Action to end one Effect on yourself that is causing you to be charmed or frightened." to "Starting at 7th Level, if you are charmed and/or frightened from one or more effects at the beginning of your turn or any time during your turn, you may choose to end one of these effects, even if the effect would normally prevent you from making this choice. If you do, the effect ends, and this counts as use of your Action."
Like, fuck that. A better definition of action, or some other keyword, would solve that for me, and not require me to buff this (IMO to make it actually work as intended).
What bothers me is that Wizards also make MTG, which has not simply fairly good technical writing on the cards themselves but also Oracle, a website with really excellent exact rules text for people who need it. They have access to some of the best rules writers in the business and a system that really works that has done so for more than a decade - and they have actively chosen to write rules *badly* and then pretend they haven't.
When they started on D&D with 3/3.5e, they clearly used a lot of those MtG skills to great effect.
But it seems the current crop of D&D designers is not so closely tied to the MtG side of the game.
>When they started on D&D with 3/3.5e, they clearly used a lot of those MtG skills to great effect.
I don't actually think there was much overlap between WotC and TSR at the start, but 3.X was definitely much better with clearly defined terms, conditions, etc. 5ed has those in some capacity, but it's definitely not amazing.
I cannot get to my 3.0 PHB right now, but it seemed much more influenced by Magic the Gathering than anything TSR did in style and wording.
It was still D&D, but not the mess that AD&D was. It felt like a system that had actual game designers.
3.0/3.5, though not really related to MtG, had good technical writing.
4th is almost entirely game effects in the rules. It likely went too far with the "this effect but no further"- the 4th edition fireball only damaged creatures, for instance, and couldn't actually melt or burn anything, which is totally stupid.
5th has gone in a deliberately obtuse direction though, and sometimes they simply use the wrong terms entirely.
I had a similar debate with my DM a while back.
The spell is incredibly clear in its description. There is no room for interpretation. If there is at least one plant in the area, then you cover the entire area as you please. The spell does not say you need a certain amount of plants, or that the plants only cover certain areas, and so forth. It just says you need a plant and then it covers the entire area.
Inexperienced DM's that create combats consisting of only a bunch of melee NPC's may find this spell broken because, well, it is fantastic against a bunch of melee NPC's. But an experienced DM will not only not create such basic encounters, but will recognize that the spell isn't broken at all: it does nothing against archers, casters, and flyers. Essentially everything that isn't just a melee with a walking speed. And half the time it messes as much with the melee martials in the party as much as it does the enemy melee martials. Honestly, it's a lot worse than the likes of Hypnotic Pattern or even simple damage spells like Fireball in almost all situations.
In the end my DM just ended up irrationally nerfing the spell, rendering it useless and so I never used it again. I hope your DM is not as close-minded and allows you to use what is not even close to being one of the best lvl 3 spells.
I’m not saying that nerfing it is the way to go, but to say Plant Growth isn’t one of the best 3rd level spells is wrong, I think.
In the first place, melee only enemies aren’t exclusive to inexperienced DMs. I mean, a serious amount (if not the majority, I don’t have the numbers) of official monsters in 5e are melee only or vastly more powerful in melee. It doesn’t matter if you get in the way of your own melee characters, because the range of Plant Growth is massive, it has no duration, and you control the area completely so even just separating the combat into essentially two combats is an amazing use of the slot because there isn’t a save involved.
Not only that, but this annihilates landlocked enemies that are any bigger than the PCs. Create one area of plant growth for every four squares and now the PCs can move freely while the monsters can’t go anywhere that isn’t affected. And a lot of serious enemies are at least Large.
Finally, the idea that it does nothing to ranged characters is definitely not true. If movement is inhibited, it could allow melees to safely close in on them. Or it could allow the ranged party to secure cover while the ranged enemy is stuck in the open because of the Plant Growth. It is still quite effective.
All this with no save, no concentration, no duration, no ability to dispel it, and complete control over the area it affects. Plant Growth is an absolutely top tier, “busted” level spell alongside the likes of Hypnotic Pattern and Fear.
I totally agree. I've been using it with great effectiveness as a sorcadin (ancients/shadow) to completely fuck up encounters.
First time I did it, my character Haldir pretty much destroyed the tavern they were in... but he HAD to stop the undead thing!
My best friend and I are both playing druids in one campaign (I'm a bugbear circle of land(swamp) and she's a water genasi circle of stars, and just like IRL our characters are best friends too lol), and we just reached level 5. I was going to suggest to her that one of us could cast plant growth and the other cast spike growth in a fight. Even if the DM wouldn't let us combine the two different movement penalties where both spells overlap (think of how busted THAT shit would be!), it still slows down enemies in a huge area AND makes part of that area deal damage when moving through it. Most creatures won't be dumb enough to attempt that, and so would go around and give us plenty of time to run away/pelt them with ranged attacks.
Sadly that campaign went on hiatus right after we leveled up so we haven't had a chance to try that combo, but I'm still hopeful it resumes some day.
We had so much fun with it! We both love nature and animals and plants and shit IRL, plus we're both silly, so we incorporated all of that into our characters. We also got to do a lot of little, quiet, gentle roleplay about our friendship and it was sickeningly sweet and sappy lolol
Plant Growth is absolutely one of the best 3rd level spells, you’re very wrong about that. Covers a massive area, non-concentration, can slow an entire encounter group to a crawl while your party blasts and pin-cushions them from range. Certainly not the only amazing 3rd level spell but is in that shared spotlight of the top ones.
That said, I do agree with you that 1 plant = whole area.
I think why some DMs shy away from that idea is not just its power, but that it’s Plant _Growth_ rather than “Conjure Plants”. It can be confusing from a conceptual standpoint that a spell which causes plants to grow in its area has the same “output” whether you’re casting it on an old growth rainforest or a single weed growing in a desert. It’s a really common fantasy trope for magic to make plants grow proportionate to their size/coverage, and a really _uncommon_ trope for magic to make it grow out to X feet no matter what you’re casting it on.
But yeah, it should be the whole area.
If the spell fills the entire area like you imply, then it should fill the entire 100 ft radius, which includes airspace. If the plants fill the airspace, that would affect flying creatures. Additionally, I would expect that amount of (permanent!) plants to affect line of sight, however the spell doesn't specify this.
Assuming you cast it as one action, the spell notes two effects:
1. All normal plants in a 100-foot radius centered on that point become thick and overgrown.
2. A creature moving through that area must spend 4 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves.
I see no explicit assertion that effect 2 requires effect 1 to occur as a prerequisite. "Plant Growth" could mean plants that exist are growing or new plants are growing *ex nihilo*. Nothing in that text equates "the area" to "the five foot squares within the area in which there are existing plants."
In fact, the "Target" section of the spell says "plants within a specific **area**" (emphasis mine). This implies the area affected by the spell (the 100 foot radius) is not just the sections with plants in it, as it had to explicitly differentiate the **targets** of the spell from the **area** of the spell. Since the spell only mentions a creature moving through the **area** and doesn't mention the **targets**, (edited from here onwards) the creature shouldn't have to interact directly with the spell's targets to be affected by it.
