If a player eyes lit up and decided it would be a good idea to start a forest fire to gain the exp for killing some of the random creature encounters in the forest.... would you give him exp for it...
This is a question for DM's please state why or why not
My critisism is that its a creative idea... of course most of the creatures would flee but surly some would die.
It seems that the dm's promote using clever ideas... but whenever those ideas are too useful they shun the idea and punish the players... is this the DM just getting angry the players outsmarted him...
I do that alot.. like one time we needed to sneak across this bridge and on the other side there was an orc enchampment and a dragon on a tall ledge keeping gaurd from ahigh I got an idea and told the other caster to get his attention... i forgot what spell he casted long time ago... but i prepared a web spell for when the dragon would fly to us... at the point it would be flying over the ledge and i webed his wings... luckily the dragon failed all his saves... especially the extra saves the dm gave him cause he just didnt want the dragon to die and for us to get lots of exp... the dm then said the dragon was at like -3 hp and that we couldnt reach him... then i casted magic missile... long range... finished him off.. dm gets mad...we werent high enough lvl to barely fight through the orcs let alone killing the dragon or so the dm thought... ive dm'ed... im good at dming... just not fun... I encourage and reward my players.... but to my dm he punishes his players my dm is out to stop us from coming up with anything creative...is my dm is Just an ass? its hard to explain what he does but he just dosnt like us getting any kind of advantage... which is discouraging... im a veteran at dnd so he is always watching over me ready to screw over...
I dm'ed and mayby it just depends on the person... are there nice dm's out there or if you just dm for to long do you become a bitter ass
3.5 edition
If a player eyes lit up and decided it would be a good idea to start a forest fire to gain the exp for killing some of the random creature encounters in the forest.... would you give him exp for it...
This is a question for DM's please state why or why not
I would not, because any such "victory" would be the result of the fire spreading without player knowledge of the existence of any random creature encounters.
The fire may certainly kill whatever encounters they party *would have had*, had they met them, but since the fire burned the creatures to death without the party ever knowing the creatures existed (ie: without encountering them), the party actually did nothing to either actively avoid or defeat the enemy.
Meanwhile, a host of gods and goddesses of nature, life, and the like, would be wanting a word with the party for the wanton destruction of formerly pristine, virgin forests. Not to mention, they would soon encounter "Smokey", a large bear of CR party level +5, who would be a little mad about his cave being filled with smoke right now.
3.5 edition
If a player eyes lit up and decided it would be a good idea to start a forest fire to gain the exp for killing some of the random creature encounters in the forest.... would you give him exp for it...
This is a question for DM's please state why or why not
My critisism is that its a creative idea... of course most of the creatures would flee but surly some would die.
It seems that the dm's promote using clever ideas... but whenever those ideas are too useful they shun the idea and punish the players... is this the DM just getting angry the players outsmarted him...
I do that alot.. like one time we needed to sneak across this bridge and on the other side there was an orc enchampment and a dragon on a tall ledge keeping gaurd from ahigh I got an idea and told the other caster to get his attention... i forgot what spell he casted long time ago... but i prepared a web spell for when the dragon would fly to us... at the point it would be flying over the ledge and i webed his wings... luckily the dragon failed all his saves... especially the extra saves the dm gave him cause he just didnt want the dragon to die and for us to get lots of exp... the dm then said the dragon was at like -3 hp and that we couldnt reach him... then i casted magic missile... long range... finished him off.. dm gets mad...we werent high enough lvl to barely fight through the orcs let alone killing the dragon or so the dm thought... ive dm'ed... im good at dming... just not fun... I encourage and reward my players.... but to my dm he punishes his players my dm is out to stop us from coming up with anything creative...is my dm is Just an ass? its hard to explain what he does but he just dosnt like us getting any kind of advantage... which is discouraging... im a veteran at dnd so he is always watching over me ready to screw over...
I dm'ed and mayby it just depends on the person... are there nice dm's out there or if you just dm for to long do you become a bitter ass
Clever ideas should be rewarded if they overcome a challenge in some way.
Destroying an entire forest "for xp" is neither clever or involves any challenge so no, no xp should be awarded for such a rash and foolhardy decision.
Web (and no spell actually) let's you target a specific part of a creatures body. A clever use of a web spell to trap the dragon in the canyon would be rewarded, but no it doesn't work the way you described. The extra saves bit is unnecessary since the spell doesn't function that way, but is a hallmark of a bad DM bending the rules. Of course both the player and DM in that example should know the rules better than they do. Trying to make a non-lethal spell a save or die or autokill isn't creative, it's ruleslawyering (and in this instance flat out cheating).
Creative ideas are ones that aren't trying to break the game but actually give the party an ingame advantage(xp isn't an ingame concept). Using your example, sneaking into the orc-camp and tricking an orc on watch into attacking the dragon and using the distraction to get past would be clever and worthy of a reward. Not knowing the circumstances I don't know how that would be acheived, but then that's the clever part you're talking about.
The long answer: Are you kidding me?
If a player eyes lit up and decided it would be a good idea to start a forest fire to gain the exp for killing some of the random creature encounters in the forest.... would you give him exp for it.
No. In my mind, there not only has to be some risk from the creatures killed, but also direct knowledge of their deaths. He might come upon some burnt skeletons, but he won't know if they died of old age, the fire, or whatever. Further, a character starting a forest fire for exp gain is metagaming, unless he has written pyromaniac into his background. If he has, I'd give him a small RP bonus for setting fires, but not for anything killed by those fires.
However D&D has mechanics that you shouldn't just ignore as it suits you. Thinking outside of the box can easily mean "ignoring the rules."
3.5 Web says this:
Web creates a many-layered mass of strong, sticky strands. These strands trap those caught in them. The strands are similar to spider webs but far larger and tougher. These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears. Creatures caught within a web become entangled among the gluey fibers. Attacking a creature in a web won’t cause you to become entangled.
Anyone in the effect’s area when the spell is cast must make a Reflex save. If this save succeeds, the creature is entangled, but not prevented from moving, though moving is more difficult than normal for being entangled (see below). If the save fails, the creature is entangled and can’t move from its space, but can break loose by spending 1 round and making a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 25 Escape Artist check. Once loose (either by making the initial Reflex save or a later Strength check or Escape Artist check), a creature remains entangled, but may move through the web very slowly. Each round devoted to moving allows the creature to make a new Strength check or Escape Artist check. The creature moves 5 feet for each full 5 points by which the check result exceeds 10.
If you have at least 5 feet of web between you and an opponent, it provides cover. If you have at least 20 feet of web between you, it provides total cover.
The strands of a web spell are flammable. A magic flaming sword can slash them away as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs. Any fire can set the webs alight and burn away 5 square feet in 1 round. All creatures within flaming webs take 2d4 points of fire damage from the flames.
Web can be made permanent with a permanency spell. A permanent web that is damaged (but not destroyed) regrows in 10 minutes.
There is no provision for targeting a creature's wings, nor do I think there were diametrically opposed solid objects to base the Web on in your example. At most it slows a creature down and lets you do fire damage when it's about to escape. You could have caught the dragon in the Web assuming there were appropriate objects to attach to, but that's it. So the DM should have simply refused your request rather than playing along as much as he did.
Gaining XP is always from overcoming challenges (sometimes bonuses for roleplaying at DM discretion), NOT from purely ending something's life. Fighting a monster to the death is a challenge, but setting a tree on fire and leaving what happens up to fate isn't. All that would do is start a pretty weak fire (assuming the wood wasn't already ripe for forest fire) and attract the attention of the local Elves or Fey or Druid, who I suppose you might then fight for some XP if they were strong enough to challenge you.
D&D has rules, and choosing to ignore the way things work in a given situation is up to the DM. Usually it's not advisable.
Unless one of those animals was actually, in some way, an obstacle, then no, you don't get XP for them, and even if they were, you'd only get XP for the ones that actually were threats to you.
is no provision for targeting a creature's wings, nor do I think there were diametrically opposed solid objects to base the Web on in your example.
I would actually think that a dragon's wings are both solid AND diametrically opposed. Anchor the web against both wings, and it will be damned hard to fly. :P
At most it slows a creature down and lets you do fire damage when it's about to escape. You could have caught the dragon in the Web assuming there were appropriate objects to attach to, but that's it. So the DM should have simply refused your request rather than playing along as much as he did.
In this case, the rules don't cover the situation properly. Usually it will just slow you down, but I can't imagine a dragon that missed its saves still being able to flap well enough to fly with both wings webbed together. It could definately walk after it hit the ground, though.
I would actually think that a dragon's wings are both solid AND diametrically opposed. Anchor the web against both wings, and it will be damned hard to fly. :P
A dragon is a creature, not an object, and you cannot target part of a creature. Also, the wings are not diametrically opposed (aka parallel); you had to put a web between two walls, or a floor and a ceiling, or two upright trees, or something like that.
1- To gain XP is a total metagame (outside the game) term and his PC has no motivation to gain it. Only his player.
2- To gain XP, the creature or encounter has to pose some form of a threat to the player.
Neither of these are true.
If your player were to say, be tasked with clearing out a haunted woods inhabited by nothing but skeletons and he burnt it down. Then I can see you awarding a lump sum of plot XP similar to what you would have given for doing the other "Not fighting all the skeletons one by one" option for solving the quest. I would also recomend the NPCS explain that "Thats not quite what we had in mind, but I guess we did have a deal. Here is what we owe you, do not ever come back".
A dragon is a creature, not an object, and you cannot target part of a creature. Also, the wings are not diametrically opposed (aka parallel); you had to put a web between two walls, or a floor and a ceiling, or two upright trees, or something like that.
Web creates a many-layered mass of strong, sticky strands. These strands trap those caught in them. The strands are similar to spider webs but far larger and tougher. These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears. Creatures caught within a web become entangled among the gluey fibers. Attacking a creature in a web won’t cause you to become entangled.
It's points, not objects, so the dragons wings can be used, and when they flap up or down, you will have two points in diametrically opposed positions. ;)
It would be hard to do, but it IS doable and creative. Further, the players are heroes and if they're fighting dragons, then they are high enough level to do difficult things like this.
Also, if this question is posed to potential DMs, why is it in the "What's a player to do?" section?
Also, if this question is posed to potential DMs, why is it in the "What's a player to do?" section?
I wondered the same thing. The mods will get around to moving it to the right forum eventually. Until then, I'll discuss it wherever it happens to be.
It wouldn't be anywhere near enough to encourage them to do it on a regular basis though.
And, depending upon which forest they torched, there would certainly be all kinds of other repercussions that, while worthy of xp in their own rights when faced, would certainly discourage such future pyromania.
This would also likely be cause for an alignment shift. And that's never a good thing at my table. Not even in a system where alignment has little rules impact.
So yeah, I'd give them some paltry amount of xp - for all the story hooks they just provided me.
I doubt they'd think it was worth what else I gave them though....
3.5 edition
If a player eyes lit up and decided it would be a good idea to start a forest fire to gain the exp for killing some of the random creature encounters in the forest.... would you give him exp for it...
Players like you are the reason that I only give XP for accomplishing in-game goals.
Setting a forest fire to kill everything in is is pretty damn evil. So Alignment shifts are deffinitly in order. But lets say they were chasing something and it is hiding IN the forest.
Now they can get xp for dealing with the obsticle of finding the thing. If they were fleeing and those chasing were still in the forest... again now they had a clever way to make an escape. Xp granted.
However the plothooks still hold true no matter WHY you did it. And I as a DM would have fun with lots of Druids and Rangers that learn of this event.
As far as the web verses the dragon thing. Bad DM and bad Players. It was a stupid situation to put the players in and a stupid way to try and get out of it.
You never get XP just cause you killed something.
Your creating a co operative storyline and your experience shows that you are advancing that.
Sure some people prefer it hackenslash but that running away with it.
People insides aren't made of pervious experience that you collect when you press the X button so that your character can absorb it all.
Webbing a Dragon on the other hand.
Thats fine, surprised it worked due to dragons huge strength bonus but thats Iconic.
You know the spiders web trapping flying creatures, no one can argue that hasn't been used give an omen of terrible things to come in modern horror movie or a number of other things.
There is no doubt in my that, you killed that dragon.
The incidental final blow is given by orcs but there not the reason it died.
Some DM epically inexperienced ones can't deal with good ideas, they were expecting an encounter where you wore through spells and abilities and with a single spell you took care of it.
They most properly just felt frustrated.
Webing a Dragon on the other hand.
Thats fine, suprised it worked due to dragons huge strength bonus but thats Iconic.
You know the spiders web traping flying creatures, no one can aguee that hasn't been used give an omen of terriable things to come in modern horror movie or a number of other things.
There is no doubt in my that, you killed that dragon.
The incidental final blow is given by orcs but there not the reason it died.
Some DM espically inexperinced ones can't deal with good ideas, they were expecting an encounter where you wore through spells and abilities and with a single spell you took care of it.
