D&D 5E Playable Plant People

[Marandahir]

I think an issue with a plant race, fundamentally, is that while certainly it could offer unique possibilities in regards to the finer details of roleplaying (and also figuring out how and what they eat given that most plants are continuously rooted in the soil for a reason), there really isn't anything in terms of how the race would be in comparison to humans in the more general sense isn't so clear.

You could easily just take the Elf stat block as given, maybe add a single line about how plant people differ from mammalian ones and then just alter their fluff to make them into a race of plant people who all look more or less female but are effectively both genders at once just like Guilds Wars did.

Orcs with just a small twist of fluff and a similar line could be transformed into a race of asexual fungus creatures like in WarHammer. Half-Orcs could just be humans whose mothers got infected by the fungus spores causing the baby inside them to be mutated.

I mean, you could rationalize them being any size, having any sort of physique (except as I noted in these examples, it probably wouldn't make sense for traditional human sexes to be assigned to them-- though WotC would probably do so anyway), having any given set of skills, have either no abilities or powerful druid abilities being equally viable...

There just isn't anything you could really say about how a vegetation-based race should really be in terms of visuals, characteristics, society, etc. that everyone can really universally agree on as being generally the right direction. And whatever set of these things you gave them, chances are there is already another non-plant race they would be so similar to that they would seem redundant.

Most Plants don't eat from the soil any more than we eat from the sun. They're getting particular vitamins and nutrients from the soil, but their rooted nature is less essential than their ability to photosynthesize – that's where they get their energy from. Yes, I'm oversimplifying; we don't just eat grains to get sugars, we eat foods rich in proteins and whatnot. But there are examples of plants that find those other nutrients in various other ways: "carnivorous" plants digest insects for the sake of synthesizing nitrogen in N-poor swampland soils; most trees trade carbon to fungi and bacteria in exchange for Magnesium and Phosporous in Mg-poor and P-poor soils respectively. These could be emulated via economic systems if plants became mobile.

There ARE examples of mobile plants. In fact, many functions of plant life are about breaking through the relative rootedness of plants to access new areas with less competition. Plants grow for that very reason, and they distribute their pollen and seeds via wind or vector species for the same reasons (to "steal" their mobility).

Fungi do some similar things, despite their vast differences. Imagine a Fungal race that looks a bit like Paras and Parasect from Pokémon – the fungus is in charge, but the insect gives the fungus mobility. This is a similar idea that's been posed with the Vegepygmy, despite my big issues with that monster for reasons of their diet restrictions.

 

[Sunseeker]

How about Octopus? They are pretty alien in nature.

Not sure how a naturally occurring creature that has long been studied by science is "alien".

 

[Shasarak]

Not sure how a naturally occurring creature that has long been studied by science is "alien".

Studied, yes. But understood?

 

[GreenTengu]

Most Plants don't eat from the soil any more than we eat from the sun. They're getting particular vitamins and nutrients from the soil, but their rooted nature is less essential than their ability to photosynthesize – that's where they get their energy from. Yes, I'm oversimplifying; we don't just eat grains to get sugars, we eat foods rich in proteins and whatnot. But there are examples of plants that find those other nutrients in various other ways: "carnivorous" plants digest insects for the sake of synthesizing nitrogen in N-poor swampland soils; most trees trade carbon to fungi and bacteria in exchange for Magnesium and Phosporous in Mg-poor and P-poor soils respectively. These could be emulated via economic systems if plants became mobile.

There ARE examples of mobile plants. In fact, many functions of plant life are about breaking through the relative rootedness of plants to access new areas with less competition. Plants grow for that very reason, and they distribute their pollen and seeds via wind or vector species for the same reasons (to "steal" their mobility).

Fungi do some similar things, despite their vast differences. Imagine a Fungal race that looks a bit like Paras and Parasect from Pokémon – the fungus is in charge, but the insect gives the fungus mobility. This is a similar idea that's been posed with the Vegepygmy, despite my big issues with that monster for reasons of their diet restrictions.