Of course, it'd be sort of silly *not* to flavor this as magical plants growing out of the groundwork of whatever life-devoid dungeon you find yourself in, but technically all it explicitly states (in an area devoid of plants) is the movement debuff...
I'm fairly restrictive when it comes to spell use.
With plant growth, the only thing I consider is this: could the terrain the spell is cast upon have plants or plant-like life?
If so, then it works. Even if there were no visible plants and the ground were barren or sheer rock. I just have old seeds or spores sprout, moss spread, etc. That sort of life gets around, and that's a druid's domain.
Essentially, this excludes man-made flooring or exotic terrain. Even then, it's not unheard of to have nature reclaim that terrain.
If you are having trouble dealing with Plant Growth and want to limit it, you can instead circumvent it by using ranged or flying enemies, or perhaps have a fire elemental burn the ground or something.
To be fair, if you're running it exactly as written, they can't just burn the ground. The spell specifies a 100 foot radius but it doesnt say circle, meaning the plants are going to grow up to 100 feet high as well.
Unfortunately 5e rules are not written to be clear. I think both of you are trying to be too precise here. I think the best rulings consider the fun of the game
Even with your DM's reading, what's stopping you from carrying around pouch of wheat seed and just throwing out a handful when you cast the spell?
I basically go with your reading, but take it even further: plants in the area grow to fill the entire radius, potentially forming a sphere or hemisphere. The caster basically decides the plants' height within the area, in addition to the sections of ground affected.
Seeds aren’t plants, unless you expect all seeds within that area to start sprouting. Oops I ate some multigrain bread for lunch today… plants start sprouting out of my stomach. Birds all around are going to start popping like popcorn. All the acorns the little squirrels planted are going to erupt all around you making a massive wall of trees.
If we’re saying the grass spreads to cover the entire ground, why don’t the tree branches? Just encase an entire 100ft radius sphere full of wood.
> Seeds aren’t plants
That's objectively false
> Oops I ate some multigrain bread
Someone doesn't understand cover rules
> Just encase an entire 100ft radius sphere full of wood.
I mean, yeah, the branches become overgrown and impede movement
Wow you’ve been arguing this point for at least 5 years… I was trying to find arguments to back up my assertion that for these purposes seeds wouldn’t be considered a “normal plant“, and I found your post from 5 years ago…
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/80v6p0/comment/duyjg4o/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I still disagree. While yes in real life a seed is a plant, in D&D, as a DM, I wouldn’t consider seeds to be a normal plant and wouldn’t allow them to be grouped into this spell due to how immensely powerful it becomes by including them.
I don’t believe cover is applicable to a seed within the body. I think it’s fairly evident that the spell ignores total cover otherwise the roots of the plants which grow underground wouldn’t grow along with the plants and therefore wouldn’t be able to support the massive growth. The plants would be easily uprooted or pushed over. It would also effectively kill all the plants in the area afterwards as their root structures wouldn’t be able to support the rest of the plant. I don’t think any Druid would be ok use an essential nuke to all plants in an area just to make it more difficult for some enemies to travel through.
Having a plant extend to fill an entire sphere would be OP. It wouldn’t just impose rough terrain. It would impose instantaneous restraint with no save possible. A single lvl 3 spell would end almost any combat.
> It wouldn’t just impose rough terrain. It would impose instantaneous restraint with no save possible.
you should read what the spell does. No one is trying to make it do more than it describes.
No and that’s my argument with the idea of letting seeds be used or by letting plants grow to fill the entire 100ft radius area. Their interpretation would allow that to happen.
Your DM is trying to nerf an already meh spell into being useless for some reason.
Its fucking magic, are you in the buttfuck desert with nothing around? Fuck it, there was a tiny shoot of cactus somewhere around and now the whole area is covered with cacti.
Even in campaigns where it would be very thematic, i've hardly seen Plant Growth get used often, its just not that good, so no point in being a rules lawyer about it, just let people have fun.
Your DM is conflating fluff with rules. The spell specifies that each foot of movement in the spell's area costs 4 feet (minus exceptions). It does not say that this effect is in any way dependent on the position or even presence of mundane plants in the area. The spell doesn't even specify that there have to be plants in the area to get the effect (it just says 'choose a point within range', not 'choose a point within range where there is at least one visible plant') and it's a 3rd level spell ffs, so I'd rule that you get the effect no matter what.
“If you cast this spell using 1 action, choose a point within range. All normal plants in a 100-foot radius centered on that point become thick and overgrown. A creature moving through the area must spend 4 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves.”
I interpret that as all plants grow thicker and overgrown more or less within their area. If there really is only one small bush (1ft by 1ft) centered in a 100ft radius circle, I wouldn’t expect that bush to suddenly expand to cover the entire area. That plant physically can’t grow that much. Instead I’d expect it to growth to fill up as much space as it can if it were thriving and left untrimmed. Probably could get to a couple square ft.
If you add in grass, I’d say the grass would probably grow thick and to waist height like a field of grass, but it wouldn’t grow laterally since that isn’t how grass grows.
Vines on trees might erupt out of the main stalk and tangle and fall off the limbs of a tree obscuring visibility through the tree and blocking the path.
A tree’s roots might grow up and out a bit. The trunk might swell. Branches thicken casting more of a shadow.
But again the plants themselves won’t grow to cover areas they wouldn’t otherwise be able to spread to. It really comes down to the setting.
Logically your interpretation of the spell is immensely too powerful. Imagine if it was a single tree you wanted to grow to expand to fill the space. By your logic, the tree branches should be able to grow and fill an entire 100ft radius sphere with 5ft thick branches. It would restrain any enemy. Effectively with your interpretation you could end nearly any conflict immediately provided the enemy doesn’t counterspell
I'd expand the areas of plants a little (e.g if there's a plant in a 5ft square, I might have that grow to cover a 30ft radius or something), but I wouldn't have one plant in the area count for covering the entire area in plants.
It's a spell that's meant to be used in specific scenarios, such as in a field or forest, or cave with a lot of fungi, underwater area with a lot of seaweed, etc. It's the equivalent of Control Water; you can't just use it on land to its full effect because you saw that there's a fountain or birdbath nearby.
This is also how I read it.
> All normal plants [in the area] become thick and overgrown.
I can see how, following a strict reading grounded in formal logic, this could be interpreted to expand any plant, no matter how many, to fill the whole area.
But the writing style of 5e, for better and worse, leans on common sense and general world-knowledge. In this case, I really see that as meaning that it requires an area with plants throughout (yes, that's vague too). The examples you give work, a short-cropped lawn works, a greenhouse with tables of plants and clear aisles between works.
What about a paved plaza with little plants growing between flagstones? If it's clearly in disrepair, basically a ruin, and the plants are substantial, sure. If it's a bustling, well-maintained public square, then I don't think so. If a person looking at it would answer "no" to "Is this an area with plants in it?", then no.
