Treant fire weakness and spirit bond

Not sure if this has been discussed about before but I feel that the fire resistance that spirit bond provides should not negate a treant's fire weakness, just as the barrier spell does not negate a gnome's blunt weakness. A treant already has all sorts of resistance, I don't get why spirit bond should negate the only weakness that a treant has.

I believe barrier *does* now block attacks to a gnome's blunt vulnerability. I was gone for several years at one point and circa 2014 (thanks to Eloret) vulnerability attacks were not blocked by mana shield or barrier (which made drow invokers much less fun for ranking since they couldn't use mana shield on the Paladins in Tainted Valley). I came back three years later and from what I recall this mechanic had changed some time between those two points for reasons unknown to me.

With that said, I agree with your overall point. I believe the order in which things matter is supposed to be immunity>vulnerability>resistance (which is why water attacks are effective on dwarves even with their magic resistance)?

...Which therefore means, you cannot override a vulnerability with a resistance, logically speaking (but that doesn't seem to be the case).

It doesn't negate it, but even if it did, it would only be in the narrow case of using fire bond, and at that point you might as well just use water on them anyway. Water on fire bond is a much bigger damage increase than the fire vuln on treant.

Perhaps give it some more thought? No other spell/effect in game cancels out a race's weakness right now, except for spirit bond. Narrow case or not, it's still something that seems too good to be true.


'TREANT' 'TREANTS' 'DRYAD'

As old as Serins forests themselves, Treants have lumbered across Serins
lands since time immemorial. Descendant from the oldest of the worlds
flora, Treants are sentient tree-like creatures who are wise, fiercely
intelligent, very large and strong. As with all neutral-aligned creatures,
Treants live a life of balance rather than distinctly lawful or chaotic. While
they do not shun violence and are more than willing to engage in combat when
the need arises, Treants do prefer the peace and tranquility of nature to the
suffering of bloodshed. Among the family of Treants, the females of the species
are known as Dryads.

The strength and size of a Treant's wood-like exterior makes them naturally
resistant to weapons, wood, and cold-based attacks. However, should a Treant
be threatened by fire they are wise to make a hasty retreat. The Treant's
affinity to the natural world draws them towards the Druid class, however
it has been said some Treants seek to protect nature in the halls of Warriors.

STR: 22, INT: 21, WIS: 23, DEX: 15, CON: 22
Ethos: neutral only
Align: any
Resists: weapons, cold, wood
Vulns: fire
Bonus to size.


'SPIRIT BOND'
Syntax: bond <element>

Upon obtaining the 5th circle, druids undergo a very important rite of
passage. They learn a ritual which allows them to bond very closely with a
key element of their choosing. The druid may only bond to one element at a
time, though is free to change between them as they prefer. Those elements
are earth, water and fire.

Earth: A potent boost to one's physical health with damage reduction.
- adds lightning resistance but vulnerability to air damage

Water: Enhances all of the druid's healing spells.
- adds water and fire resistance but vulnerability to cold and lightning damage

Fire: Enhances the melee damage the druid is able to deal.
- adds fire resistance but vulnerability to water


Nothing's stopping the treant druid from going water bond, then cold weakness is cancelled out coz of race's innate resistance, and opponents are forced to use lightning which is close to non-existent (because rare-level lightning weapons are limited to only 2).
I don't know how other players feel about this, but I am just voicing out something I find to be an issue.

I told you that it doesn't negate the fire vuln, but you replied right back that it cancels out their weakness. It doesn't. It does not offer that much damage reduction. Spirit bond for druids is simlar to enhancd damage / protection on every other cleric class, except that (A) they have to choose between what the bonds do, (B) they are focused on singular elements rather than entire alignments, and (C) they even have to find a place close to the elements (like a well, or volcano) that lets them change the bond.

Do you want water vuln to go through duergar shaman's protection spell as well? Because this is the exact same point as the one you are trying to make. if fire bond stops reducing fire damage, because of vulns, then protection can stop reducing good align damage because of vulns as well. If that improves the balance of the game , then great. But I'm not sure why this is such a big deal, because honestly, nobodys stomping everybody with druids. Maybe you could tell us more about why this is suddenly such a big deal now and how exactly is this making treant druids overpowered compared to, say, duergar shamans. I would love to hear it. There is no point to quibble over a helpfile that says "resistance to " instead of "protection from " though.

@BlackWidow barrier does not block physical vulns. The mana drained from being hit by a vuln with barrier up is dramatic.