They most properly just felt frustrated.
As far as the web verses the dragon thing. Bad DM and bad Players. It was a stupid situation to put the players in and a stupid way to try and get out of it.
That is just needlessly narrow minded. Not every situation is designed to be overcome. Sometimes DM's set the scene so that the players (when level appropriate) can come back and deal with it. However, if the players attempt before desired and whether through sheer luck or skill manage to pull it off...it's called bad DMing and bad players?
Of course both the player and DM in that example should know the rules better than they do. Trying to make a non-lethal spell a save or die or autokill isn't creative, it's ruleslawyering (and in this instance flat out cheating).
Personally I couldn't disagree with you more. There is nothing wrong with thinking or playing outside the box. The "rules" are only guidelines. To me it doesn't make since why a web would collapse on itself if not anchored. If cast in midair it should act as if a net was thrown and float/fall to the ground. Anything in between would be caught. I might give the Dragon an additional Reflex save to fly around it (depending on how far away it was when cast).
3.5 edition
If a player eyes lit up and decided it would be a good idea to start a forest fire to gain the exp for killing some of the random creature encounters in the forest.... would you give him exp for it...
No. Mass destruction in hopes of collateral damage doesn't warrant XP.
To be blunt, Yes it would warrent Expereince Points rewarded for the creatures killed by the PC in this manner. However....
DM's Guide, page 39.
An orc warband that attacks the PCs by flying over them on primitive hang gliders and dropping rocks is not the same encounter as one in which the orcs just charge in with spears. Sometimes, the circumstances give the characters' opponents a distinct advantage. Other times, the PCs have an advantage. Adjust the XP award and the EL depending on how greatly circumstances change the encounter's difficulty......
....An encounter so easy that it takes up none or almost none of the PC's resources shouldn't result in any XP award at all....
The fire is a circumstance that greatly changes the effect of these encounters, creating an overwhelming advantage to the PC, and thus decreasing the EL and thus the XP rewards accordingly. Encountering and fighting these monsters toe to toe, as it were, is a higher EL then standing back and roasting marshmellows on the raging fire.
So as DM I would say "You killed 28,800 XP worth of creatures in the forest, now, modifying that by the EL of burning the forest down, it adds up to ZERO!, now as that act was so horribly Unlawful and Evil we need to discuss your allignment...."
That is just needlessly narrow minded. Not every situation is designed to be overcome. Sometimes DM's set the scene so that the players (when level appropriate) can come back and deal with it. However, if the players attempt before desired and whether through sheer luck or skill manage to pull it off...it's called bad DMing and bad players?
Yes. As a DM it is your job to create the backdrop to the storyline you are all sharing.
Having a backdrop of "Big deadly dragon, keeping you from the thing you want to do" is bad DMing. Its called railroading. Putting obsticles in the way to make the story better is the DMs job, NOT causing the players to feel helpless. Now, if they knew about the dragon ahead of time and decided to go there instead I do offer apologies to the DM, however that wasnt the situation given. Instead it was a DM just placing a big bad dragon in their way to say "hey dont do it this way, you have to do it this way instead".
And as far as the spell goes. I am not a rules lawyer but there is probably a balance reason for the web spell do be the way it in.... lets see...
maybe its so you cannot cause dragons flying in the air to instantly fall to their death, with basicly no danger to yourself???
It's points, not objects, so the dragons wings can be used, and when they flap up or down, you will have two points in diametrically opposed positions. ;)
As long as we're arguing this based on "logic" rather than game balance...
A dragon weighs how much?
Which would mean that its wings have to flap how hard for it to be able to fly?
Yeah, the dragon would rip trough that web with ease.
No roll to target the dragon's wings? Well, no roll for the dragon to break the web sounds equally fair.
---
But seriously, this is one of the main reasons that casters used to be so broken, and that people were clamoring that the wizard had been castrated in 4th edition. Spell wordings just used to be more descriptive rather than mechanical, which led to abusive interpretation and sentiments of "but it's magic!"
It's nauseating to see people try to bend, twist, and mutilate the game to get away with murder in the name of "creativity," and I am so glad that the game is making strides to move further and further away from such abuse. There's still room for creativity, but with the advent of things like pg. 42, that creativity finally works in a game appropriate way.
If your character has no reason to be burning down the forest, you shouldn't be invited to the next session. (Characters aren't aware of XP.)
As stated before, if you do know that there's something you want to kill in the forest, then it might be creative. There may be consequences, of course.
As for Web, it shouldn't have had lethal consequences. And since when did monsters get negative HP? It seems that (1) the players are treating the DM like a WoW server: you're expecting him to come up with rules for whatever situation you present to him and then expecting him to stick to those rules; and (2) the DM is trying to overcome the trap he's put himself in by "agreeing" in the way he is and then getting upset or vindictive.
You should first ask, "I have Web prepared; can I use it to do X?" The DM then decides whether or not they agree with X. If they don't, they should say, "What about Y, I think Web could do Y, but not X." Where Y is something similar, but more balanced, than X. And if Y still turns out to have problems, the DM can say, "well, I didn't see that coming; so here's what happens: ."
This is a more general gripe that may or may not apply to the OP, and is just something I want to get off my chest:
A lot of people say "bad DMs (or overbearing DMs) will quickly find themselves without a group." It's easy to suggest that bad players just be excluded. But people have an awful tendency to continue to do something they find frustrating, and associate with people they're constantly at odds with, and just generally lack the sense to find a better environment (or simply do without, if there's nowhere else to go). I suppose we should be somewhat grateful when these are cases revolving around a game, as opposed to unhealthy families or dangerous peers.
A lot of people say "bad DMs (or overbearing DMs) will quickly find themselves without a group." It's easy to suggest that bad players just be excluded. But people have an awful tendency to continue to do something they find frustrating, and associate with people they're constantly at odds with, and just generally lack the sense to find a better environment (or simply do without, if there's nowhere else to go). I suppose we should be somewhat grateful when these are cases revolving around a game, as opposed to unhealthy families or dangerous peers.
3.5 edition
If a player eyes lit up and decided it would be a good idea to start a forest fire to gain the exp for killing some of the random creature encounters in the forest.... would you give him exp for it...
This is a question for DM's please state why or why not
No. In fact, I'd probably pull the player aside and have a chat with him about the purpose of this game. "Killing a bunch of stuff to gain power" is not an acceptable motive for characters playing in my campaigns.
Australia's Bushfire Disaster: Many Good People Lie Dead In Victoria
February 9, 2009 - 5:00PM
AUSTRALIA has witnessed its greatest natural disaster. Worse than Black Friday. Worse than Ash Wednesday. Only in wartime has the toll of dead and wounded been greater.
At 9.45pm today the official death toll was 135. The toll is expected to rise.
At least 750 homes have also been destroyed - 550 of those in Kinglake, north of Melbourne, and surrounding areas.
According to police figures, the bushfires have now claimed 33 people in the small hamlet of Kinglake and nine in Kinglake West.
Ten people have now been confirmed dead at nearby Marysville.
New deaths have been reported at Narbethong where eight people died and Yarra Glen which has one fatality.
The toll for St Andrews has been revised down from 10 to six.
A total of 19 people have been killed in Gippsland, with nine fatalities in the town of Callignee and one in Upper Callignee.
And much worse is still to come. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said: "Hell in all its fury has visited the good people of Victoria in the last 24 hours, and many good people now lie dead; many others lie injured."
"I fear in the days ahead that the news is going to be bad and, I believe, the nation needs to prepare itself as full facts become known," he said.
There were 31 active fires across the state as of 7.20am today, with five - at Beechworth, Churchill, Murrindindi, the Kinglake complex and Bunyip - causing the most concern.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/135-dead-as-fires-continue-to-rage/2009/02/09/1234027889048.html
Fires deliberately started by humans. The OP is totally right. The real tragedy is that they didn't level up.
There might be an argument to be made that fantasy world does not equal real world, but at the very least the OP's comments are deeply insensitive and more than a little immature.
EDIT: Oh, I just realised I'm totally going to get this thread locked. Probably a point worth making, though.
And I have to admit, I was unaware of these fires until you brought them up. They were three months ago, too. (I may have heard something in passing, perhaps. I don't really remember.)
And what about that guy starting a pirate campaign in D&D General? Piracy is Somalia is far more recent news.
GregT, if you were posting a question involving floods in your campaign, say, last fall, would you want me calling you insensitive to the plight of Midwestern Americans? Granted, the death toll was a tenth of what was reported in your article, although the $6 billion in damage isn't entirely neglible...
No, but if you suggested PCs deliberately flooding Midwestern America in the hopes of getting XP from killing "some of the random encounter creatures" in that area I'd say that would be pretty insensitive.
It's not the topic of "disaster" that's objectionable. People should absolutely deal with disasters and death and global events in their games, both seriously and humorously. The ability to explore real issues in a fantasy context is one of the great strengths of roleplaying.
What I'm saying is that actions should be linked to consequences appropriate to your setting and tone, and that a player who is willing not only to randomly burn down an entire ecosystem in the hope of some random XP, but then complain about not being rewarded for it afterwards, is a player who's running at a disturbingly high level of disconnect from reality.
To further deal with your example, a pirate game would be cool. A pirate game where you came across a boat full of helpless refugees and then chose to drown them all on the basis that some of them were probably worth XP would not be cool.
The fire is a circumstance that greatly changes the effect of these encounters, creating an overwhelming advantage to the PC, and thus decreasing the EL and thus the XP rewards accordingly. Encountering and fighting these monsters toe to toe, as it were, is a higher EL then standing back and roasting marshmellows on the raging fire.
What you are overlooking, is the fact that these are not encounters at all. If the PCs don't actually encounter them, no EXP.
As long as we're arguing this based on "logic" rather than game balance...
A dragon weighs how much?
Which would mean that its wings have to flap how hard for it to be able to fly?
Yeah, the dragon would rip trough that web with ease.
Probably. I wouldn't expect it to work, but I WOULD expect it to be a tactic that can be performed.
No roll to target the dragon's wings? Well, no roll for the dragon to break the web sounds equally fair.
Should we add rolls for fireball and lightning bolt, too?
And then what if you wanted to target just a certain part of the enemy with fireball?
Player: "I aim for its foot."
DM: "You target the orc's right foot-"
Player: "Left foot."
DM: "You target the orc's left foot and unleash your fireball..."
*hawt d20-on-table action*
Player: "Did I hit?"
DM: "Technically, you hit its foot, but it's hard to tell how accurate you were since the whole orc went up in flames, as well as everything around it."
:D
What I'm saying is that actions should be linked to consequences appropriate to your setting and tone, and that a player who is willing not only to randomly burn down an entire ecosystem in the hope of some random XP, but then complain about not being rewarded for it afterwards, is a player who's running at a disturbingly high level of disconnect from reality.
OK, I see where you're coming from now.
If it were part of a plan to deal with an orc encampment hidden within they would get points for originality, easier encounters for a while, expected loot for their level and asked by the locals to leave and never return upon pain of death. And possibly angry druids after them depending on the campaign.
Yes. As a DM it is your job to create the backdrop to the storyline you are all sharing.
Having a backdrop of "Big deadly dragon, keeping you from the thing you want to do" is bad DMing. Its called railroading. Putting obsticles in the way to make the story better is the DMs job, NOT causing the players to feel helpless. Now, if they knew about the dragon ahead of time and decided to go there instead I do offer apologies to the DM, however that wasnt the situation given. Instead it was a DM just placing a big bad dragon in their way to say "hey dont do it this way, you have to do it this way instead".
I'm a little confused I guess. To me railroading is preventing your players from going any way other than the one you want them to go.
Example:
Player - I go north
DM - There is a Great Wyrm Red Dragon up ahead. You can't go that way.
Player - ok, I go South
DM - Lo and behold there is Tarrasque that way, you should probably go another way
Player - (sighs) East then?
DM - Look! its Tiamat
Player - I guess I'll go West
DM - Finally, the path is clear and you can continue
It is not, only one path is potentially blocked so you have to find another way or come back later.
And as far as the spell goes. I am not a rules lawyer but there is probably a balance reason for the web spell do be the way it in.... lets see...
maybe its so you cannot cause dragons flying in the air to instantly fall to their death, with basicly no danger to yourself???
I think a little information is lacking from the OP statement to tell for sure. It sounds alot like the RHoD campaign though. That Dragon had/has 104 HP. So, assuming it fell from max height (20d6) it would have to do near max damage for it to drop to -3 HP. Not impossible, just improbable.
Ask any adventurer. The hardest thing about fighting a Dragon is getting past their flying. They will do whatever it takes to ground them.
What they did was a great tactic. No, the rules don't technically make it possible. Personally though, I will reward players for inventive thinking.
What you are overlooking, is the fact that these are not encounters at all. If the PCs don't actually encounter them, no EXP.