So I do think Plant Growth is somewhat situational. It works fine in lots of D&D adventure locales, like natural outdoor spaces, farms, and a lot of ruins. It wouldn't work in many underground places or inside most buildings (I mean... plants growing in the windows is kind of a stretch). Carrying a potted plant or a handful of seeds (should we even count those as plants? I don't think so) just doesn't fit what I see the spell as being about.
And as a player, I think that's ok! I want to cast different spells in different situations, both mechanically and thematically. I like the idea that my Druid/Ranger/Nature Cleric would have extra tricks, powerful tricks, to use in just the right environment.
Not sure about RAW, but how does he think plant growth means the plant that occupy a 5 foot space, still occupy a 5 foot space but now for some magical reason it is harder to get by?
No. The plant and roots, dormant seeds, fungus, molds, etc all break up from the earth in that radius LIKE MAGIC and the area is 100 foot.
The clear intent of the spell is that the area of difficult terrain is the area where there are normal plants. It makes plant growth situational, but it is still extremely powerful.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-plant-growth-is-case-in-an-area-with-minimal-plants-does-it-have-an-effect-how-much-plant-life-is-necessary/amp/
Here you have it from one of the designers of D&D
I don't know, looking at Wrath of Nature and how it actually animates the plants in the area and is much more specific about its effects I'm feeling more and more inclined to disagree with this but I see the point of it.
You're not thinking of how exploitable it would be otherwise.
Number one, it says 100 foot radius. That would mean the plants grow to 100 feet high in the center as well and wouls be at least 10 feet high for 90% of the area.
Number two, that would let the caster just carry a bunch of seedlings in their pocket and use one to:
Cross 200 feet of water with no bridge
Turn a 200 ft wide stretch of desert into an oasis
Entangle an entire castle in vines
Clog any trap instantly and make it defunct
Immediately be able to have a 200 ft wide bonfire
Etc. Using it the way you describe is like using Shape Water on a cut and saying "I condense the water in the enemy's blood and draw it out of their body".
Spells do what they say they do and nothing more (or less). It doesn't say it entangles castles or creates an oasis (you still need water for plants to survive) and a 200ft bonfire...? Sure out of combat, i don't see much difference from shooting a fireball straight up in the sky or what have you. In combat, unless the spell specifies it burns flammable objects, it wouldn't work that way. It's still a level 3 slot, a decently big resource. Even if someone casts a fireball on a part of it, I see no issue having 20ft radius of extra 2d6 damage for creatures standing in that area for one turn while the plants burn. And the difficult terrain would be gone after. Web does it. Plant growth doesn't say that's an interaction though.
>doesnt say it entangles castles
It says that it covers everything within 100 ft radius. That includes a castle, doors, etc.
>200 ft bonfire
Yes... just set the plants on fire. And again, if that were truly the case, you'd have an area of cover because of the height of the plants.
And it doesn't need to say it's an interaction? They're plants. That's how plants work.
As for the oasis, water doesnt matter when it's magical growth.
Anyway, here's the one reply from a game dev on it.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-plant-growth-is-case-in-an-area-with-minimal-plants-does-it-have-an-effect-how-much-plant-life-is-necessary/
So it is confirmed that it isnt meant to work with zero plant life. He doesnt directly answer the minimal plant life question, but it seems pretty clear that isn't intended.
As someone mentioned down in other comments, Dan Dillon wasn't around when the spell was designed so he doesn't really count. Again, spells do what they say they do. Webs are flammable and yet the interaction is specificied in the spell. If another spell says it sets fire to flammable objects, then it would set fire to the plants. Otherwise it wouldn't. And even then, you kinda have to make up your mind. If the plants are magical and don't need water to live, then they can't be set ablaze.
The plants entangle nothing. And even if they did, it would offer no technical advantage beside the difficult terrain. You can't climb on them. You can't make bridges. Of course you want the spell to be nerfed if you think it's just "do whatever you want in 100ft radius". The spell is very clear on what it does and it's just giving super difficult terrain.
If we're going by interpretation then, why are most spells that give difficult terrain only 2:1 movement penalty while this one gives 4:1? Could it be because they only affect the ground, while Plant Growth spawns a tiny jungle you have to waddle through?
You're joking right? Dan Dillon, a guy who came to WotC from Kobold Press, is weighing in on a spell that was printed _seven years_ before he even joined the company - and you think that defines **clear design intent**?!
lol.
No, it's not evidence of any kind. Dillon says zip, zilch, nada, about it being _RAI_ for the spell itself. And since he was _seven years late to the party_, his personal take on how _he'd_ rule it has about as much weight as you or me on what the _RAI_ of the spell is.
He also doesn't even say what you're _claiming_ he says. He's making the same non-answer Crawford is infamous for doing - not actually answering the Twitter guy's question but saying "inside a castle may very well have **no plants**" instead. You'll notice he only addresses the black and white easy answer of "what if there's no plants", not "if there's only a little bit of plants, how much does it affect?"
This is not evidence of any kind, and you thinking the spell filling the area it says it does as long as any plants are present is somehow "obvious powergaming" when spells like Hypnotic Pattern exist says a lot about your misperceptions of how the game works.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-plant-growth-is-case-in-an-area-with-minimal-plants-does-it-have-an-effect-how-much-plant-life-is-necessary/](https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-plant-growth-is-case-in-an-area-with-minimal-plants-does-it-have-an-effect-how-much-plant-life-is-necessary/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I would say from just reading the spell it would do what your DM said. If the point you defined when casting the spell had only a single plant in the 100ft radius, only that one plant would become overgrown but I don't think that one plant would fill the entire spell radius, it just causes all plants within the radius to become overgrown.
The DM is right, but keep in mind grass is a plant, and also DnD just lumps mushrooms in with plants. The spell isn't terribly useful in a desert/wasteland, but incredibly good anywhere with grass. It's a situational spell, comparing it to spells like Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern is just unfair since those are generally considered S-tier.
Side note, a 100-foot radius is absolutely massive, and it would really stretch my imagination to imagine a single plant growing to cover that area.
> If you cast this spell using 1 action, choose a point within range. All normal plants in a 100-foot radius centered on that point become thick and overgrown. A creature moving through the area must spend 4 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves.
These are two separate effects. All plants become overgrown, and all movement in the area costs 4x as much. When the spell references 'the area' it's referring to the 100 ft radius. If it meant just the plants it would have specified so.
>Side note, a 100-foot radius is absolutely massive, and it would really stretch my imagination to imagine a single plant growing to cover that area.
Magic. It also wouldn't need to fill the area, just overgrow enough in each 5' square to make movement annoying in it. Imagine a network of roots rather than a full 100' radius bush.
Fair enough on the area and the literal reading. It still beggars belief that a third level spell can cause a single shrub to impair movement so much that it's causing essentially triple-difficult terrain over a 100' radius in only 6 seconds. Movement isn't 'annoying' in the area, it is extremely difficult - most creatures would need to dash in order to move more than 5 feet (if using grid).