@ivindel I agree it feels like fire bonded treants can really mitigate their vuln. I don't have data to back it up but if you look at the log below, Dendrodorn is getting injured/wounded by a fiery dagger which is laughable. On the other hand we do get a look at Quoive's gear and it may be a damroll issue. But let's say he came at Dendrodorn with a non-fire, magical dagger. What then? Grazes and hits? And what about a plain old physical dagger? Scratches/grazes?

https://abandonedrealms.com/logs/view_log.php?id=2299

@Davairus I hope you don't take this topic too personally.
I just want to put this out there so that if there are others who have opinions on this matter (whether for or against), they have a chance to chip in and voice out.

Just as Mogu mentioned, the feeling is mutual in that the fire bond resistance does "seem" to mitigate the fire vuln, and on top of the weapon, cold, wood resistances, it just all seems rather excessive because it severely limits the options available to even do effective damage against a treant druid.

Of course, I felt this first-hand against Kikikale (top 5 right now), hence why I am complaining about it now, and I am quite sure most people who have fought him will feel the same way as me.
If I have evidence (if a log is what you are looking for), I could possibly post it but then it will obviously out my character.
I have never liked how protection works, but since it's an accepted fact by all, so be it, ages have passed, it's not going to change, I have accepted it.
If this is something that I also have to accept, so be it.

I know that I am poking the hornet's nest when making such posts, but I don't believe in keeping silent if it's something that bothers me. Years ago, I complained multiple times about monks being able to use bows in leopard/crane, owning all my warriors in the logs I posted because of the interactions that were overlooked somehow, but it took forever for people to realise and concur on how OP that shit is because it needed more people to start abusing it before change can happen. I feel that this is similar but probably not as significant since most people don't really like to play druids.

The way I look at it, a race's weakness is there to balance out all the other benefits that come with that race selection, but if there is a way to mitigate that weakness, then it just becomes OP. For example, if you open up dwarves to rangers, I am pretty sure everyone will jump on the wagon because barkskin will effectively cancel out the water weakness. Dwarf paladins are decent choices because they will be mostly fighting evils and protection helps to dampen that water weakness.

"nobodys stomping everybody with druids"

Maybe not stomping everybody, but certainly winning against everybody, and never loses. Pull up Kikikales record for shit and and giggles.

Seeing races vulns get removed/tuned down or ways to negate those vulns makes me wonder when fire giants and illithids get their day in the sun?
(Being a little facetious with that one)

Well you can roll a fire giant shaman and try using the protection spell to mitigate ice vuln. You can also roll an illithid psionicist and there is a held psi ball that mitigates slash vuln. Is anyone saying these are overpowered? What about sanc, should vulns go through that?

As I said above it is a FACT that you could use water against fire bond and it would be even worse than the fire vuln. I don't see water resistance in the treant vulns, and the fire bond helpfile says it adds vulnerability to water.

Ivindel I am not taking this personally but it would be no exaggeration to say these dilemmas are not easy to think up and you come to the forums looking for it to be rug pulled and telling me put more thought into it, after the posted helpfiles show exactly the solution you are looking for already exists. There are very good water damage weapons, just ask any dwarf player about it. Did you try them? If not, then why didn't you? Do we need the bonds telegraphed better like a sanc or something?

Well, in that same fight, I used a marauding trident to only be mauling/decimating him, so I thought yeah water bond, so I cast a lightning bolt and either the damage range is too wide, or he got some hidden secret power I don't know about coz the lightning bolt mauled him too.
Anyway, I am probably sounding like a sore loser now so I will rest my case. It's fine by me, since I did get 3 other players to also share their opinions and I am glad that I wasn't the only one that feels this way. Maybe I am really just doing it wrong and I just haven't found "the way" to do meaningful damage to him, so I will keep trying.

OK it sounds like you aren't identifying the bond correctly and that's fine to be more visible .

the issue here is you have 1 player who is playing a class that most people won't even bother with and dominates. Ive never heard of spirit bond until today because I never played a druid. So I go on the ar website treant druids vuln to fire. Die using fire weapons horribly delete and now i've learned about spirit bond and next time oh ill use water weapons.

For a deurgar shaman, you still use a water cube against him. For a fire giant you still use an ice weapon. Why because these weapons still deal more damage to them. That's what a vuln is.

For a treant, you realise fire weapons dont deal enough damage and now you have to play rock paper scisssors. End up using lightning weapons against him to deal more dmg than fire. That is what it means to mitigate vuln. You force people off fire weapons against you.