Coupled with the fact they don't gain any knowledge or insights through doing so. XP represents PC growth through experiences (thus the name). Setting a fire and walking away is the antithesis of this.
No experiences, ergo no experience points.
maybe I am confused, but dont Fireball and lightning bolt have some sort of rolls? Be is save or vs reflex or what have you, they still have rolls. And then what if you wanted to target just a certain part of the enemy with fireball?
The point was, web doesn't need a roll to target, any more than fireball or lightning bolt do. All three spells give saves and other rolls to determine things. The fellow I was responding to made a statement that didn't make a whole lot of sense, and I was showing that through my question.
3.5 edition
... but i prepared a web spell for when the dragon would fly to us... at the point it would be flying over the ledge and i webed his wings... luckily the dragon failed all his saves... especially the extra saves the dm gave him cause he just didnt want the dragon to die and for us to get lots of exp...
Web in it's dicription specifically states:
The strands are similair to spider webs but far larger and tougher. These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points--floor and ceiling, opposite walls, etc.---or else the web collapses upon itself and disapears.
The spell has no target, only an area of effect, a 20-ft radius spread. This means that the spell cannot target the dragon, only the space that the dragon is in. As the dragon is flying in the air there is no solid and diametrically opposed points for the web to attach itself, the web collapses and disapears.
The Dragon, although big, is not really a solid object, but even if it was used as one, it's wings could not be, further more it would still need a second solid and diamtrically opposed object to attach the other end of the web
Specifically the web must be attached between two solid locations. If you were in an open field of level ground, you could not cast Web on a group of orcs to entagle them because there is only one surface available, nor could you entangle a creature in the air where there is zero surfaces available.
... are there nice dm's out there or if you just dm for to long do you become a bitter ass
The DMs aren't being asses, anyone who DMs for awhile becomes familiar with the rules and begins to understand game balance and the negative effects of bypassing those rules. In the long run such abuse of rules degrades the games, it trivializes the chalenges and erodes the believability of the DM's world, thus being overall less enjoyable to anyone except munchkins, which incidentally such sloppy regards to the rules only encourages munchkinism.
A Level 3 Wizard should not be able to single handedly beat a CR 12-14 Dragon by only casting One simple spell. You DM shouldn't have allowed web to have functioned in this way, and You as a PC Wizard should have read up on your spells and known better then misusing it in this manner.
The spell has no target, only an area of effect, a 20-ft radius spread. This means that the spell cannot target the dragon, only the space that the dragon is in. As the dragon is flying in the air there is no solid and diametrically opposed points for the web to attach itself, the web collapses and disapears.
Incorrect. It only means that it must be anchored to two points that are in opposition, such as the dragon's wings when flapping up or down. At that point, it will spread out over 20 feet of the dragon.
The Dragon, although big, is not really a solid object, but even if it was used as one, it's wings could not be, further more it would still need a second solid and diamtrically opposed object to attach the other end of the web
Once again, you even quoted it. Solid points, not object. Dragon wings are both solid, and points.
Specifically the web must be attached between two solid locations. If you were in an open field of level ground, you could not cast Web on a group of orcs to entagle them because there is only one surface available, nor could you entangle a creature in the air where there is zero surfaces available.
Points, not locations. You seem to be continually trying to change the spell to read as something other than it is written. It never says objects. It never says locations. It never says non-living. It says "solid" and "points" and "diametrically opposed", and dragon wings qualify as all three when they are flapping up or down.
A Level 3 Wizard should not be able to single handedly beat a CR 12-14 Dragon by only casting One simple spell. You DM shouldn't have allowed web to have functioned in this way, and You as a PC Wizard should have read up on your spells and known better then misusing it in this manner.
Are you serious??? At level 3, the wizard will be having difficulty getting past the CR. If he manages to get past the CR, the dragon then has a +11 or more reflext to make the save vs. a DC of say 17 if he wizard is pumped up big time, but most likely a DC of 15. THEN, the dragon falls for 13d6 max, but probably much less, for an average of 45-46 damage, reducing the dragon to 140ish hit points if young adult. At that point, the dragon breathes and kills the entire party. Or makes it's strength check and walks out and kills the entire party, who by the can't hit the thing 9 times out of 10, since they're 3rd level.
So recap. Wizard must roll very high, if he can roll high enough at all. Then dragon must roll very low. Then the dragon kills the wizard and his party anyway.
If we were playing in your game, I could cast web between a persons feet to stop him from running or moving making him helpless.
For that matter, I could use it to stop any warrior from swinging a weapon at me. The weapon as one point, the persons body as the other, or elbow.
Where is the line? Can I cast web between someone's eyelids to make them blind?? You are already allowing them to target portions of a body... so I would argue that unless you let me, you are not being fair in the game.
As far as railroading. I'll concede maybe not enough information was given for me to truly know, so it is probably more of a personal issue with the "dont do this now wait until later" when I as DM placed them in that situation. I tend to let my players have a lot of freedom in how they do things for the own stories, so it just sounded like the DM was trying to show off and push them, without actually doing it storyline wise.
Maxperson, you have a point in how it is written. It uses the term solid points. You are assuming they are talking about solid as apposed to intangable. They are meaning it as solid as in un-moving. This can be seen by the examples they give (floor, walls, etc) for the types of points you are looking at.
It's the etc. that is the issue. And I'm not the one assuming things. I'm going by how the spell is written. You are assuming to know that the designers meant non-living and/or moving. You cannot begin to know for certain what they meant by two examples out of hundreds and thousands of possibilities. The sample is just way too small. Also, I looked up the definition solid, and neither of those two definitions were there.
If we were playing in your game, I could cast web between a persons feet to stop him from running or moving making him helpless.
If he made his save, he could walk out of the web like anyone else. The webbing around his feet would break and he could leave the 20' area. All it takes is two solid points.
For that matter, I could use it to stop any warrior from swinging a weapon at me. The weapon as one point, the persons body as the other, or elbow.
1) Web doesn't stop attacks, so even if you target a sword and another part of his body, he could still swing at you.
2) One the web is set, if he makes his save, he can move out of the web,
3) If he fails the save, he still gets his strength check.
Where is the line? Can I cast web between someone's eyelids to make them blind?? You are already allowing them to target portions of a body... so I would argue that unless you let me, you are not being fair in the game.
The line is where the DM draws it. Even using your definition, there will be unmoving objects that are far weaker than other objects. At some point, the DM has to draw the line. This line will vary from DM to DM.
Secondly, I would have every ranger and druid in the tri-state area out to get you. There would be a TPK before the forest stops burning.
Honestly, this isn't WoW; you dont get exp for kills, you get it for overcoming challenges. On top of that, no good aligned character would burn down a forest for their own gain, and no unaligned or evil character would be stupid enough to do that either. I can't believe this was ever considered a good idea by anyone.
Maxperson, you have a point in how it is written. It uses the term solid points. You are assuming they are talking about solid as apposed to intangable. They are meaning it as solid as in un-moving. This can be seen by the examples they give (floor, walls, etc) for the types of points you are looking at.
What about trees? Ship's sails? Doors? Would you disallow those things because they are not strictly immobile?
If we were playing in your game, I could cast web between a persons feet to stop him from running or moving making him helpless.
For that matter, I could use it to stop any warrior from swinging a weapon at me. The weapon as one point, the persons body as the other, or elbow.
That's a straw man and you know it. You are deliberately exaggerating the the position in order to erroneously discredit it.
Where is the line? Can I cast web between someone's eyelids to make them blind?? You are already allowing them to target portions of a body... so I would argue that unless you let me, you are not being fair in the game.
The line is several steps before the absurd suggestions you made above.
D&D is a game of open possibilities and unforeseen - and unforeseeable - situations and possibilities. Yes the web spell was intended to cover an area rather than targeting locations on a body, but when the body is large enough that the entire spell area can be placed on it, and the creature's body shape and physiognomy fulfill the parameters for anchoring the spell, things are far less clear cut.
There is no right or wrong answer here. The rules do not specifically allow it but neither do they specifically disallow it. It is one of the myriad of unusual rules situations that arise in D&D that make the DM's role integral to the game.
Would I allow someone to glue a dragon's wings together with a web spell? No. I would allow them to cast it on a sufficiently large dragon using its wings as anchors, but I would rule the beast would easily tear the web to shreds simply by flapping.
If a DM allows me to target web spell so it can effect what I will it too. Then why limit it to legs or wings? Why couldnt I wrap the guys hand together so he cannot grab any weapon? See once you allow the spell to select body parts, then that is what it does.
My defense is that would have never been the creators want or they would have said so. Using the examples they provide as a basis is much more logical then just assuming they ment anything that has mass.
A fair DM is one that can see many possible outcomes for any decision. By deciding that a player can target the wings of a dragon with an AOE spell, means you can select other targets the same way. If you say they can do it to the dragon but not the guy with the sword, you are not being consistant with your rules. So again, if you can select the body parts you want to web individually, where is the line?
Maxperson is right. The line is with the DM. For me, its at the best logical sense of balance for the system. Yes extrapulating from their examples its a solid and secured location that is used for anchors.
Walls, cealings, floors, flagpoles, trees. There is nothing that says that solid object cannot be broken, but to me that is much more fair to the players then arbitrarily saying what and when you can select individual "solid points".
And I am curious Maxperson.
1) Web doesn't stop attacks, so even if you target a sword and another part of his body, he could still swing at you.
So if this is true, why would it stop a dragon from flapping its wings?
Typically, it's not a desirable result to see a dragon one-shotted by a low level spell. It trivialises an iconic enemy and disproportionately elevates the value of spellcasters above melee characters.
For DMs looking to prevent this result, the rules offer a clear out: web is envisaged as only working between "diametrically opposed points". It's pretty clear that the designers are contemplating fixed, unmoving points, such as corridor walls, a doorway, or two trees. It's a simple matter for a DM to say nope, dragon wings are moving, they don't stay still long enough for the web to "set", hence failure.
However, sometimes one-shotting a dragon is just cool. When it's just cool, you should probably allow it. That's a call for each DM to make after considering the situation, his players, their motivations, and what direction he's taking the game in.
In short, the DM who says no is not wrong. But it's okay to say yes, providing you're emphasising it as a "lucky shot" rather than a reliable way to kill dragons with a low-level spell.
And I am curious Maxperson. So if this is true, why would it stop a dragon from flapping its wings?
It wouldn't stop it, but it would slow it down to the point that flight is not possible. Going with Jayne's post. If the dragon was large or smaller, I probably would rule it too small for the web. If it was size huge, I'd have it shred the web and ignore it if it made it's save(which it's almost sure to do), and be grounded only on a missed save. If it was gargantuan or larger, it would just shred it and keep going. BUT, the wings could be used to anchor the web. They meet the spells requiremens, being far more solid than a tree or door.
If I burn down a whole forest, did I get to learn anything, except perhaps that wood and leaves are flammable, and the screaming of animals dying is horrible?
No.
Yes they are straw man examples, the point remains valid however.
Not really.
If a DM allows me to target web spell so it can effect what I will it too. Then why limit it to legs or wings? Why couldnt I wrap the guys hand together so he cannot grab any weapon? See once you allow the spell to select body parts, then that is what it does.
A Slippery Slope fallacy is no better than a Straw Man.
My defense is that would have never been the creators want or they would have said so. Using the examples they provide as a basis is much more logical then just assuming they ment anything that has mass.
My response is that the creators aren't running my game. The DM is free to change, adjudicate, or ignore the RAW. The key is doing so sensibly and intelligently.
A fair DM is one that can see many possible outcomes for any decision. By deciding that a player can target the wings of a dragon with an AOE spell, means you can select other targets the same way. If you say they can do it to the dragon but not the guy with the sword, you are not being consistant with your rules. So again, if you can select the body parts you want to web individually, where is the line?
Because a "guy with a sword" would be entirely within the area of effect. As I said earlier, the situation is not so cut-and-dry when you are dealing with a creature so large that you can have the entire area of effect selectively placed on its body.
My response is that the creators aren't running my game. The DM is free to change, adjudicate, or ignore the RAW. The key is doing so sensibly and intelligently.
I'd argue "consistently" should be among the list in your last sentence.
Then grant 2000 experience each.
A disappointed Aspect of Melora emerges from the flames. "The forest needs to be rebuilt".
Does a 55 hit your Fortitude?
You've been permanently transformed into a tree.
I'd argue "consistently" should be among the list in your last sentence.
True, though allowing a web spell to be cast on a part of a sufficiently large creature does not violate consistency.
I'd say "sure, roll for it".
Then grant 2000 experience each.
A disappointed Aspect of Melora emerges from the flames. "The forest needs to be rebuilt".
Does a 55 hit your Fortitude?
You've been permanently transformed into a tree.
Why does everyone keep suggesting gods, druids and monsters to exactly punishment on the moron? Perhaps it's just me, but I prefer a more down-to-Earth approach.