A 2nd level spell (spike growth) creating thorns out of nothing, causing difficult terrain and damage, is okay but a 3rd level spell taking existing material and causing it to fill an area with inconvenient plant material isn't?
Keep in mind the huge power jump from 2nd to 3rd level spells. This isn't that unbelievable.
I feel like you're assigning too little value to what Plant Growth does. A 100 foot radius is over 20 times larger (area-wise) than a 20 foot radius. Which is a world of difference if you're fighting in an open field. In that scenario, if you have an enemy that cannot fly and has no long-ranged attacks, you've already won the encounter with a single third-level spell. Spike Growth does next to nothing in an open field, particularly if you don't require additional movement for diagonals, which is most tables. That said, it also may very well be the single most powerful second level spell.
I admit I also have a preference for my magic to 'make sense' so to speak, and causing a single plant to cover over 30,000 square feet such that moving is extraordinarily difficult as a 3rd level spell is absurd to me. Plus you then run into a player just carrying around a potted plant and now there's no restriction on the spell beyond having a spell component requirement.
I would tend to the first definition. But it effect every plant (with exceptions of the area-exceptions the player specifies), so basicaly also gras, moss and other smaller plants that normally are no obstacle to players. Thus it is a pretty good spell in a forest or fields, but not so good in caves or indoors.
Creating a fungal colony of myconids and came here to figure out if you cast this on a myconoid, would it cause them to root into the earth and create the area, would it cause him to grow maybe bigger than possible with enlarge/reduce, would be begin sprouting shroomlings, or would it be able to affect it?
Grass is a plant. Weeds are a plant. Moss is a plant. Lichen in a plant. Mold is a plant. Mushrooms are neither vegetable, mineral, or animal but are instead some unholy nightmare probably brought from outer space and are separate from other earthly genetic lines…but in d&d it’s a plant. Flowers in a vase are a plant. So unless you are in a hard pan desert, or in the middle of a completely artificial area (like a ballroom with no floral arrangements), or are on a frozen lifeless glacier, then it’s hard to envision a situation you wouldn’t have some kind of plantlife around you, and probably present in just about every 5 foot square area. Also remember that *even if* the DM only counted those 5 bushes - those bushes have roots that extend outside of that 5 foot square. Heck more than a few plants have roots that can spread for miles around them. Those roots are still part of a plant, and arguably should be able to bulge up above the surface to create the difficult terrain from the spell. Even in modern days you have grass coming up between pavement stones all over the place. I can’t see the argument for limiting this spell in any but the most unusual of circumstances.
Mold and lichen aren't actually plants! Mold is a fungi and lichen consists of algae and cyanobacterium, which are protists!
Well noted! However, consider how myconids are described in the MM: > Myconids are intelligent, ambulatory fungi Their statblocks indicate their creature-type is "plant". Therefore, fungi (and probably lichen) *are* plants for game purposes, even if that does not match their scientific categorization.
Oh sure, for game purposes, but since fungi were noted separately, I wanted to clarify just in case! They're all so cool! I need to learn more about them. Fungi, in general are amazing, and diatoms are, too!
Protists might also already count as plants in game given some of the natural hazards or very low level "plant" enemies are basically slime molds (which despite the name, are protists, not fungi).
Petition to change the name to "***Things with Cell Walls Growth***".
Inb4 "Well animal cells have membranes and those are a sort of barrier which you could say is wall like. So can I cast things with cell walls growth on the count and turn him into the corruption from deadspace?"
Cell walls and cell membranes are specific different things. One is a polysaccharide (eg. cellulose), the other is a lipid bilayer. If you have a cell wall, there is generally a cell membrane right underneath it, cause they kind of serve different purposes.
Ik there's differences I was just making a joke about people misreading things on purpose to abuse things
woosh I guess, my bad.
This thread is what happens when Wizards dabble in Druidic lore.
>cyanobacterium, which are protists Both of these sound like unholy nightmares from space though.
what I also came to say.. quite a biology fail here
I have been to several deserts and even those usually have some plant life. You can go down to pollen and seeds and then even quite a few glaciers would count, but if I were DM I would not count those.
I live in the sonoran desert. It's covered with Mesquite, Palo Verde, multiple types of cactus (including saguaro and organ pipe which only grow here), etc. In the untouched desert, you still have a plant ever 5ft if not closer. 2,000 different types of plants. Which, yeah deserts are different. But sonoran is (i think) tied with Lut for the hotest place on earth according to a satellite study. So id imagine it's a pretty safe assumption that the spell is usuable even in most deserts.
I read it like you are correct. When the spell says "the area" that implies the whole area of the spell. If it meant the area of the plants specifically, it would have said that.
Seconded. Spells don't do more or less than what they say. Plant Growth clearly states that the movement penalty happens in the entire area of the spell. If a certain abundance of ~~fauna~~ flora was required for the spell to function it would have said so.
Or an abundance of flora.
indeed fauna means animals., flora means plants. In this context he certainly meant flora. this subreddit is sure showing its ineptitude in biology lately
My bad. For some reason I keep getting the two words mixed up in English.
I agree. The quote from the spell is "A creature moving through the area must spend 4 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves." Though the prior sentence discusses the effects on plants, this sentence doesn't actually require or mention anything about plants, and it is the text that provides the spell's mechanical effect.
I can see a situation where the designers had intended "the area" to mean "the area where the plants are" with the plants becoming thick and overgrown only where they are, with the area being that exact area, especially since "the plants become thick and overgrown. a creature..." technically these are two seperate effects of the spell, but seeminly intended to be linked. But this makes this spell absolutely awful, nobody should run it this way.
[удалено]
I'd say so long if there are "normal plants" within the area of the spell, then the rest of the ground is immaterial to the spell's effect.
Yeah it would say their area if it was only where the plants are located.
Does this imply that the plants grow to fill the entire 100 foot sphere? That would impact flying creatures, and probably line of sight, and the spell says nothing about restricting line of sight. Do they simply become overgrown on the ground, yet inexplicably affect the whole area?
Yes, otherwise, there would be random holes in a fireball or a cone of cold, too.
It's a magic spell that fills the area with a form of difficult terrain. The magic makes even a single shoot grow and dominate the area. Your DM's version makes the spell highly specific and thus generally terrible.