Well, it seems likely that plants that mimicked animals closely would probably function at least a bit like the carnivorous sort that capture insects and such in addition to drawing energy from the sun. I just have trouble imagining photosynthesis alone being enough for an intelligent, active, mobile creature.

Plus, the less advantages you give them in terms of ignoring rations and stuff, the better. They wouldn't be immune to poison, though they might be resistant. And they would be immune to most diseases I imagine (plants get diseases, but none of the sort that would generally be classified as a disease in D&D) But if they still have to eat like everything else as well as being exposed to the sun for a certain number of hours a day or else suffer disadvantages after too much time away from it, it would probably balance out better.

 

[Sunseeker]

Studied, yes. But understood?

Thanks to the amazing field of biology, yes we understand animals very well. Like humans, they are driven by common processes. Food. Shelter. Reproduction. These are not alien concepts. Even if they lack the ability to go beyond their instinctual existence, indeed that makes them easier to understand, not harder. The fact that they're blobby critters with 8 limbs doesn't make their mindset more alien, those 8 limbs serve the same purpose our 4 do. Mobility, access, offense and defense.

But beyond that, the reason that there are no aliens in D&D is because they're all created by humans. They're all aspects of humanity that are exaggerated, parodied, but encapsulated and defined by the human mindset that created their mythos. We can't describe what we fundamentally don't understand, it's why when you see descriptions of Great Old Ones you see a lot of repetition of "it is beyond understanding". That's NOT a description of alien physiology, it's a statement by the writer. The descriptions of these creatures are very round-about. "Limbs where you would not expect" or "limbs that look nothing like anything we know." It's still defined by our conceptions. What do it's limbs look like? "not what you'd expect". They're reverse-engineering human perception by starting with a normal arm and then saying it's not that, it's something else.

Even conceptually the Great Old Ones, possibly the most "alien" things we can imagine in a setting are really not that alien. Their goals are chaos, but that too is defined by how humans conceptualize the universe. To an Old One what we call chaos, a concept opposed to order, opposed to goodness and righteousness may be ordered and good....but it is still defined within a human-based mindset of good, evil, chaos and law.

There are no aliens because all "aliens" are created by humans and humans cannot fundamentally think like anything other than humans.

 

[Shasarak]

Thanks to the amazing field of biology, yes we understand animals very well. Like humans, they are driven by common processes. Food. Shelter. Reproduction. These are not alien concepts. Even if they lack the ability to go beyond their instinctual existence, indeed that makes them easier to understand, not harder. The fact that they're blobby critters with 8 limbs doesn't make their mindset more alien, those 8 limbs serve the same purpose our 4 do. Mobility, access, offense and defense.

I guess the fact that you imagine that the only difference between a human and an octopus is the extra 4 limbs probably indicates that you may not understand them very well at all.

Or maybe it just is a sign of your human brain trying to anthropomorphise something it does not understand into an "animal" that evolved in one of the most alien environments on Earth. “Meeting an octopus,” writes Godfrey-Smith, “is like meeting an intelligent alien.”

 

[Minigiant]

There are no aliens because all "aliens" are created by humans and humans cannot fundamentally think like anything other than humans.

I don't think that's it.
It's not that human cannot think like anything but humans. It's more that it's hard for humans to do so. Therefore it's easier to say it cannot be understood and convincing others is often not worth the time. And anytime when the logical step is something alien, human writers of games opt out of doing it that way out of ease.

Dwarven and elven culture doesn't eve match their biology. Their extreme age compared to humans alone would develop cultures nowhere like the ones in D&D.

So imagine how different a race of people who can make 50%, 75%, or 100% of their food with a few hours of sun, a few glasses of drink, and a few crumbs of dirt? It's only unfathomable because few think fathoming it and then explaining it is worth the time.

But when fantasy or sci fi writers actually attempt it, they are pretty good reads.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The problem is that plany people and fungus folk wouldn't create societies like animals would.

That's a big a assumption. There are a variety of reasons why animal societies look like they do and function as they do.