In this instance, for example, the PC would be branded a criminal hunted by every bounty hunter, catchpole, soldier and adventurer in the land for the massive bounty placed on his head. This not so much for the destruction of the forest itself but for the mass-murder of the citizens of several small hamlets, a variety of common working-folk (woodcutters, hunters, foresters, trappers, skinners, etc.), and a full company of the King's Army who were on training maneuvers.
I wonder how much XP the PC will get being passed around as currency in the kingdom's most notorious maximum-security prison?
Incorrect. It only means that it must be anchored to two points that are in opposition, such as the dragon's wings when flapping up or down. At that point, it will spread out over 20 feet of the dragon.
However the wings of a dragon are horizontal on the same line and are not diametrically opposing points. The description of the spell is very specific in this and in siting as examples, floor and cieling, opposit walls the wings of a creature do not fit that discription.
Similair to a flat area of ground, any two points of the ground can be solid, however they are not diametrically opposed. Wings on a flying creature are no more diemetrically opposed.
Once again, you even quoted it. Solid points, not object. Dragon wings are both solid, and points.
Dragon wings are not really solid. Leathery and flexible. They are furthermore a creature and not solid points. Solid implies that the points are unyeilding, unmoving and firmly attached. Similairly connecting the web between the cieling and a "solid" body of water would fail.
A web spell will capture all creatures caught within it's area of effect,, however it must be attached to 2 solid points, it cannot be attached to the creatures themselves within that area of effect.
For example, there is a group of orcs in a cave, a web spell would attach itself to the opposing walls, floor and cieling, and the orcs inside would be entangled.
However casting the Web spell on the same group of orcs in an open field would fail because there are not two diametrically opposed points for the web to attach itself to. The Web spell would fail, not that in this example the Orcs themselves would not be ligitimate points for which the web could attach to.
Points, not locations. You seem to be continually trying to change the spell to read as something other than it is written. It never says objects. It never says locations. It never says non-living. It says "solid" and "points" and "diametrically opposed", and dragon wings qualify as all three when they are flapping up or down.
No they don't qualify, just as two orcs standing beside each other don't qualify. Creatures are not solid points, dragon wings are not solid becuase they are flexible and moving and they are not diametrically opposed.
Furthermore, the spell states:
Anyone in the effect's area when the spell is cast must make a reflex save. If this save succeeds, the creature is not stuck in the webs and is free to act.
Which creates a "which is first, the chicken or the egg?" issue. A creature cannot, CANNOT get stuck to the Web until the web first exists. A creature is granted a saving throw vs getting stuck in the web, and the web must exist and pass the rules for it's existance first (between two diametrically opposed solid points)
If Web was cast on a single Orc (yes I am picking on them) then the web spell must first succeed or fail before the orc makes his saving throw. If the orc is in an open field, then there are no diemetrically opposed points and the spell fail, the orc doesn't need to make a saving roll because there is no web. The same if there was 2 orcs in an open field, the web would fail and neither would have to make a saving throw.
If the same orc was in a cave, then the web would connect to the floor, cieling and walls and then and only then would the orc need to make a saving throw.
All creatures in the area of effect are permited a Reflex Save, and therefore the web must first succeed before that save.
Since the Dragon gets reflex save, the web cannot stick to the dragon until it first exists and meets the criteria. The web canot use any part of the dragon to meet that criteria because it would have to attach itself to the dragon to do so, something it cannot do until after the dragon makes a reflex save, and the dragon doesn't have to make that save until after the web meets the criteria for it's existance.
So a dragon or creature cannot be a part of the Solid and diametrically opposed points.
Just as a Orc, with diametrically opposed limbs (arms and legs) cannot be effected by the web spell cast upon it while standing in an open field. The orc can only be caught in the area of effect if and only if the web is first connected to 2 solid points, you can't use 2 different parts of the orc as solid points to connect the web spell to.
The overwhelming majority of creatures in the Monster Manuals have multiple limbs, the misuse of the Web spell like this would make the spell work on everysingle one of them, bypassing the requirement for solid, diametrically opposed points as you connect the web between their arms and legs, which is not how the description is properly read.
The Web spell's description is very specific that it must be connected between solid points BEFORE any creature has to make reflex saves,
Are you serious??? At level 3, the wizard will be having difficulty getting past the CR. If he manages to get past the CR, the dragon then has a +11 or more reflext to make the save vs. a DC of say 17 if he wizard is pumped up big time, but most likely a DC of 15.
Exactly my point, it's a complete misuse of a low level spell, it was not intended to be used this way and it ignores the spells dicription that specifically require Two Solid and Diametrically Opposed Points.
What you are overlooking, is the fact that these are not encounters at all. If the PCs don't actually encounter them, no EXP.
Well, yes, the only thing they encountered and actually combated against was trees, and those don't give much, if any XP at all. They really don't encounter the other creatures. No more then freeing slaves from a cell would grant XP for the creatures they kill weeks later.
What I really wanted to point out is that using cheap methods like this, and other munchkinistic tactics will reduce the EL of the chalenges and thus net less XP (in this case none) This could also be used to nullify other issues in the game, like when a powergamer who presents a broken and overpowerer class to the DM for approval, telling him that the group will earn less XP because you will reduce the EL of most encounters as a result of the broken combo is a good way to change their thought patern away from powergaming, Easy Fights equals less XP.
True, though allowing a web spell to be cast on a part of a sufficiently large creature does not violate consistency.
It does if it entangles that creature, casting it on a medium sized creature with multiple limbs would fail, even if their limbs are diametrically opposed, it's clear that the spell must be anchored on solid diamterically opposed surfaces (wall and ceilling, opposite walls etc) or else it failss, the spell description gives no measure for what would happen if a creature was in the area of effect if the spell fails and the web collapses in on itself, if it did it would say something like "Any creature in the area of effect when the web collapses must make a save or be entangled when the web attaches itself to them" The web simply collapses and disapears, with zero reference to any creature in it's area of effect when this happens.
There is no difference between 2 legs, 2 arms or 2 wings in this aspect, the size of creatures effected is not mentioned in the spell's discription. If it is cast in an area (the spell targets an area, not a specific object) then it must meet the criteria of having solid opposing points to connect or else it collapses and creatures within that area are uneffected, as such the spell cannot effect any creature, regardless of size unless the web can be attached to something other then the creatures effected by it (whoi would then get a saving throw)
D&D is a game of open possibilities and unforeseen - and unforeseeable - situations and possibilities. Yes the web spell was intended to cover an area rather than targeting locations on a body, but when the body is large enough that the entire spell area can be placed on it, and the creature's body shape and physiognomy fulfill the parameters for anchoring the spell, things are far less clear cut.
There is no right or wrong answer here. The rules do not specifically allow it but neither do they specifically disallow it. It is one of the myriad of unusual rules situations that arise in D&D that make the DM's role integral to the game.
This. Firstly, anyone who is using the words "right, wrong, correct, or incorrect", are automatically missing the point. You're not the DM of this particular game. The spell's wording is clear enough, but some of the terms used are ambiguous: solid, diametrically opposed, etc. Some people might rule that a dragon is large enough for its wings to constitute a solid point, some might not. It takes a bit of finesse to work out rules questions in a manner that works for your group, and for someone to casually dismiss it as "wrong" is thoughtless.
Secondly, as to how I, personally, as the DM of my group's game (NOT your game, please bear in mind) would handle this situation: I would rule that a large enough dragon's wings would constitute solid points, being that the entirety of the spell's effect could fit ON the dragon, though I'd argue any dragon of that size is simply going to shred the web when he flaps his wings. I would also say that the example with the orcs is misleading, since there is an obvious size difference between an orc and a dragon. I will say this, though: if my player encountered a magically augmented Orc that was 50 feet tall and proportionally wide, I'd allow them the opportunity to attempt to web his legs together. It wouldn't work, as any Orc that size is going to pass that strength check on a 1, but I'd still allow the attempt.
A dragon in flight at the apex of his wing flap might be seen as diametricly opposed points. The size of the area between them varies however. Lets say the web can do 20x20x20. So either it only attaches to things that meet this size, or it automaticly adjusts its size with that as the maximum. The dragons wings when reaching this perfect point are 15 feet apart. Web gets cast and they are trapped.
So what is the difference in someones legs that are 2 feet apart? Why would it not work on that? Or fingers that are 1 inch apart? Thats the reason my point remains valid. If it works on the dragon, in order to remain consistant with your ruling, it MUST work on the orc legs. At the same time it must work between two orcs as well.
So again. If you rule the spell will take (not counting str checks or resists just that it CAN work), then it must work for any other similar situation, and this is why I would consider a yes to this as a bad call.
To be more precise. If you can make the wings get webbed. Then if someone has his hands directly infront of him, you can web his hands as well and so on.
Yes it is entirelty up to the DM to make this ruiling, and go for it. I am just saying to me, it would be an unfair call.
As for the whole forest fire thing. I run a world were your actions have consiquences, and even if it was entirely in character AND served a reason (thus granting xp for overcoming the obsticle) you would still be branded a criminal, along with any local druid/ranger/shaman heroes being very unhappy with you.
I would reward absolutely NO experience for killing the creatures in the forest. Experience is rewarded, but owed.
As stated earlier, experience would only be handed out if a plot related challenge/quest was overcome/completed in the act of burning the forest down. Even then, it would be a fraction of what could have been rewarded.
On the subject of plot, however, somebody or lots of somebodies are going to care that the forest was burned down. Maybe a god, maybe a bunch of druids, or maybe the townspeople. Thats up to you. How are arsonists treated in out world? Think about it.
If it works on the dragon, in order to remain consistant with your ruling, it MUST work on the orc legs. At the same time it must work between two orcs as well.
So again. If you rule the spell will take (not counting str checks or resists just that it CAN work), then it must work for any other similar situation, and this is why I would consider a yes to this as a bad call.
All emphasis added by me. Using the word "must" when speaking about any campaign other than yours, specifically, is awfully presumptuous. YOU are not responsible for telling others how the rules apply in THEIR campaigns. I can rule that Grease will work on floors, but won't stick to ladders and the like. I can do that, because I am the DM of my game. If you, as the DM of YOUR game, state that it does stick to ladders, I am encroaching on your territory as a DM by telling you that you're wrong, much as you would be if you insisted that I was wrong. In that same vein, if I decide that players can Web a Dragon's wings together, you are completely out of line telling me that it MUST also affect two orcs. I'm sorry if this is coming off as hostile, as it's not my intent, but I think you are infringing on the right of each individual DM by implying that anything MUST be so.
I will also add that, as Zherog mentioned, consistency is key. If you ARE going to houserule something, it had better be consistent, or you're going to have problems with disgruntled players who think they're being picked on ("it worked for Jake's wizards, why won't it work for my Sorceror?"). Communication is also vital, as if you don't tell your players that you're making a ruling, then when they try something and it fails, they might feel like you're trying to stifle their creative attempts to deal with a situation.
Edit: That all said, Ost, I think I do mostly agree with you upon hearing your arguments. I personally WOULD allow the attempt in this case (webbing two Orcs together or what have you), but I'd give each creature a Reflex save, with a success for either negating the spell (two points no longer available).
As for the whole forest fire thing. I run a world were your actions have consiquences, and even if it was entirely in character AND served a reason (thus granting xp for overcoming the obsticle) you would still be branded a criminal, along with any local druid/ranger/shaman heroes being very unhappy with you.
Can I just point out, I know this is a common answer to this kind of thing, but it never works. Consequences that you can fight or escape from will be fought, or escaped from. You're rewarding players with content and challenge. If you make your consequences things that theoretically can fought or escaped from, but then make them mechanically invincible or inescapable, you'll just get angry players.
D&D doesn't have to conform to real-world justice systems. We have the unique option here to get inside players' heads. Players should realise they've done the wrong thing because they feel bad about it, not because authority comes to tell them off.
The right way to deal with the fire situation - presuming you allow it to happen in the first place - is have the players coming across horribly burned forest animals mewling pitifully as they struggle to breathe. A young fawn looks up with them, one eye blinded and the other eye horribly hopeful - it's beyond healing - do the players put it out of its misery? As the PCs cross the country, spend long minutes describing nothing but ash and debris and corpses. Have them find entire communities of woodcutters packing up and leaving villages they've lived in for generations, their livelihoods destroyed. Have the woodcutters say they would have hired PCs to defeat some bandits in the area, but what's the point now? Occasionally the PCs will crest a hill and come across a solemn mass funeral for those lost in the blaze.
Change comes from within, and roleplaying presents a unique opportunity to explore that. Don't squander the opportunity by relying on guards to shake their finger at the players and tell them they've been naughty.
Can I just point out, I know this is a common answer to this kind of thing, but it never works. Consequences that you can fight or escape from will be fought, or escaped from. You're rewarding players with content and challenge. If you make your consequences things that theoretically can fought or escaped from, but then make them mechanically invincible or inescapable, you'll just get angry players.