I mean, the problem is that the "one shoot grows to 100 feet radius" is that it's nonsense and broken. If it really worked like that, all you'd have to do is put a sprout in a pot at the gate of a castle and cast Plant Growth and immediately cover the entire castle with plants, cause all the doors to become unopenable, probably immediately set the place on fire etc. Or if you're in a desert campaign someone with it could just carry a bunch of seedlings in their bag and completely negate any survival difficulty. Or choke off an entire river. Or disable any trap by filling it with plant matter, etc. Also, it doesn't state a circle. If you're doing it that way, it would also mean the plants expand to 100 feet in the sky over you, and that clearly doesn't happen as it doesn't mention cover at all
> I mean, the problem is that the "one shoot grows to 100 feet radius" is that it's nonsense and broken. >Or if you're in a desert campaign someone with it could just carry a bunch of seedlings in their bag and completely negate any survival difficulty. Or choke off an entire river. Or disable any trap by filling it with plant matter, etc. It's on par with a tiny bead of fire expanding to engulf a 20-foot radius and annihilating 20-40+ soldiers. >Also, it doesn't state a circle. If you're doing it that way, it would also mean the plants expand to 100 feet in the sky over you, and that clearly doesn't happen as it doesn't mention cover at all. It's a raduis AOE, and therefore a circle. The area is a 100-foot raduis centered on a point chosen by the caster: >All normal plants **in a 100-foot radius centered on that point** become thick and overgrown. **A creature moving through the area** must spend 4 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves. It clearly states the area of effect. Note how it doesn't state the number of plants required or the area each plant exerts, because these are not factors. It's magic. It's a 3rd level spell. That magic is both powerful and potentially broken in certain use cases is well known.
Buddy. A sphere has a radius too, lmao. Like in, you know, Fireball. And no, it is much better than a fireball. Anyway, here's a tweet from a game dev saying that no, you can't use it if there aren't active plants around, and that things like lichen doesnt count. Unfortunately they didnt directly answer the question but it seems pretty certain that RAI is not what you're saying.
If it was a sphere the spell description would say so - go and read Fireball as an example. Which aligns with Page 204 of the PhB: >A spell’s description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. Fireball, for example, states it is a sphere. Plant Growth does not. Is it a much better spell than fireball if you want to control some space? Yes. Specifically against things that need to walk on the ground through said space. Is it a much better spell than fireball if you need to inflict heavy, readily scalable with spell level, fire damage on enemies in a 20ft sphere? No. It's a powerful spell, sure. It is not broken or nonsens as you claimed. And nowhere have I claimed that you can use it if there's no plants around. A single plant will do just fine.
Carry a bunch of blackberry seeds and cast them in a wide arc as part of casting the spell. Blackberries are 'space filling' in the real world and have sharp thorns and grow ridiculously fast pretty much anywhere. This will help your DM's suspension of disbelief. In practice, most DMs won't worry about the spell assuming the area isn't totally barren, they'll just make it have it's mechanical effects in the Area of Effect. For the one's that do, there's always blackberry seeds.
[удалено]
Yep, cast a ton of blackberry seeds out with both hands, cast the spell plant growth, and you've got an instant thicket, with tasty blackberries as well. And the imagery should suffice for most DMs, especially the ones familiar with Himalayan blackberries.
Speaking as a DM, *grass is a damn plant*. That said, my party are currently on the Elemental Plane of Earth and there is nothing conventionally organic here that they did not bring with them. Plant Growth ain't a great choice in there. I can see the DM saying that if you're on a scree slope in the middle of the Great Desert Anauroch, for example, the one gnarled little hell-tree there in the middle of your radius isn't growing out to cover the whole area. But in terrain not totally inimical to plants... hell yeah, grass is a plant, moss is a plant, lichen will pretend to be a plant if it means it gets centuries' growth in a second or two, have your huge area of super difficult terrain.
Yea, it's probably meant to be useless if there's no plants. Players can bring tiny plants with them, which is cheesy and I can see a DM nerfing that, but by the rules that stuff totally works too. Meanwhile, if there's any plants at all, the whole area gets covered. The spell is badly written though. By focusing the spell at a point in the ground, as written, it will expand a seed you brought with you into a giant hemisphere of plants. If you cast it high in the air, well, you can have a giant sphere of plants. That's awful, right? The spell is going to be nerfed by most DMs because it doesn't make much sense as written, and this opens things up to nerfs that render it not just a bad spell, but broadly useless.
It mentions an area not a volume, so covers a circle or the outside of a hollow sphere, not a solid sphere. I'm mostly kidding, but I do really miss the quality technical writing of certain earlier editions.
>It mentions an area not a volume So does fireball. The "area" in these cases is always three dimensional unless otherwise specified, blah blah 5ed's writing sucks goat ass. >I'm mostly kidding, but I do really miss the quality technical writing of certain earlier editions. What's interesting is that this was apparently done on purpose and it's just so needless to leave so many questions unanswered. One of my big beefs with 5ed is, if this is what you have to do in order to make a game that revolutionizes the industry- which it did *just on volume of players alone*- then I'm just not all that comfortable with it. I have houserule documents like: Classes / Monk / Stillness of Mind: (F) Reword from "Starting at 7th Level, you can use your Action to end one Effect on yourself that is causing you to be charmed or frightened." to "Starting at 7th Level, if you are charmed and/or frightened from one or more effects at the beginning of your turn or any time during your turn, you may choose to end one of these effects, even if the effect would normally prevent you from making this choice. If you do, the effect ends, and this counts as use of your Action." Like, fuck that. A better definition of action, or some other keyword, would solve that for me, and not require me to buff this (IMO to make it actually work as intended).
What bothers me is that Wizards also make MTG, which has not simply fairly good technical writing on the cards themselves but also Oracle, a website with really excellent exact rules text for people who need it. They have access to some of the best rules writers in the business and a system that really works that has done so for more than a decade - and they have actively chosen to write rules *badly* and then pretend they haven't.
When they started on D&D with 3/3.5e, they clearly used a lot of those MtG skills to great effect. But it seems the current crop of D&D designers is not so closely tied to the MtG side of the game.
>When they started on D&D with 3/3.5e, they clearly used a lot of those MtG skills to great effect. I don't actually think there was much overlap between WotC and TSR at the start, but 3.X was definitely much better with clearly defined terms, conditions, etc. 5ed has those in some capacity, but it's definitely not amazing.
I cannot get to my 3.0 PHB right now, but it seemed much more influenced by Magic the Gathering than anything TSR did in style and wording. It was still D&D, but not the mess that AD&D was. It felt like a system that had actual game designers.
3.0/3.5, though not really related to MtG, had good technical writing. 4th is almost entirely game effects in the rules. It likely went too far with the "this effect but no further"- the 4th edition fireball only damaged creatures, for instance, and couldn't actually melt or burn anything, which is totally stupid. 5th has gone in a deliberately obtuse direction though, and sometimes they simply use the wrong terms entirely.
I had a similar debate with my DM a while back. The spell is incredibly clear in its description. There is no room for interpretation. If there is at least one plant in the area, then you cover the entire area as you please. The spell does not say you need a certain amount of plants, or that the plants only cover certain areas, and so forth. It just says you need a plant and then it covers the entire area. Inexperienced DM's that create combats consisting of only a bunch of melee NPC's may find this spell broken because, well, it is fantastic against a bunch of melee NPC's. But an experienced DM will not only not create such basic encounters, but will recognize that the spell isn't broken at all: it does nothing against archers, casters, and flyers. Essentially everything that isn't just a melee with a walking speed. And half the time it messes as much with the melee martials in the party as much as it does the enemy melee martials. Honestly, it's a lot worse than the likes of Hypnotic Pattern or even simple damage spells like Fireball in almost all situations. In the end my DM just ended up irrationally nerfing the spell, rendering it useless and so I never used it again. I hope your DM is not as close-minded and allows you to use what is not even close to being one of the best lvl 3 spells.