Probably not clothing either as they'd be confined to places with lots of light, warmth, soil, and water. Only explorers would need clothing.

Clothing isn't just about protection from exposure. It also shows wealth & status, social role, and provides a way to carry things without using your hands.

Soil & water suitable for consumption is a rare commodity. They may need to artificially increase availability to support their active metabolisms.

Light, while all around us, needs to be abundant enough to sustain growth of fairly advanced beings.

Warmth may only be abundant during certain seasons. If the plant/fungal sophonts live anywhere away from tropical regions, they'll need clothing, shelter and fuel for colder seasons.

No need for a giant chunk of the population as a class of farmers.

Not all agriculture is about food for the farmers. Some is about food for trade or for livestock. Some is about raw materials: wood for building, crafts, fuel; cotton for textiles; various plants for paper or papyrus; assorted plants for oils or dyes, etc.

No need for a chunk of the population in a huge military or ready to enlisted in one over war for farmland or protect it.

See above.

Plus, they may still need military to protect water supplies, and/or the only land that provides them the nutrients they need.

No need for a security force to prevent stealing as you can sit around and feed yourself every morning.

Theft isn't the only crime in society.

Very few builders unless they get into greenhouse and hydroulture technology.

What about storage silos? Cisterns? Bridges? Shelter against bad weather?

 

[Minigiant]

That's a big a assumption. There are a variety of reasons why animal societies look like they do and function as they do.

Clothing isn't just about protection from exposure. It also shows wealth & status, social role, and provides a way to carry things without using your hands.

Soil & water suitable for consumption is a rare commodity. They may need to artificially increase availability to support their active metabolisms.

Light, while all around us, needs to be abundant enough to sustain growth of fairly advanced beings.

Warmth may only be abundant during certain seasons. If the plant/fungal sophonts live anywhere away from tropical regions, they'll need clothing, shelter and fuel for colder seasons.



Not all agriculture is about food for the farmers. Some is about food for trade or for livestock. Some is about raw materials: wood for building, crafts, fuel; cotton for textiles; various plants for paper or papyrus; assorted plants for oils or dyes, etc.

See above.

Plus, they may still need military to protect water supplies, and/or the only land that provides them the nutrients they need.

Theft isn't the only crime in society.

What about storage silos? Cisterns? Bridges? Shelter against bad weather?

I'm not saying that a plant or fungal society wouldn't have farmers, militarizes, tailors, police, builders, and masons. Just that their amount would probably be less and therefore their priorities would defer from an animal-like or humaniod race. Most of humanity society and history is built on our needs, how we dealt with them, and how we acted when some had excess.

Changing the proportions of the races' requirement for life alters them greatly. What if they do stay in wet, hot areas and can remain active all day after 3-4 hours of sunning?

Sunning: Plant people don’t need to sleep or eat. Instead, they can sit or lay in front of a source of bright light and absorb the light. (The Common word for such absorption is “sunning.”). While absorbing light, they dull their minds and become unconscious in order to efficiently. After absorbing light in this way for at least 4 hours straight, you gain the same benefit that a human does from 8 hours of sleep and have gained enough nourishment for one day.
Plant people can sun for more than turn than what is required to store nourishment for additional days. Fore every 4 hours after the first 4 hours of sunning, a plant person can create and store enough nourishment for an additional day to the maximum of 5 days.

Tropical plant people could only starve to overpopulation and might not live in houses. They'd hunt and mine infrequently compared to temperate plant people as they'd need fewer resources. Cactusmen might never leave their oasis home entirely. Pinetreeguys might even burn bits of themselves, the dead, or rivals for warmth during the winter until someone invents the fire magic. .

What about their values of resources? They might value animal waste more than gold.

Would their homes have roofs? Or would they be glass? The whole house made of glass? Would wooden people be the best glassblowers?... I just realized what I just wrote.

 

[Marandahir]

That's a big a assumption. There are a variety of reasons why animal societies look like they do and function as they do.