D&D doesn't have to conform to real-world justice systems. We have the unique option here to get inside players' heads. Players should realise they've done the wrong thing because they feel bad about it, not because authority comes to tell them off.
The right way to deal with the fire situation - presuming you allow it to happen in the first place - is have the players coming across horribly burned forest animals mewling pitifully as they struggle to breathe. A young fawn looks up with them, one eye blinded and the other eye horribly hopeful - it's beyond healing - do the players put it out of its misery? As the PCs cross the country, spend long minutes describing nothing but ash and debris and corpses. Have them find entire communities of woodcutters packing up and leaving villages they've lived in for generations, their livelihoods destroyed. Have the woodcutters say they would have hired PCs to defeat some bandits in the area, but what's the point now? Occasionally the PCs will crest a hill and come across a solemn mass funeral for those lost in the blaze.
Change comes from within, and roleplaying presents a unique opportunity to explore that. Don't squander the opportunity by relying on guards to shake their finger at the players and tell them they've been naughty.
Not to invalidate anything you said, as you've made some excellent points...but I can't imagine any player dickish enough to burn down a forest for XP would be terribly moved by a half charred Bambi. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they might attempt to CDG the thing for additional XP...
So what is the difference in someones legs that are 2 feet apart? Why would it not work on that?
Because the spell area is 10 times larger than 2 feet.
Or fingers that are 1 inch apart?
Because the spell area is 240 times large than 1 inch.
Thats the reason my point remains valid. If it works on the dragon, in order to remain consistant with your ruling, it MUST work on the orc legs. At the same time it must work between two orcs as well.
That is not even remotely close to factual. That is like saying if you allow a stick of dynamite to selectively blow off the tail of a whale you must allow it to selectively blow off the tail of a dragonfly. Or that cos you can swat and kill a housefly with one blow then any insect of any size must also be killable with one blow.
As far as the size. The ruling has already been decided that the size (other then going past the maximum) has no bearing of if the web attaches itself. Why would it attach between 15 feet but not 5? Or not 10? Saying because the distance is 240 times smaller is the same as saying "because I said so" the spell doesnt SAY what the smallest space is, so to stay consistant would mean the spell will attach to any points inbetween the maximum.
Again, I am just pointing out the flaws in the ruling logic wise. Why would a spell that can stick to two sides care how far apart those sides are? Does it have a minimum distance? If not, you are deciding a min distance without letting the players know ahead of time, and your not letting them play in a "fair" world.
I concede to "DM discretion" however, it needs to be applied across the board in a fair manner. Now if you decide that the smallest space for the web spell is 5 feet, great... NOW you have consistancy in your world.
Again, I am just pointing out the flaws in the ruling logic wise. Why would a spell that can stick to two sides care how far apart those sides are?
Again, emphasis mine. Why does it matter? As long as you're running your game, you can rule that the spell either does stick between fingers or doesn't, or it can be used to stick a dragon's wings together, or it doesn't. I, as the DM, can rule that it would work on the dragon's wings but not on someone's fingers, just by virtue of being the DM. Maybe I look at it like Call of Duty 4; maybe the web has to travel a certain distance before it's "armed", like grenades for the noob tube. As long as the DM does apply his ruling consistently amongst players, it's irrelevant to the world at large what his ruling is. It's HIS ruling for HIS game.
I play the game where if I decide something, it stays fair from then on. Maybe I am expecting to much from other GMs to be fair with their handling of rules and as a player I would expect to know by the GMs previous rulings if something should work and not be a random "depending on how he feels" decision ruling on the fly.
In any case we are going round and round and I think its more of a personal style now so I am gonna bail on this subject. Agree to disagree
Because the spell area is 10 times larger than 2 feet.
Because the spell area is 240 times large than 1 inch.
So are you saying that the spell would fail if it was cast in a hallway that was 5 ft wide and 7 ft high?
The area of effect has no bearing on the effectiveness of the spell, so long as it meats the other requirements. If a Dragon's wings count as legitimate points for the spell to adhere to, then so will the legs of a medium sized creature be legitimate as well.
Specifically the spell states that any creature in the area of effect, of who touches the webs well become stuck to it. No mention is made of the size of the creature. The webs stick to medium sized creatures who are in it's area of effect, therefore if the two wings of a dragon are legitimate points then so too are the legs of a medium sized creature.
Otherwise Medium sized creatures would be immune to the webs as the webs are "too large" which is not the case.
And there is nothing "solid" about dragon wings, they are not akin to the fixed wings of a Boeing 747. They are in fact just a membrane of hide and are more akin to the sail cloths of a large ship then any solid object, especially compared to such solid objects as Stationary, Solid walls, Ceilling and floors, you know, those things you find on BUILDINGS!!!
That is not even remotely close to factual. That is like saying if you allow a stick of dynamite to selectively blow off the tail of a whale you must allow it to selectively blow off the tail of a dragonfly. Or that cos you can swat and kill a housefly with one blow then any insect of any size must also be killable with one blow.
If a Stick of dynamite does 3d12 damage to a whale, then it will do 3d12 damage to a dragonfly. If you swat a housefly for 1d4 damage, then you will swat any insect for 1d4 damage.
Web will adhere to Any creature that is in it's area of effect, or that touches it, there is no creature size limits or modifications to the spell at all. A Dragonfly is just as legitimate a target as a medium creature or an Ancient Dragon. If it can stick to the wings of a dragon, then it will stick to the legs of a medium sized creature, after all that is what it does according to the spell desciption.
The big difference is that Walls don't get saving throws. The creature in the Area of Effect doesn't have to make a saving throw unless the web is first anchored to 2 solid points (such as walls) Basically the Dragon will not get entangled in the webs until the web is first attached to something else because the Dragon is allowed a saving throw, which only occurs after the web is formed.
The area of effect has no bearing on the effectiveness of the spell, so long as it meats the other requirements. If a Dragon's wings count as legitimate points for the spell to adhere to, then so will the legs of a medium sized creature be legitimate as well.
Sure, if you decide to ignore reason and allow it. It's reasonable to allow soemthing as massive as dragon wings to serve as a "solid" object, since they weigh more and are stronger than a dresser or bed, which WOULD count, according to you. However, a man's legs are MUCH smaller and lighter, and would not be reasonable.
Specifically the spell states that any creature in the area of effect, of who touches the webs well become stuck to it. No mention is made of the size of the creature. The webs stick to medium sized creatures who are in it's area of effect, therefore if the two wings of a dragon are legitimate points then so too are the legs of a medium sized creature.
Again, only if you toss reason out the window.
And there is nothing "solid" about dragon wings, they are not akin to the fixed wings of a Boeing 747. They are in fact just a membrane of hide and are more akin to the sail cloths of a large ship then any solid object, especially compared to such solid objects as Stationary, Solid walls, Ceilling and floors, you know, those things you find on BUILDINGS!!!
You seem to be forgetting the massive arms that are part of the wings. You get hit by a dragon claw, even if it's closed, and you'll be taking more damage than if your "solid" wall fell on you.
If a Stick of dynamite does 3d12 damage to a whale, then it will do 3d12 damage to a dragonfly. If you swat a housefly for 1d4 damage, then you will swat any insect for 1d4 damage.
Which absolutely and utterly ignores his point. Why don't you address his point?
Web will adhere to Any creature that is in it's area of effect, or that touches it, there is no creature size limits or modifications to the spell at all. A Dragonfly is just as legitimate a target as a medium creature or an Ancient Dragon. If it can stick to the wings of a dragon, then it will stick to the legs of a medium sized creature, after all that is what it does according to the spell desciption.
You keep changing the argument and then answering your own creations, rather than what people are actually saying to you. Why don't you try to answer the arguments, rather than twist them?
As stated many times: The DM is not the enemy and definitly never out to kill the players or hinder them.
But action that disrupt a campaign can easily upset a lot of work done by the DM. Unless a player can say why a certain "minor" action would succeed the DM rules it unsuccessful, the DM is always right.
The idea of things like burning down a forest to earn the "xp inside" is first of all an evil action as the personal gain outweighs the solution and consequences. Not thinking about wildlife or whatever other creatures/ecological factors might be involved.
Players can be as creative as they like, often bringing hilarity to the session but must be done so within reason. If the dragon was not meant to be killed, then as such he shouldn't be. Their lower level magics just fail to outright harm or constrict the dragon, be it the spell intended to work as such or not.
This is why I would encourage rolling behind a screen just to be able to tip the scale both ways. Sometimes the players are unlucky and a good DM might say a crit is a normal hit or even completely misses.
Bending the rules endlessly is not going to be productive in any way.
That dragon was there for a reason. Even in other encounters a "lucky crit" should never tip the scales of the campaign.
Just my 2c
The dragon - web scenario is one example. Web simply does not work that way. Sadly the DM, maybe because he was inexperienced, allowed it. In this case it is now his problems and should award XP for the kill.
However, I would have said that his momentum would have carried him across to the side of the canyon that the party were on, still snared. This would have given them a turn of free shots, or a chance to run away while they still could. Because let's face it, when that dragon breaks out of that web, he's gonna be a little bit annoyed.
As for the forest fire? No xp, because there hasn't been an encounter to overcome.
Sure, if you decide to ignore reason and allow it. It's reasonable to allow soemthing as massive as dragon wings to serve as a "solid" object, since they weigh more and are stronger than a dresser or bed, which WOULD count, according to you. However, a man's legs are MUCH smaller and lighter, and would not be reasonable.
Except that any creatures in the area of effect of a web spell are entitled to a saving throw. And they only have to make that saving throw if the web spell works.
That is if you cast Web on a medium sized creature in the middle of an open field, the spell will fail. Before that creature has to make a saving throw the spell must first adhere to the other rules that are required for the web to exist or else it colapses and the creature doesn't need to make a saving throw.
Creature in the open=No Saving throw needed, spell fails
Creature in a cave=Web adheres to walls and cieling and THEN the creature has to make a saving throw.
Having the spell land on the dragon is giving the Dragon a penelty for being Huge Sized or greater. This is a house rule, nowhere in the spell's description does it mention creature size or give penelties to Huge creatures.
Nowhere does the rules say Except Huge and Larger creatures, whos limbs are entangled in the spell. It does not say that, but what it does state is
-The Spell must adhere to two or more solid and opposed points first, or else the spell colapses and
-That after the web is formed, then any creatures in the area get saving throws.
The added rule that creatures count as points for the web to adhere to, bypasses the rule that the web needs solid points to adhere to before a creature gets a saving throw.
Again, only if you toss reason out the window.
Basic reasoning:
-Web doesn't work in an open field.
-Web doesn't work on an orc standing in an open field.
-Web has to work for a creature to be entangled in it.
-Web spell makes no specifications concerning creature sizes, no diffeerence is made for small, medium, large, huge, colosol etc. creatures of all sizes are treated in the discription equally.
-Web therefore doesn't work on any creature standing in an open field.
You seem to be forgetting the massive arms that are part of the wings. You get hit by a dragon claw, even if it's closed, and you'll be taking more damage than if your "solid" wall fell on you.
Claws that are the size of what exactly? The dragon book describes dragon wing bones to be hollow and light. I will argue that a medium sized creature's body mass is as sturdy and solid (moreso even) as any bone on the wings of a dragon.
Either way, as mentioned above, the spell treats all creatures the same, regardless of size. It must first suceed before the dragon has to make a saving throw.
Except that any creatures in the area of effect of a web spell are entitled to a saving throw. And they only have to make that saving throw if the web spell works.
Correct. The thing is, if you use the wings, not only does it work, but the dragon is also in the area. It does not step outside the spells parameters to use the dragon's wings.
That is if you cast Web on a medium sized creature in the middle of an open field, the spell will fail. Before that creature has to make a saving throw the spell must first adhere to the other rules that are required for the web to exist or else it colapses and the creature doesn't need to make a saving throw.
Which is why it's unreasonable to A) use the medium sized creature as an anchor, and B) not use anchors.
This is a worthless argument.
Having the spell land on the dragon is giving the Dragon a penelty for being Huge Sized or greater.
Oh, so we should remove the AC penalty for size now? Or the to hit penalty for size?
This is a house rule, nowhere in the spell's description does it mention creature size or give penelties to Huge creatures.
It doesn't have to. This is ALSO a worthless argument. Size is size, with all the pros and cons that go with it. No house ruling involved.
-The Spell must adhere to two or more solid and opposed points first, or else the spell colapses and
The word first isn't in the spell. Keep your "inventions" out of this and stick to the facts.
The added rule that creatures count as points for the web to adhere to, bypasses the rule that the web needs solid points to adhere to before a creature gets a saving throw.
There is no added rule. A sufficiently large creature is solid enough for the spell to work. Nothing in the spell says that creatures are exempt from use as a solid point.
-Web doesn't work in an open field.