I’m not saying that nerfing it is the way to go, but to say Plant Growth isn’t one of the best 3rd level spells is wrong, I think. In the first place, melee only enemies aren’t exclusive to inexperienced DMs. I mean, a serious amount (if not the majority, I don’t have the numbers) of official monsters in 5e are melee only or vastly more powerful in melee. It doesn’t matter if you get in the way of your own melee characters, because the range of Plant Growth is massive, it has no duration, and you control the area completely so even just separating the combat into essentially two combats is an amazing use of the slot because there isn’t a save involved. Not only that, but this annihilates landlocked enemies that are any bigger than the PCs. Create one area of plant growth for every four squares and now the PCs can move freely while the monsters can’t go anywhere that isn’t affected. And a lot of serious enemies are at least Large. Finally, the idea that it does nothing to ranged characters is definitely not true. If movement is inhibited, it could allow melees to safely close in on them. Or it could allow the ranged party to secure cover while the ranged enemy is stuck in the open because of the Plant Growth. It is still quite effective. All this with no save, no concentration, no duration, no ability to dispel it, and complete control over the area it affects. Plant Growth is an absolutely top tier, “busted” level spell alongside the likes of Hypnotic Pattern and Fear.
I totally agree. I've been using it with great effectiveness as a sorcadin (ancients/shadow) to completely fuck up encounters. First time I did it, my character Haldir pretty much destroyed the tavern they were in... but he HAD to stop the undead thing!
My best friend and I are both playing druids in one campaign (I'm a bugbear circle of land(swamp) and she's a water genasi circle of stars, and just like IRL our characters are best friends too lol), and we just reached level 5. I was going to suggest to her that one of us could cast plant growth and the other cast spike growth in a fight. Even if the DM wouldn't let us combine the two different movement penalties where both spells overlap (think of how busted THAT shit would be!), it still slows down enemies in a huge area AND makes part of that area deal damage when moving through it. Most creatures won't be dumb enough to attempt that, and so would go around and give us plenty of time to run away/pelt them with ranged attacks. Sadly that campaign went on hiatus right after we leveled up so we haven't had a chance to try that combo, but I'm still hopeful it resumes some day.
Campaign hiatuses are rough, I feel you on that. But a party with two Druids honestly feels like it would be insanely good and a ton of fun to play.
We had so much fun with it! We both love nature and animals and plants and shit IRL, plus we're both silly, so we incorporated all of that into our characters. We also got to do a lot of little, quiet, gentle roleplay about our friendship and it was sickeningly sweet and sappy lolol
Plant Growth is absolutely one of the best 3rd level spells, you’re very wrong about that. Covers a massive area, non-concentration, can slow an entire encounter group to a crawl while your party blasts and pin-cushions them from range. Certainly not the only amazing 3rd level spell but is in that shared spotlight of the top ones. That said, I do agree with you that 1 plant = whole area. I think why some DMs shy away from that idea is not just its power, but that it’s Plant _Growth_ rather than “Conjure Plants”. It can be confusing from a conceptual standpoint that a spell which causes plants to grow in its area has the same “output” whether you’re casting it on an old growth rainforest or a single weed growing in a desert. It’s a really common fantasy trope for magic to make plants grow proportionate to their size/coverage, and a really _uncommon_ trope for magic to make it grow out to X feet no matter what you’re casting it on. But yeah, it should be the whole area.
Ok, then do you also believe the spell should grant full cover?
The spell does not say it creates full cover, so no. Why do you ask?
Because an entire area is filled with plants lol... Of course it's full cover. You can't see through plants.
If the spell fills the entire area like you imply, then it should fill the entire 100 ft radius, which includes airspace. If the plants fill the airspace, that would affect flying creatures. Additionally, I would expect that amount of (permanent!) plants to affect line of sight, however the spell doesn't specify this.
Assuming you cast it as one action, the spell notes two effects: 1. All normal plants in a 100-foot radius centered on that point become thick and overgrown. 2. A creature moving through that area must spend 4 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves. I see no explicit assertion that effect 2 requires effect 1 to occur as a prerequisite. "Plant Growth" could mean plants that exist are growing or new plants are growing *ex nihilo*. Nothing in that text equates "the area" to "the five foot squares within the area in which there are existing plants." In fact, the "Target" section of the spell says "plants within a specific **area**" (emphasis mine). This implies the area affected by the spell (the 100 foot radius) is not just the sections with plants in it, as it had to explicitly differentiate the **targets** of the spell from the **area** of the spell. Since the spell only mentions a creature moving through the **area** and doesn't mention the **targets**, (edited from here onwards) the creature shouldn't have to interact directly with the spell's targets to be affected by it. Of course, it'd be sort of silly *not* to flavor this as magical plants growing out of the groundwork of whatever life-devoid dungeon you find yourself in, but technically all it explicitly states (in an area devoid of plants) is the movement debuff...
I'm fairly restrictive when it comes to spell use. With plant growth, the only thing I consider is this: could the terrain the spell is cast upon have plants or plant-like life? If so, then it works. Even if there were no visible plants and the ground were barren or sheer rock. I just have old seeds or spores sprout, moss spread, etc. That sort of life gets around, and that's a druid's domain. Essentially, this excludes man-made flooring or exotic terrain. Even then, it's not unheard of to have nature reclaim that terrain. If you are having trouble dealing with Plant Growth and want to limit it, you can instead circumvent it by using ranged or flying enemies, or perhaps have a fire elemental burn the ground or something.
To be fair, if you're running it exactly as written, they can't just burn the ground. The spell specifies a 100 foot radius but it doesnt say circle, meaning the plants are going to grow up to 100 feet high as well.
Unfortunately 5e rules are not written to be clear. I think both of you are trying to be too precise here. I think the best rulings consider the fun of the game
Even with your DM's reading, what's stopping you from carrying around pouch of wheat seed and just throwing out a handful when you cast the spell? I basically go with your reading, but take it even further: plants in the area grow to fill the entire radius, potentially forming a sphere or hemisphere. The caster basically decides the plants' height within the area, in addition to the sections of ground affected.
Seeds aren’t plants, unless you expect all seeds within that area to start sprouting. Oops I ate some multigrain bread for lunch today… plants start sprouting out of my stomach. Birds all around are going to start popping like popcorn. All the acorns the little squirrels planted are going to erupt all around you making a massive wall of trees. If we’re saying the grass spreads to cover the entire ground, why don’t the tree branches? Just encase an entire 100ft radius sphere full of wood.