I never knew that about bonds. How do I know what they are bonded with? Look at what kind of cudgel they are using or something? Maybe put an aura around them for the element they are bonded with. (water), (fire), etc..?

Does knowing the bond change the battle? You can guess his bond after the first skirmish. You switch weapons, he can just run to a nearby area to activate the other bond. So you'll have to prepare 3 sets of elemental weapons for the treant. Unless he's like the top pker, nobody would bother so you will end up using turmoil.

The issue here isn't really about identifying the type of bond. It's about the fact that fire damage gets negated to the point a turmoil weapon does more damage. If duergar druid becomes a thing, someone would roll one and keep water bond to prevent drowning. I mean if that's the intent then cool, keep it.

Merlandox: the water cube is not ideal against a duergar shaman because it's only 16 average even it hits his vulnerability. A staff of storms might be worthwhile, but personally I'd just use the strongest one-handed axe I can acquire instead of a cube against a duergar shaman if given a choice between the two. Considering that 24 or 25 average axes are commonly available, most of the time I find cubes are not worth using.

You wouldn't use an enchanted water cube against a duergar shaman if all the rare water weapons ard not available? You wouldn't use a fiery dagger against treants and icicles against fire giants?

I haven't played a warr for some time, but my point still stands i think. I would still use an enchanted icicle against a fire giant if the icy blue isn't available.

The Juggernaut says 'The wisps of the wilderness leave Virac.'
The Juggernaut says 'Filo's torrent DISEMBOWELS Virac!'
The Juggernaut says 'Filo's flaming bite decimates Virac!'
The Juggernaut says 'Filo executes the form, parting the wave!'
The Juggernaut says 'Filo's shocking bite MANGLES Virac!'
The Juggernaut says 'Virac has quite a few wounds and Filo has quite a few wounds.'

I believe that's the Sword of Seasons?

Good example to see different types of damage at play in one round against a Treant Druid. However, be mindful the shocking bite blow is coupled with form damage.

Is this a reason to be skeptical about the fire damage? If not, then spirit bond (water it looks like?) offers decent resistance. Its understandable why some may have questions though.

Not trying to make any claims, but hopefully this can serve as a point of reference.

The fire damage could have been an offhand weapon though? Sorry guys I tried to help!

That fight between Filo and Virac, it's quite obvious to me that it's fire bond, because the water damage is indeed doing meaningful damage while a flaming bite (despite treant weakness) is completely negated. If it was water bond, that torrent would have done a decimate too. The shock damage is a form damage so it's naturally high. Tell me if I am reading this right or wrong.
That said, if water damage is in fact the converted weakness, it still baffles me that it's only doing disembowels because that is only a typical mangle without sanc with Filo's equipment and a sword of seasons? I would expect weakness damage at that level to be easily demolishing (dismembering through sanc) with an average 25 weapon, if indeed the spirit bond converted weakness is that much worse than the racial fire weakness. This is in comparison to the fact that I can easily do mangles/demolishes with an ave 16 flaming longsword to oaken beasts and treant mobs with 41 damroll.

Ivindel I'm officially tired of replying over and over that the treant vuln doesn't get totally negated by fire bond. It is not true and you are spreading misinformation. What could be pointed out instead is that vulns are not all equal and the treant vuln (and gnome vuln) are not on the same tier as dwarf vs water. What that means is that its going to be important to find an actual good fire damage weapon instead of trying to pwn a level 50 treant druid with a fucking fiery dagger. This would be inadequate without the fire bond. I can't think of any good reason why you think that is going to work. Like at least witch carve something first if you don't want to get a deadly whip of fire or whatever the flail tha does fire damage is.

You must be right about it being fire spirit bond. I just looked at the first bond that said fire resistance and didn't realize that two different bonds provide fire resistance, which makes sense that fire bond would also provide fire resistance..

I'm still trying to retain the information between spirit bonds and monk styles, so this has been great for educational purposes. Thanks.

Add chop/cleave vuln for treants. Nobody will complain about fire vuln. I realize this suggestion isn't well thought out (mages/clerics couldn't really exploit that vuln) but it does make sense to me thematically.

I dunno man... flesh is a hell of a lot easier to cleave than wood is.

Maybe dark-knights can channel hatred into their weapons so they can build a cursed weapon that's exceptionally strong vs treants. Then we can just merge these two threads.

Hahaha dark-knights hate trees and hippies.

Time to start tracking rares/uniques. Twerp is on the case.