Irrelevent. No one but you is talking about this.
-Web doesn't work on an orc standing in an open field.
See above.
-Web has to work for a creature to be entangled in it.
So what. The spell works using the dragon's wings as points.
-Web spell makes no specifications concerning creature sizes, no diffeerence is made for small, medium, large, huge, colosol etc. creatures of all sizes are treated in the discription equally.
With regard to being stuck, yes. With regard to being used as a solid point, the DM must use common sense.
Claws that are the size of what exactly? The dragon book describes dragon wing bones to be hollow and light. I will argue that a medium sized creature's body mass is as sturdy and solid (moreso even) as any bone on the wings of a dragon.
Not even close. The mass off the dragon is such that even if relatively hollow and light, it will still outweigh the medium creature by several times. Further, the Monster Manual doesn't describe the wings as hollow and light at all. If you're using a splatbook that most people won't have for your information, then you need to remove it from this conversation. Given your propensity for creating fiction to support your arguments, though, I doubt your hollow and light statement is true at all.
Either way, as mentioned above, the spell treats all creatures the same, regardless of size. It must first suceed before the dragon has to make a saving throw.
It does not treat them the same with regards to being a solid point, nor will it fail if the dragon is used, so the save will happen.
Personally I even think that he knows how wrong he is, but is too stubborn to admit it.
Customer is right. Web Simply doesn't work that way. If it would work like Maxperson describes it it would never fail as every creature has two opposing body parts (ok, oozes maybe not).
Web would not stick to the wings of the dragon. That are the rules. End of story.
Correct. The thing is, if you use the wings, not only does it work, but the dragon is also in the area. It does not step outside the spells parameters to use the dragon's wings.
Yes, it does. The area is affected. This is a 5x5 area centered on a point, and covers the entire area, both where the dragon is, and where the dragon is not.
Area burst 2 within 20 squares
Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: The target is immobilized (save ends).
Effect: The burst creates a zone of webs that fills the area until the end of the encounter or for 5 minutes. The zone is considered difficult terrain. Any creature that ends its move in the web is immobilized (save ends).
I see Maxperson is making up things again.
Personally I even think that he knows how wrong he is, but is too stubborn to admit it.
I would hope so. He's starting to embarrass himself.
Customer is right. Web Simply doesn't work that way. If it would work like Maxperson describes it it would never fail as every creature has two opposing body parts (ok, oozes maybe not).
Exactly. If Web could use parts of the creatures its intended to entangled as its anchors, then there would be no need to requires anchors at all. Except, as you said, for extreme weirdness like oozes or perfectly spherical creatures, every creature would be a viable target, even if floating alone in the vacuum of space.
The mention of a need for anchors proves beyond a doubt that the creatures themselves cannot be used for this purpose. If they could, there would be no such caveat.
Indeed, there's nothing to say on the matter that Mr. Customer hasn't said already. I'm only speaking up to assure him that he's not merely talking to himself.
Yes, it does. The area is affected. This is a 5x5 area centered on a point, and covers the entire area, both where the dragon is, and where the dragon is not.
Area burst 2 within 20 squares
Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: The target is immobilized (save ends).
Effect: The burst creates a zone of webs that fills the area until the end of the encounter or for 5 minutes. The zone is considered difficult terrain. Any creature that ends its move in the web is immobilized (save ends).
Before someone else gives you a rude and snarky reply, I'll politely point out that this discussion concerns the 3rd Edition Web spell, which was more particular in how it could be used.
The 4th Edition version you quoted is much simpler and more straightforward.
Before someone else gives you a rude and snarky reply, I'll politely point out that this discussion concerns the 3rd Edition Web spell, which was more particular in how it could be used.
The 4th Edition version you quoted is much simpler and more straightforward.
Bah, I even knew that at one point, but forgot it over the extended period this argument has been raging... LOL
Exactly. If Web could use parts of the creatures its intended to entangled as its anchors, then there would be no need to requires anchors at all. Except, as you said, for extreme weirdness like oozes or perfectly spherical creatures, every creature would be a viable target, even if floating alone in the vacuum of space.
Wrong. We're not discussing web being able to target "creature" parts, we're discussing what is or is not a big enough solid point. That excludes most creatures. To try to turn this into a creature targeting argument is disengenuous at best.
The mention of a need for anchors proves beyond a doubt that the creatures themselves cannot be used for this purpose. If they could, there would be no such caveat.
Incorrect. It only means that you need to have something of sufficient size. Or are you claiming that two pebbles is enough for the spell? Two pebbles are both solid AND non-creatures. By the way the spell is written, they would work.
Since the spell is not clear on what constitutes something that is "solid enough", it's up the the DM to determine this, and it is not wrong or against the "rules" for a DM to decide a dragon's wings are okay. You might not do it, but that really doesn't matter to this discussion.
As I said, I only spoke up in the first place because I find it difficult to stand by while someone who knows what he's talking about - Mr. Commoner - is forced to argue with someone who doesn't.
And besides, there's nothing I can say on the matter that hasn't been said to you already multiple times already. You long ago reached the point of contradicting yourself and falling into fallacy, and you just did so further in your response to me. If you don't see how, then that's all the more evidence that you should let this go.
And besides, there's nothing I can say on the matter that hasn't been said to you already multiple times already. You long ago reached the point of contradicting yourself and falling into fallacy, and you just did so further in your response to me.
\
The last refuge of small minds on these forums is to accuse someone of fallacy. Usually because they can't refute arguments, and almost always they get it wrong.
It's an absolute fact that the spell is unclear and can be read multiple ways. This puts interpretation of it clearly in the realm of DM decision. If you have a response to that other than "fallacy", I'd love to hear it.
I also haven't contradicted myself once in this argument.
I'm accusing you of fallacy because I know what the word means and I know for a fact that you've committed more than one. An inability to refute you is most certainly not the issue. I could tear your arguments to pieces if I cared to take the time; but as I've already stated, I wouldn't be saying much that hasn't been said by others already.
And don't embarrass yourself by claiming that this is only "my opinion" or that I'm using accusations of fallacy as a "refuge". Not to toot my own horn; but I teach this stuff professionally. Compared to John Forumgoer and (nothing personal) yourself, I am an accredited expert on the subject.
As I said from the very beginning: there are several points in the spell description that are ambiguous, specifically solid and diametrically opposed. Solid could mean several things as this is concerned. Dictionary.com lists 26 different defintions for the adjective version of solid (some more obviously irrelevant to a dragon's wings than others), and 2 more for noun versions. I'd say this by itself is enough to discount anyone's accusations that someone else is "wrong".
Diametrically Opposed Points: two points directly opposite each other on a circle or sphere. More fromally, two points are diametrically opposed if they are on opposite ends of a diameter.
So...to me, this reads, any two points that can have a line drawn between them (as you could technically name any given line a diameter, drawing an imaginary sphere around it). Of course, this is MY interpretation, and given this interpretation, you COULD cast Web between a dragon's wings, given that in two different points of flapping, wings can have a line drawn between them (that being the apex of the flap and the nadir...though I'd also argue that as soon as the wings break the plane of the dragon's body, up or down, the line could be drawn). It might be difficult, and you might have to be awfully precise, but in theory, it could be done.
However, the way I, Frosty, would personally handle this is based off of my interpretation of the rules. It would work for my group, as they know me to be a very logical person, and very fair in terms of D&D. That said, it might NOT work for your group, and I'd urge each DM to approach this situation with the intent to work it to his group's satisfaction.
For what it's worth, I submitted the question to CustServ, just to see what they said. Not that it matters; not even CustServ can dictate how a DM should handle a rules question in his/her personal game.
Correct. The thing is, if you use the wings, not only does it work, but the dragon is also in the area. It does not step outside the spells parameters to use the dragon's wings.
Except of course that the Dragon wings are part of a creature, and so cannot be entangled into a web spell unless it is first anchored to a solid object.
If a dragon's wings simply touched a web, the dragon would have to make a saving throw or else get stuck.
Which is why it's unreasonable to A) use the medium sized creature as an anchor, and B) not use anchors.
This is a worthless argument.
Turn to page 271 of the PHB, on that page is a picture of several orcs entangled in a web spell. Look at the size of the web strands in that picture. The webs that are entangled between the legs of these medium sized creatures in the picture.
There is no reason that those strands couldn't be anchored to medium sized creatures, the spell's description makes no mention of creature size. And yet if it was cast upon an orc standing in an open field the spell would fail. Why?
Because before a creature has to make a saving throw, the web has to be anchored to something else.
Oh, so we should remove the AC penalty for size now? Or the to hit penalty for size?
Well first the AC penelty for size and the to hit penalty for size are the same thing....... dunno what else to say about that lol
You see the rules actually state that there is size modifiers to AC (and to hit of course) it states what these size modifiers are and when and where they are applied.
Now these particular size modifiers that you mention here do effect some spells, specifically those that require a melee touch or range touch attack.
However, reading the entry under the web spell, it makes no mention of it's effects on creatures of different sizes. No mention is made of to entangling huge and greater creatures wihtout needing anchoring, no mention of tiny creatures being immune to it's effects. the spell simply states "Anyone in the effect's area..." and "All creatures..." and "Creatures caught within a web or simply touching..." No mention of size though.
It doesn't have to. This is ALSO a worthless argument. Size is size, with all the pros and cons that go with it. No house ruling involved.
No house ruling should be needed to determine if size changes a certain effect or not in the game. The rules go out of there way to mention this when it does (as your example of AC and to hit modifiers, another example is the size modifiers listed under the Hide skill) A spell could list this under it's Target discription or it's spell's description. Spells who's effect depend upon creature size will make mention of this.
There is no pros or cons for size contained within the entry for the web spell. No immunity is granted to tiny and diminuative creatures, and no penalty os given to Huge creatures. No size modifiers are listed for this spell.
You are making a ruling that a medium sized flying creature (a harpy) is immune to the Web spell, whereas a Dragon is effected by it. There is no such mention of creature size effecting the spell in the entry.
There is no added rule. A sufficiently large creature is solid enough for the spell to work. Nothing in the spell says that creatures are exempt from use as a solid point.
Again, nothing in the spell mentions creature size. It effects all creatures of all sizes equally. any creature "within a web or simply touching" is effected.
A medium sized creature will get stuck to the strands, a Dragon will get stuck to the strands. Web is made of sticky strands that will stick to "Anyone" and "All creatures" equally.
Nowhere does it say that the Web spell doesn't work on medium sized creatures, yet you are actually saying that if you used Web on a medium sized creature, such as a Harpy flying in the air, that it would be immune to the Web spell, whereas a huge or larger creature would be entangled.
Sized based immunity is not mentioned in the spell entry.
So what. The spell works using the dragon's wings as points.
The dragon's wings are part of a creature, a creature is entitled to a saving throw for "simply touching" the Web which means the web must meet the other criteria of being anchored to solid points for the wings to get stuck
Not even close. The mass off the dragon is such that even if relatively hollow and light, it will still outweigh the medium creature by several times.
Well lets look under the entry for some medium creatures shall we.
An Orc, strength 15, can lift 400 lbs off the ground and push/dragon 1000 lbs, so can a gnoll, a Green Hag can lift 600 lbs, and push 1500 lbs. Sorry but how is it a medium creature isn't considered solid again?
And again the spell makes no mention of creature size effecting the spell at all. If a Creature is standing (or flying) in an open area and Web is cast upon that space, then the spell will fail. That is basically what the spell says, The size of the creature is not said to effect the spell in any way whatsoever, RAW.
We're not discussing web being able to target "creature" parts, we're discussing what is or is not a big enough solid point. That excludes most creatures. To try to turn this into a creature targeting argument is disengenuous at best.
I will. Spells entries have a section called "Target" If a Spell can target a creature then it will say so, such as "One creature" or "One Creature or object" and then would further specify in the description that a melee or ranged touch attach is needed.
To target the dragon specifically and not the area the spell would have to first be a targetable spell. it is not a targetable spell and so therefore cannot target the dragon itself, it can only target the area that the dragon is in.
Now to target the area a flying dragon is in the PC must first have initiative, since he must target and cast the spell into the area the moving dragon will be in (likely readying an action to cast the spell when the dragon enters that area)
If the Dragon has initiative then the player must cast the spell into the area he hopes the dragon will be in on the next round and hope that the dragon moves into that space in the next turn (of course the spell would fail and collapse before the dragon's turn but that's beside the point)
Any creature who is in the area of a web's effect will get a saving throw, so we must then determine if the web will continue to exist (since it will colapse and fail if it doesn't) There is no solid objects in the area of effect and so it will fail, and the dragon won't have to make a saving throw, since the creature will only have to make that throw if the web will exist.
Now even if the DM allowed the spell to be cast upon the dragon then the player would have to make a Ranged Touch Attach vs the Dragon's AC, however the spell is not targetable in this way.