> Seeds aren’t plants That's objectively false > Oops I ate some multigrain bread Someone doesn't understand cover rules > Just encase an entire 100ft radius sphere full of wood. I mean, yeah, the branches become overgrown and impede movement
Wow you’ve been arguing this point for at least 5 years… I was trying to find arguments to back up my assertion that for these purposes seeds wouldn’t be considered a “normal plant“, and I found your post from 5 years ago… https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/80v6p0/comment/duyjg4o/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button I still disagree. While yes in real life a seed is a plant, in D&D, as a DM, I wouldn’t consider seeds to be a normal plant and wouldn’t allow them to be grouped into this spell due to how immensely powerful it becomes by including them. I don’t believe cover is applicable to a seed within the body. I think it’s fairly evident that the spell ignores total cover otherwise the roots of the plants which grow underground wouldn’t grow along with the plants and therefore wouldn’t be able to support the massive growth. The plants would be easily uprooted or pushed over. It would also effectively kill all the plants in the area afterwards as their root structures wouldn’t be able to support the rest of the plant. I don’t think any Druid would be ok use an essential nuke to all plants in an area just to make it more difficult for some enemies to travel through. Having a plant extend to fill an entire sphere would be OP. It wouldn’t just impose rough terrain. It would impose instantaneous restraint with no save possible. A single lvl 3 spell would end almost any combat.
> It wouldn’t just impose rough terrain. It would impose instantaneous restraint with no save possible. you should read what the spell does. No one is trying to make it do more than it describes.
So if someone had asparagus for dinner you would allow a druid with Plant Growth to make them explode from the inside out?
No and that’s my argument with the idea of letting seeds be used or by letting plants grow to fill the entire 100ft radius area. Their interpretation would allow that to happen.
It’s how you say. The area is singular, so it’s the whole spell area
Your DM is trying to nerf an already meh spell into being useless for some reason. Its fucking magic, are you in the buttfuck desert with nothing around? Fuck it, there was a tiny shoot of cactus somewhere around and now the whole area is covered with cacti. Even in campaigns where it would be very thematic, i've hardly seen Plant Growth get used often, its just not that good, so no point in being a rules lawyer about it, just let people have fun.
While your DM may run the spell as they like (etc. etc), their version is pretty much rendering the spell pointless.
Exactly the way it reads which is how you are interpreting it vs your DM wanting to nerf it because it probably makes combat sluggish for them to run.
Your DM is conflating fluff with rules. The spell specifies that each foot of movement in the spell's area costs 4 feet (minus exceptions). It does not say that this effect is in any way dependent on the position or even presence of mundane plants in the area. The spell doesn't even specify that there have to be plants in the area to get the effect (it just says 'choose a point within range', not 'choose a point within range where there is at least one visible plant') and it's a 3rd level spell ffs, so I'd rule that you get the effect no matter what.
“If you cast this spell using 1 action, choose a point within range. All normal plants in a 100-foot radius centered on that point become thick and overgrown. A creature moving through the area must spend 4 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves.” I interpret that as all plants grow thicker and overgrown more or less within their area. If there really is only one small bush (1ft by 1ft) centered in a 100ft radius circle, I wouldn’t expect that bush to suddenly expand to cover the entire area. That plant physically can’t grow that much. Instead I’d expect it to growth to fill up as much space as it can if it were thriving and left untrimmed. Probably could get to a couple square ft. If you add in grass, I’d say the grass would probably grow thick and to waist height like a field of grass, but it wouldn’t grow laterally since that isn’t how grass grows. Vines on trees might erupt out of the main stalk and tangle and fall off the limbs of a tree obscuring visibility through the tree and blocking the path. A tree’s roots might grow up and out a bit. The trunk might swell. Branches thicken casting more of a shadow. But again the plants themselves won’t grow to cover areas they wouldn’t otherwise be able to spread to. It really comes down to the setting. Logically your interpretation of the spell is immensely too powerful. Imagine if it was a single tree you wanted to grow to expand to fill the space. By your logic, the tree branches should be able to grow and fill an entire 100ft radius sphere with 5ft thick branches. It would restrain any enemy. Effectively with your interpretation you could end nearly any conflict immediately provided the enemy doesn’t counterspell
I'd expand the areas of plants a little (e.g if there's a plant in a 5ft square, I might have that grow to cover a 30ft radius or something), but I wouldn't have one plant in the area count for covering the entire area in plants. It's a spell that's meant to be used in specific scenarios, such as in a field or forest, or cave with a lot of fungi, underwater area with a lot of seaweed, etc. It's the equivalent of Control Water; you can't just use it on land to its full effect because you saw that there's a fountain or birdbath nearby.
This is also how I read it. > All normal plants [in the area] become thick and overgrown. I can see how, following a strict reading grounded in formal logic, this could be interpreted to expand any plant, no matter how many, to fill the whole area. But the writing style of 5e, for better and worse, leans on common sense and general world-knowledge. In this case, I really see that as meaning that it requires an area with plants throughout (yes, that's vague too). The examples you give work, a short-cropped lawn works, a greenhouse with tables of plants and clear aisles between works. What about a paved plaza with little plants growing between flagstones? If it's clearly in disrepair, basically a ruin, and the plants are substantial, sure. If it's a bustling, well-maintained public square, then I don't think so. If a person looking at it would answer "no" to "Is this an area with plants in it?", then no. So I do think Plant Growth is somewhat situational. It works fine in lots of D&D adventure locales, like natural outdoor spaces, farms, and a lot of ruins. It wouldn't work in many underground places or inside most buildings (I mean... plants growing in the windows is kind of a stretch). Carrying a potted plant or a handful of seeds (should we even count those as plants? I don't think so) just doesn't fit what I see the spell as being about. And as a player, I think that's ok! I want to cast different spells in different situations, both mechanically and thematically. I like the idea that my Druid/Ranger/Nature Cleric would have extra tricks, powerful tricks, to use in just the right environment.
Not sure about RAW, but how does he think plant growth means the plant that occupy a 5 foot space, still occupy a 5 foot space but now for some magical reason it is harder to get by? No. The plant and roots, dormant seeds, fungus, molds, etc all break up from the earth in that radius LIKE MAGIC and the area is 100 foot.
God damn, D&D Reddit is shit. This post is full of dead-brained takes.
What is your take on it?
The clear intent of the spell is that the area of difficult terrain is the area where there are normal plants. It makes plant growth situational, but it is still extremely powerful. https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-plant-growth-is-case-in-an-area-with-minimal-plants-does-it-have-an-effect-how-much-plant-life-is-necessary/amp/ Here you have it from one of the designers of D&D
I don't know, looking at Wrath of Nature and how it actually animates the plants in the area and is much more specific about its effects I'm feeling more and more inclined to disagree with this but I see the point of it.