You're taking a strong anthropic principle hardline here, and I'd suggest more of a weak anthropic principle. Our societies are like they are because of the path we've taken to get here; it wasn't a necessity to get here. There are many ways that these societies could have and do diverge.

Clothing isn't just about protection from exposure. It also shows wealth & status, social role, and provides a way to carry things without using your hands.

Wealth & Status, social role, etc comes from an earlier role in protection from exposure: if you have the wealth to afford clothes, you're better off than the person who doesn't have the materials goods to afford it. This is a natural extension of that. If our plant society doesn't need clothes for protection, then they wouldn't develop it as a status symbol. A different set of status symbols would develop, if status is important at all (I'd argue that it well could be, due to the strong individualism that many plants play; colonial plants – the inspiration for the Killoren/Wilden and many other plant-people – are actually rarer than we tend to portray them).

Your point about pockets is important though. Finding different ways to carry things may well be key here. But these are plant people. Couldn't they have extra vines that wind around items or grasp things in a way that's not wieldy like an arm, but is good for securing things to their bodies until they need to release them? I'm thinking almost Ficus-level vines. Of course, there are many different kinds of plants, and vines are not present in many taxa. But it might be an interesting substitution.

Finally, the protection point holds merit as far as the plants may want protection from the environment. However, if we are doing tree people, then barkskin is the norm, so we don't have to worry about light wounds that clothes provide some protection against. And if it's a tree person, bark is also a great insulator. We may be talking like Warforged – clothes may not be necessary (though Warforged in Eberron are part of a society that that does have clothes as status symbols so some 'forged do wear clothes).

Soil & water suitable for consumption is a rare commodity. They may need to artificially increase availability to support their active metabolisms.

Light, while all around us, needs to be abundant enough to sustain growth of fairly advanced beings.

I take issue with your "Advanced beings" line of thought (you're suggesting that we're better than plants, which is a big anthropocentric assumption, especially when we're trying to talk about plant societies). But your point about light energy is important. Plants don't need to feed these extremely energy-consumptive organs we call brains, and they don't need to spend energy on locomotion (at least not usually). Growth, synthesis, and reproduction are the main consumers of energy in a plant's organ systems. Reproduction is by far the most expensive. If plants had to locomote, then they would need a lot more energy. We might imagine that plant-based "humanoids" might only arise in sun-washed countries, and they might have massive solar-fuel cells (perhaps even other plants that are slaves to the plantoids) to save up energy for when they're running low.

Warmth may only be abundant during certain seasons. If the plant/fungal sophonts live anywhere away from tropical regions, they'll need clothing, shelter and fuel for colder seasons.

Or they just need to drop their leaves or retreat underground for the colder seasons. Think like a plant, not like a human. You might not have plant adventurers travelling in colder climes. Then again, perhaps you'd have coniferous plantoids in those wintery places.

Not all agriculture is about food for the farmers. Some is about food for trade or for livestock. Some is about raw materials: wood for building, crafts, fuel; cotton for textiles; various plants for paper or papyrus; assorted plants for oils or dyes, etc.

Exactly, which is why I suggested them trading solar-food for useful nutrients produced by their Myconid neighbours. That said, they may not need wood for building: perhaps they grow their homes by nurturing other plants or have their ancestors die and hollow out into their homes. Fuel may not be necessary; some plants might hate fire. Though that's a bit of a cliche; many plants love fire. Those redwoods out West would die if the small forest fires stopped burning. And many blueberry bushes only come in after brushfires (there are too many examples to count). So fire might be a resource nurtured, but used responsibly by a plantoid community. I could even imagine your oils for dyes idea – but imagine the plantoids stealing the oils from other plants? I think it would be less about agriculture and more about harvesting, with a plantoid people.

See above.

Plus, they may still need military to protect water supplies, and/or the only land that provides them the nutrients they need.

Theft isn't the only crime in society.

What about storage silos? Cisterns? Bridges? Shelter against bad weather?

Many of these may or may not be needed. Interesting questions, to say the least, but I could think of dozens of counterexamples where our plantoids would get around these quite naturally.