Anyways the whole point of my orriginal point was not to debate the rules of low level wizard spells, but that the Player's complaint against his DM here is summed up as:
"We players keep trying to do things that break the rules and our DM isn't rewarding us for it"
I mean gee, I am a level 1 character, my first declaration is that I spend the last few copper I have one a torch, light it and then walk over to the nearest forest and set it on fire, satnd back and BANG, end of the day I am level 4, YAAAA!!!! What do you mean that doesn't work, chap DM......
oh, hehe, I shouldn't make too much fun ouf that, I leveled my Necromancer while playing Everquest by summoning my pet in the middle of a camp and then went shopping for a couple of hours....
Except of course that the Dragon wings are part of a creature, and so cannot be entangled into a web spell unless it is first anchored to a solid object.
If a dragon's wings simply touched a web, the dragon would have to make a saving throw or else get stuck.
If it anchors on the dragon's winge, THEN it makes a save. If it doesn't anchor, then it DOESN'T make a save. There is no save that happens prior to anchoring.
Turn to page 271 of the PHB, on that page is a picture of several orcs entangled in a web spell. Look at the size of the web strands in that picture. The webs that are entangled between the legs of these medium sized creatures in the picture.
Completely and 100% irrelevant. The size of the strands and whether they fit between an orc's legs doesn't matter one whit when determining if something is large enough to be the ANCHOR.
There is no reason that those strands couldn't be anchored to medium sized creatures, the spell's description makes no mention of creature size. And yet if it was cast upon an orc standing in an open field the spell would fail. Why?
Because it's stupid to think that it would anchor to a medium size creature. Your argument continues to fail.
Well first the AC penelty for size and the to hit penalty for size are the same thing....... dunno what else to say about that lol
Wrong. A huge creature takes a penalty to AC and creatures hit it easier. The same creature ALSO takes a penalty to hit when swing at creatures smaller than itself. Look at page 291 of the Monster Manual. It will explain it to you there, since you're having trouble with the concept.
However, reading the entry under the web spell, it makes no mention of it's effects on creatures of different sizes. No mention is made of to entangling huge and greater creatures wihtout needing anchoring, no mention of tiny creatures being immune to it's effects. the spell simply states "Anyone in the effect's area..." and "All creatures..." and "Creatures caught within a web or simply touching..." No mention of size though.
Hold on. You ACTUALLY believe that everything there is to mention is mentioned in the "rules"? You ACTUALLY believe that everything is spelled out clearly? I hate to break this to you, but there are many areas where the rules have overlooked situations and/or just been unclear, and web is one of them.
No house ruling should be needed to determine if size changes a certain effect or not in the game. The rules go out of there way to mention this when it does (as your example of AC and to hit modifiers, another example is the size modifiers listed under the Hide skill) A spell could list this under it's Target discription or it's spell's description. Spells who's effect depend upon creature size will make mention of this.
Some do, some don't. Not everything is mentioned. Sorry.
There is no pros or cons for size contained within the entry for the web spell. No immunity is granted to tiny and diminuative creatures, and no penalty os given to Huge creatures. No size modifiers are listed for this spell.
That's because this is irrelevant to the discussion AND to the spell. We're not talking about creatures affected by webs, we're discussing how large a creature should be to qualify as a solid point.
You are making a ruling that a medium sized flying creature (a harpy) is immune to the Web spell,
Absolutely and 100% incorrect. You're wrong a lot. Maybe you should read things a few more times so that you understand it. I've NEVER claimed a medium sized creatures is immune to the web spell.
Again, nothing in the spell mentions creature size. It effects all creatures of all sizes equally. any creature "within a web or simply touching" is effected.
With regards to being caught in the spell itself, sure.
Nowhere does it say that the Web spell doesn't work on medium sized creatures, yet you are actually saying that if you used Web on a medium sized creature, such as a Harpy flying in the air, that it would be immune to the Web spell, whereas a huge or larger creature would be entangled.
Wrong. If you anchored the web between two trees, a flying harpy would be stuck. Never, ever said medium sized creatures were immune.
Sized based immunity is not mentioned in the spell entry.
Neither are hamburgers.
The dragon's wings are part of a creature, a creature is entitled to a saving throw for "simply touching" the Web which means the web must meet the other criteria of being anchored to solid points for the wings to get stuck.
This is your fictional creation. The spell does not require a saving throw prior to being anchored, and once anchored, the dragon would have to make a save.
An Orc, strength 15, can lift 400 lbs off the ground and push/dragon 1000 lbs, so can a gnoll, a Green Hag can lift 600 lbs, and push 1500 lbs. Sorry but how is it a medium creature isn't considered solid again?
It's a size issue. However, answer me this. Since you seem to think that you can anchor the spell to flies, could you anchor the web spell to two pebbles on the ground?
And again the spell makes no mention of creature size effecting the spell at all. If a Creature is standing (or flying) in an open area and Web is cast upon that space, then the spell will fail. That is basically what the spell says, The size of the creature is not said to effect the spell in any way whatsoever, RAW.
The spell says nothing of the sort. You've rationalized your assumptions into saying what you want it to say. Not what it actually says.
I will. Spells entries have a section called "Target" If a Spell can target a creature then it will say so, such as "One creature" or "One Creature or object" and then would further specify in the description that a melee or ranged touch attach is needed.
Not area spells like web and fireball. Sorry, you fail again. Web doesn't target anything. Spells that specifically target, ALSO target objects. So your theory fails on all grounds with regards to web.
To target the dragon specifically and not the area the spell would have to first be a targetable spell. it is not a targetable spell and so therefore cannot target the dragon itself, it can only target the area that the dragon is in.
Except that I'm not targeting the dragon at all. I'm simply selecting two points, per the AREA spell that web is.
Now even if the DM allowed the spell to be cast upon the dragon then the player would have to make a Ranged Touch Attach vs the Dragon's AC, however the spell is not targetable in this way.
You're flat out wrong. Web is not a targeted spell. Selecting the dragon's wings doesn't change that. If the spell targeted two objects as the solid points, you'd have a valid argument here, but it doesn't and you don't.
Anyways the whole point of my orriginal point was not to debate the rules of low level wizard spells, but that the Player's complaint against his DM here is summed up as:
"We players keep trying to do things that break the rules and our DM isn't rewarding us for it"
I mean gee, I am a level 1 character, my first declaration is that I spend the last few copper I have one a torch, light it and then walk over to the nearest forest and set it on fire, satnd back and BANG, end of the day I am level 4, YAAAA!!!! What do you mean that doesn't work, chap DM......
Here we can agree ;)
oh, hehe, I shouldn't make too much fun ouf that, I leveled my Necromancer while playing Everquest by summoning my pet in the middle of a camp and then went shopping for a couple of hours....
Meh. I wouldn't ever try that myself. I like to be there and earn my levels in games like that.
Also: CustServ only rules on 4th Ed. Shouldn't be surprised, I don't guess...
I'll make the following comment as politely as possible before retiring from this:
I'm accusing you of fallacy because I know what the word means and I know for a fact that you've committed more than one. An inability to refute you is most certainly not the issue. I could tear your arguments to pieces if I cared to take the time; but as I've already stated, I wouldn't be saying much that hasn't been said by others already.
And don't embarrass yourself by claiming that this is only "my opinion" or that I'm using accusations of fallacy as a "refuge". Not to toot my own horn; but I teach this stuff professionally. Compared to John Forumgoer and (nothing personal) yourself, I am an accredited expert on the subject.
Wouldn't this be an Appeal to Authority fallacy? ;)
I still feel like a basic, core point is being missed: neither of you is wrong. Neither of you is right, as far as the other's game is concerned. In an ambiguous situation such as the one that has been presented here, it is up to the DM of each game to make a ruling that best fits for his group.
I've said this multiple times, but MrCustomer and AverageTable don't seem to be able to grasp that fact. :P
Further, a character starting a forest fire for exp gain is metagaming, unless he has written pyromaniac into his background. If he has, I'd give him a small RP bonus for setting fires, but not for anything killed by those fires.
A friend of mine plays a tiefling helllock with a temper. She sets fire to freakin' EVERYTHING. I don't think we've seen a single ... bundle of sticks she hasn't set fire to. EVER.
It's amazing, and I love her :D
... She gets an RP bonus for setting fires btw.
Making a distinction between a creature being an anchor and a creature being 'stuck' creates a further problem: A successful save doesn't dismiss the web. So even if the dragon saves, the web remains anchored. Does this mean that a dragon is entangled for the entire duration of the spell (10min/level) no matter what since the web area of effect moves with it? I would hope not, but since being an anchor and getting entangled are different then your ruling makes this the case.
Because it's stupid to think that it would anchor to a medium size creature. Your argument continues to fail.
Why is it stupid? It either makes perfect sense, or you aren't being consistent in your application. Two dwarves (a race known for their sturdiness) alone in a field should work perfectly well as anchors by your interpretation, and therefore have to make reflex saves to avoid getting caught in the web anchored to them (as would any creatures caught between them). And there's no reason why other solid creatures can do the job. This is clearly not RAI. You like to use pebbles as an example to mock this but again, it's a logical extension of your interpretation. (Of course a web between two pebbles doesn't seem like a good use of the spell. "I cast web on two pebbles in the field" "I step over your tiny web rope and continue my pursuit").
It's a size issue. However, answer me this. Since you seem to think that you can anchor the spell to flies, could you anchor the web spell to two pebbles on the ground?
This is just silly. And, unless I'm wrong, it's exactly what MrCustomer doesn't think should work. Unfortunately, it's also the result of what your ruling and definitions, applied consistently, would result in.
Except that I'm not targeting the dragon at all. I'm simply selecting two points, per the AREA spell that web is.
First of all, this is blatantly wrong. As far as area spells go, you pick a single grid intersection (PHB 175) and "don't control which creatures or objects your spell affects". So you never get to say "I'm casting web on the dragon's wings".
Secondly, you can say you're not targeting the dragon but I really don't see how "I'm picking two points on the dragon as my web target" is different from targeting the dragon.
At any rate, you are right in that it's a DM's call how a spell actually works (as it is with all rules) but I think your ruling is both inconsistent and contrary to RAI.
I'm hesitant to wade in here, but I tend to agree with MrCustomer's interpretaion. Specifically, his 'chicken and egg' argument makes sense: In this scenario, the dragon doesn't make a save until it's stuck in the web, but it's not caught in a web until it fails the save.
This is not what is happening, though.
1) No creature gets stuck in a web until it makes its save. And every creature in the area of the web must make a save. The dragon is no exception to this.
2) The dragon is not stuck at the point that it is being used for "solid points", so there is no contradiction with the spell.
3) Once the dragon is used as for the "solid points", it THEN makes a save as normal for the spell. If the dragon makes its save, it's slowed until it gets out of the area, as normal.
4) If it fails its save, it's stuck as normal.
There is no chicken/egg scenerio going on.
How is the web anchored it it's not stuck to the creature?
It is stuck to the creature, but it can then tear away from the creature as normal for a creature moving through the web. The spell does not go away if you remove its connection to the original anchors. At least not per the spell itself.
Making a distinction between a creature being an anchor and a creature being 'stuck' creates a further problem: A successful save doesn't dismiss the web. So even if the dragon saves, the web remains anchored. Does this mean that a dragon is entangled for the entire duration of the spell (10min/level) no matter what since the web area of effect moves with it? I would hope not, but since being an anchor and getting entangled are different then your ruling makes this the case.
No. Nothing in the spell requires that the anchors remain attached. ONLY that there be anchors in the first place.
Why is it stupid? It either makes perfect sense, or you aren't being consistent in your application. Two dwarves (a race known for their sturdiness) alone in a field should work perfectly well as anchors by your interpretation, and therefore have to make reflex saves to avoid getting caught in the web anchored to them (as would any creatures caught between them). And there's no reason why other solid creatures can do the job. This is clearly not RAI. You like to use pebbles as an example to mock this but again, it's a logical extension of your interpretation. (Of course a web between two pebbles doesn't seem like a good use of the spell. "I cast web on two pebbles in the field" "I step over your tiny web rope and continue my pursuit").
Size and mass. Not even a dwarf would be massive enough to serve as an anchor for a web spell. Similarly, a 200 pound rock wouldn't be massive enough, either. Now, this is purely my subjective opinion, since the spell is incredibly unclear as to what solid actually means.
This is just silly. And, unless I'm wrong, it's exactly what MrCustomer doesn't think should work. Unfortunately, it's also the result of what your ruling and definitions, applied consistently, would result in.
It IS silly, but he's arguing that if we allow a massively large dragon to be used, then we must allow mosquitos to be used.
And no, this is NOT what my definitions would result in. Not at all. My ruling has absolutely nothing to do with creatures being used as a "solid point" and everything to do with size and mass being the sole defining feature of what constitutes a viable "solid point". A size huge or better dragon just fits the bill of being massive enough to serve.