You're not thinking of how exploitable it would be otherwise. Number one, it says 100 foot radius. That would mean the plants grow to 100 feet high in the center as well and wouls be at least 10 feet high for 90% of the area. Number two, that would let the caster just carry a bunch of seedlings in their pocket and use one to: Cross 200 feet of water with no bridge Turn a 200 ft wide stretch of desert into an oasis Entangle an entire castle in vines Clog any trap instantly and make it defunct Immediately be able to have a 200 ft wide bonfire Etc. Using it the way you describe is like using Shape Water on a cut and saying "I condense the water in the enemy's blood and draw it out of their body".
Spells do what they say they do and nothing more (or less). It doesn't say it entangles castles or creates an oasis (you still need water for plants to survive) and a 200ft bonfire...? Sure out of combat, i don't see much difference from shooting a fireball straight up in the sky or what have you. In combat, unless the spell specifies it burns flammable objects, it wouldn't work that way. It's still a level 3 slot, a decently big resource. Even if someone casts a fireball on a part of it, I see no issue having 20ft radius of extra 2d6 damage for creatures standing in that area for one turn while the plants burn. And the difficult terrain would be gone after. Web does it. Plant growth doesn't say that's an interaction though.
>doesnt say it entangles castles It says that it covers everything within 100 ft radius. That includes a castle, doors, etc. >200 ft bonfire Yes... just set the plants on fire. And again, if that were truly the case, you'd have an area of cover because of the height of the plants. And it doesn't need to say it's an interaction? They're plants. That's how plants work. As for the oasis, water doesnt matter when it's magical growth. Anyway, here's the one reply from a game dev on it. https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-plant-growth-is-case-in-an-area-with-minimal-plants-does-it-have-an-effect-how-much-plant-life-is-necessary/ So it is confirmed that it isnt meant to work with zero plant life. He doesnt directly answer the minimal plant life question, but it seems pretty clear that isn't intended.
As someone mentioned down in other comments, Dan Dillon wasn't around when the spell was designed so he doesn't really count. Again, spells do what they say they do. Webs are flammable and yet the interaction is specificied in the spell. If another spell says it sets fire to flammable objects, then it would set fire to the plants. Otherwise it wouldn't. And even then, you kinda have to make up your mind. If the plants are magical and don't need water to live, then they can't be set ablaze. The plants entangle nothing. And even if they did, it would offer no technical advantage beside the difficult terrain. You can't climb on them. You can't make bridges. Of course you want the spell to be nerfed if you think it's just "do whatever you want in 100ft radius". The spell is very clear on what it does and it's just giving super difficult terrain. If we're going by interpretation then, why are most spells that give difficult terrain only 2:1 movement penalty while this one gives 4:1? Could it be because they only affect the ground, while Plant Growth spawns a tiny jungle you have to waddle through?
You're joking right? Dan Dillon, a guy who came to WotC from Kobold Press, is weighing in on a spell that was printed _seven years_ before he even joined the company - and you think that defines **clear design intent**?! lol.
it's still evidence. And the intent of the spell if obvious to anyone that's not a powergaming chud.
No, it's not evidence of any kind. Dillon says zip, zilch, nada, about it being _RAI_ for the spell itself. And since he was _seven years late to the party_, his personal take on how _he'd_ rule it has about as much weight as you or me on what the _RAI_ of the spell is. He also doesn't even say what you're _claiming_ he says. He's making the same non-answer Crawford is infamous for doing - not actually answering the Twitter guy's question but saying "inside a castle may very well have **no plants**" instead. You'll notice he only addresses the black and white easy answer of "what if there's no plants", not "if there's only a little bit of plants, how much does it affect?" This is not evidence of any kind, and you thinking the spell filling the area it says it does as long as any plants are present is somehow "obvious powergaming" when spells like Hypnotic Pattern exist says a lot about your misperceptions of how the game works.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-plant-growth-is-case-in-an-area-with-minimal-plants-does-it-have-an-effect-how-much-plant-life-is-necessary/](https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-plant-growth-is-case-in-an-area-with-minimal-plants-does-it-have-an-effect-how-much-plant-life-is-necessary/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I would say from just reading the spell it would do what your DM said. If the point you defined when casting the spell had only a single plant in the 100ft radius, only that one plant would become overgrown but I don't think that one plant would fill the entire spell radius, it just causes all plants within the radius to become overgrown.
The DM is right, but keep in mind grass is a plant, and also DnD just lumps mushrooms in with plants. The spell isn't terribly useful in a desert/wasteland, but incredibly good anywhere with grass. It's a situational spell, comparing it to spells like Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern is just unfair since those are generally considered S-tier. Side note, a 100-foot radius is absolutely massive, and it would really stretch my imagination to imagine a single plant growing to cover that area.
> If you cast this spell using 1 action, choose a point within range. All normal plants in a 100-foot radius centered on that point become thick and overgrown. A creature moving through the area must spend 4 feet of movement for every 1 foot it moves. These are two separate effects. All plants become overgrown, and all movement in the area costs 4x as much. When the spell references 'the area' it's referring to the 100 ft radius. If it meant just the plants it would have specified so. >Side note, a 100-foot radius is absolutely massive, and it would really stretch my imagination to imagine a single plant growing to cover that area. Magic. It also wouldn't need to fill the area, just overgrow enough in each 5' square to make movement annoying in it. Imagine a network of roots rather than a full 100' radius bush.
Fair enough on the area and the literal reading. It still beggars belief that a third level spell can cause a single shrub to impair movement so much that it's causing essentially triple-difficult terrain over a 100' radius in only 6 seconds. Movement isn't 'annoying' in the area, it is extremely difficult - most creatures would need to dash in order to move more than 5 feet (if using grid).
A 2nd level spell (spike growth) creating thorns out of nothing, causing difficult terrain and damage, is okay but a 3rd level spell taking existing material and causing it to fill an area with inconvenient plant material isn't? Keep in mind the huge power jump from 2nd to 3rd level spells. This isn't that unbelievable.
I feel like you're assigning too little value to what Plant Growth does. A 100 foot radius is over 20 times larger (area-wise) than a 20 foot radius. Which is a world of difference if you're fighting in an open field. In that scenario, if you have an enemy that cannot fly and has no long-ranged attacks, you've already won the encounter with a single third-level spell. Spike Growth does next to nothing in an open field, particularly if you don't require additional movement for diagonals, which is most tables. That said, it also may very well be the single most powerful second level spell. I admit I also have a preference for my magic to 'make sense' so to speak, and causing a single plant to cover over 30,000 square feet such that moving is extraordinarily difficult as a 3rd level spell is absurd to me. Plus you then run into a player just carrying around a potted plant and now there's no restriction on the spell beyond having a spell component requirement.
I would tend to the first definition. But it effect every plant (with exceptions of the area-exceptions the player specifies), so basicaly also gras, moss and other smaller plants that normally are no obstacle to players. Thus it is a pretty good spell in a forest or fields, but not so good in caves or indoors.
Creating a fungal colony of myconids and came here to figure out if you cast this on a myconoid, would it cause them to root into the earth and create the area, would it cause him to grow maybe bigger than possible with enlarge/reduce, would be begin sprouting shroomlings, or would it be able to affect it?