First of all, this is blatantly wrong. As far as area spells go, you pick a single grid intersection (PHB 175) and "don't control which creatures or objects your spell affects". So you never get to say "I'm casting web on the dragon's wings".
Page 175 is the rule. Web is the exception. With web, you must select the anchors. You inform the DM that you're using the two walls as the anchors. Or the ceiling and the floor. Or the two opposing dragon's wings.
Secondly, you can say you're not targeting the dragon but I really don't see how "I'm picking two points on the dragon as my web target" is different from targeting the dragon.
Read web. It doesn't target the anchors according to the spell. It just plain anchors to them.
At any rate, you are right in that it's a DM's call how a spell actually works (as it is with all rules) but I think your ruling is both inconsistent and contrary to RAI.
That's because, per your response, you clearly haven't understood what I've been saying.
Wouldn't this be an Appeal to Authority fallacy? ;)
Yes, my friend, it would indeed. :P
However, one thing I always point out when I teach the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy is that its status as a "fallacy" is somewhat undeserved.
Firstly, it's better to call "Appeal to Illegitimate Authority" a fallacy, rather than any appeal to any authority. If the authority in question is indeed a legitimate authority on the subject in question (e.g. a licensed doctor in regard to medical matters), then it's usually rational to take his word as truth.
Note, though, that even a legitimate authority might be wrong. This, however, does not mean that appealing to the authority is fallacious. Quite the opposite, actually. Because the authority's word is such strong evidence in favour of his position, it shifts the burden of proof strongly to the side of those who question him. In turn, to argue against the authority, the opposition's evidence needs to be extra-strong.
The only real sense in which "Appeal to Authority (in general)" is a fallacy is when the stakes are so high that one cannot take any risk whatsoever of being incorrect in one's conclusions. When one must, must be certain of one's results, then it is probably irrational to base one's conclusions on the word of an imperfect human agent, no matter how much of a expert he might be.
If it anchors on the dragon's winge, THEN it makes a save. If it doesn't anchor, then it DOESN'T make a save. There is no save that happens prior to anchoring.
So The web spell WILL anchor itself to the Dragon, and the Dragon will get no Reflex Save to prevent this at all? This is what you are saying, right?
Anyways under the spell's descrpition it states
Saving Throw: Reflex negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
Which means that any creature in the area of effect of the web spell is entitled to a saving throw, you are categorically wrong in this aspect and indeed pulling it out of your ass.
Completely and 100% irrelevant. The size of the strands and whether they fit between an orc's legs doesn't matter one whit when determining if something is large enough to be the ANCHOR.
And why is that? By what criteria are you using to judge if something is large enough? Weight? Volume? Level, Chalenge Rating? AC? I am all ears now.
Because it's stupid to think that it would anchor to a medium size creature. Your argument continues to fail.
Why exactly is that? HOw exactly is a medium sized creature any different then a large or huge creature. The Spell description makes no such reference to creature size.
Wrong. A huge creature takes a penalty to AC and creatures hit it easier. The same creature ALSO takes a penalty to hit when swing at creatures smaller than itself. Look at page 291 of the Monster Manual. It will explain it to you there, since you're having trouble with the concept.
Yes, this is called size modifier. Where I am confused however is how the Size Modifier effects the Web spell. It doesn't seem to explain this on page 291 of the Monster Manual.
Hold on. You ACTUALLY believe that everything there is to mention is mentioned in the "rules"? You ACTUALLY believe that everything is spelled out clearly? I hate to break this to you, but there are many areas where the rules have overlooked situations and/or just been unclear, and web is one of them.
Sure, the rules don't mention everything. They don't mention if Goblins actually eat food, and if so what exactly do they eat. And what of it?
But in the event that a rule is NOT mentioned and the DM needs to make a ruling concerning it, then the DM has to make something called a HOUSE RULE.
The Web spell entry does not say that the spell effects Huge and larger creatures differently from medium sized creatures. Therefore it treats them both the same.
To say otherwise is to MAKE A HOUSE RULE. But outside of any house rule, using RAW, the web spell cannot use a creature as an anchor (since a creature would get a saving throw) and the size of a creature has no effect on the spell.
Some do, some don't. Not everything is mentioned. Sorry.
I beleive that Web spells also cure poison, because it is reasonable to use a web to make a Neutralize Poison potion. therefore anyone caught in a web spell is instantly cured of all Poison effects.
It doesn't mention this in the rules, and the rules don't say that Web spell can't be used this way (my bright neon pink web spell) therefore it can work this way. Not everything is mentioned in the rules, right?
Horrible logic like this is just a lame way of abusing the rules. If the rules don't say that Web can't use a Dragon's wings to anchor itself, the rules also don't make any mention of not being able to use Medium sized creatures the same way.
The reverse however is the case. If the rules don't say that it can be done, then it cannot be done, unless the DM makes a house rule otherwise. But all that is is a house rule, it is Not RaW.
That's because this is irrelevant to the discussion AND to the spell. We're not talking about creatures affected by webs, we're discussing how large a creature should be to qualify as a solid point.
Again, how do you make this criteria? The rules make no mention of creature size effecting the web anywhere.
Here is another question. If the web spell was cast in a hallway, 5 feet wide, 6 feet high and 7 feet long, and this hall is a building made of old plywood walls with a straw ceilling, would the spell succeed or fail?
I would argue that 2 orcs standing in a field would be more solid then the building I described, so I onder what criteria you are using to determine what sized creature is immune to the web spell's anchoring effect and what size creature is denied any saving throws (despite the spell entry saying that all creatures are entitled to one)
Absolutely and 100% incorrect. You're wrong a lot. Maybe you should read things a few more times so that you understand it. I've NEVER claimed a medium sized creatures is immune to the web spell.
Well, yes you did. You stated that web would fail if it was cast upion a medium sized creature standing in the open. You said specifically that it wouldn't work on medium creatures, whereas you contend it will work on a Huge creature in the open.
Wrong. If you anchored the web between two trees, a flying harpy would be stuck. Never, ever said medium sized creatures were immune.
No, more specifically if you cast the spell on a Harpy in the open, no other object in the area or within range of the spell effect. Harpy has two wings, both in the area effect of the spell, flying at the same height as the dragon, under the same circumstances as the dragon.
You are contending that the spell will:
a: Dragon will get caught in the spell and have to make a saving throw.
b: Harpy is immune to the spell.
This is your fictional creation. The spell does not require a saving throw prior to being anchored, and once anchored, the dragon would have to make a save.
For the Web spell to adhere to any creature in any way, the creature must get a saving throw. The Web spell cannot bypass saving throws or spell resistance. It must be anchored in order for a creature to be forced to make a saving throw against it.
It's a size issue. However, answer me this. Since you seem to think that you can anchor the spell to flies, could you anchor the web spell to two pebbles on the ground?
No, I contend that flies can be stuck to the web spell. I contend that creature size has no effect upon the web spell, as the spell states clearly "All creatures" it makes no discrepency between a fly and a dragon, they both make saving throws if they are in the area of effect or simply touch that area.
Medium and smaller creatures are not granted any special immunity to the Web spell and Larger creatures are not penalized by the Web spell. The spell would fail if cast upon "Any creature" that was in an open area.
It's you who keeps saying that there is a special size criteria for the spell. The spell says NOTHING about it effecting creatures of different sizes, it just says All creatures.
It works the same on a Dragon as it does on an orc or a harpy or a flie, because these are All creatures
Except that I'm not targeting the dragon at all. I'm simply selecting two points, per the AREA spell that web is.
That is targeting a creature. A non-targetable spell means you can only choose the grid that you are casting the spell in, you cannot choose who it does or does not effect in that area.
PHB: "You sellect where the spell starts, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell effects."
You're flat out wrong. Web is not a targeted spell. Selecting the dragon's wings doesn't change that. If the spell targeted two objects as the solid points, you'd have a valid argument here, but it doesn't and you don't.
Selecting the dragon's wings is targeting the spell, exactly the same as choosing to target two objects. You can only select the area, and not the specific objects or creatures within that area. You cannot select or target the Dragon nor it's wings, only the area that the dragon is in.
Meh. I wouldn't ever try that myself. I like to be there and earn my levels in games like that.
And as had been stated many times already, no XP for burning forests for no reason (although that no longer seems to be the topic of this thread). That's not overcoming any challenge. And you don't need to resort to heavy-handed responses like gods becoming personally involved because a few squirrels died (I'm sure they have better things to do). If they know it won't benefit them, they probably won't do it at all. If they do it repeatedly anyway, someone will want to know what's going on, and with divination magic, they will probably find out. Let the PCs deal with the consequences of this. I just don't think avatars and high druids and such necessarily need to be the ones to dish out the punishment.
So The web spell WILL anchor itself to the Dragon, and the Dragon will get no Reflex Save to prevent this at all? This is what you are saying, right?
I'm not sure what part of it gets a reflex save that you don't get? If it makes it, it moves 20 at a slowed rate before the web can't slow it anymore.
Which means that any creature in the area of effect of the web spell is entitled to a saving throw, you are categorically wrong in this aspect and indeed pulling it out of your ass.
It gets a save, and I've said that a dozen times. It's your ass your smelling, since once again, you've gotten what people are telling you wrong.
And why is that? By what criteria are you using to judge if something is large enough? Weight? Volume? Level, Chalenge Rating? AC? I am all ears now.
And answer is ::drum roll:: Because I'm the bloody DM. I decide what things mean when the "rules" are ambiguous. You can only decide it for YOUR game, not mine. This makes us both right, since we're the final arbiters on what "solid" means.
Why exactly is that? HOw exactly is a medium sized creature any different then a large or huge creature.
If you are having difficulty in understanding how a large or huge creature is different from a medium sized one, then you need a whole lot of help and should stop playing the game until people explain things to you.
Yes, this is called size modifier. Where I am confused however is how the Size Modifier effects the Web spell. It doesn't seem to explain this on page 291 of the Monster Manual.
I never claimed it did. You were the one who suggested that a penalty for size was ::gasp:: WRONG! I mentioned that there were already penalties.
But in the event that a rule is NOT mentioned and the DM needs to make a ruling concerning it, then the DM has to make something called a HOUSE RULE.
The Web spell entry does not say that the spell effects Huge and larger creatures differently from medium sized creatures. Therefore it treats them both the same.
To say otherwise is to MAKE A HOUSE RULE. But outside of any house rule, using RAW, the web spell cannot use a creature as an anchor (since a creature would get a saving throw) and the size of a creature has no effect on the spell.
The spell doesn't state that the anchor points must be on innanimate objects. A DM interpretation of what "solid" means for the web spell is not a house rule. Or to put it another way, if it IS a house rule, then so is your ruling that it only works on innanimate objects, since web doesn't state either position.
If the rules don't say that Web can't use a Dragon's wings to anchor itself, the rules also don't make any mention of not being able to use Medium sized creatures the same way.
If you want to rule that web works on medium creatures, go for it. You can interpret webs ambiguity however you like in your game.
If the rules don't say that it can be done, then it cannot be done, unless the DM makes a house rule otherwise. But all that is is a house rule, it is Not RaW.
The rules don't say that only innanimate objects can be used in the web spell, so you're ruling is a house rule as well. What does this prove? Absolutely jack @&$^. We're back at square 1 where we're both right in our own respective games.
Here is another question. If the web spell was cast in a hallway, 5 feet wide, 6 feet high and 7 feet long, and this hall is a building made of old plywood walls with a straw ceilling, would the spell succeed or fail?
I'm not sure how I would rule that. There's a good chance that I would allow it and cause it to collapse the building if anything in the web moves.
I would argue that 2 orcs standing in a field would be more solid then the building I described, so I onder what criteria you are using to determine what sized creature is immune to the web spell's anchoring effect and what size creature is denied any saving throws (despite the spell entry saying that all creatures are entitled to one)
Size is a major factor to me.
Well, yes you did. You stated that web would fail if it was cast upion a medium sized creature standing in the open. You said specifically that it wouldn't work on medium creatures, whereas you contend it will work on a Huge creature in the open.
Yes. These are absolute incontrovertable facts. You see, I have ruled web's ambiguity to make these facts in my game, just as you have ruled web's ambiguity to deny them in yours. ::shrug::
No, more specifically if you cast the spell on a Harpy in the open, no other object in the area or within range of the spell effect. Harpy has two wings, both in the area effect of the spell, flying at the same height as the dragon, under the same circumstances as the dragon.
You are contending that the spell will:
a: Dragon will get caught in the spell and have to make a saving throw.
Yes.
b: Harpy is immune to the spell.
No. The spell fails through its own means. The harpy has nothing to do with that and is not immune to web.
For the Web spell to adhere to any creature in any way, the creature must get a saving throw.
Wrong. Creatures caught in the web are affected regardless of the save outcome. The save only determines if they can move or not.
The Web spell cannot bypass saving throws
Irrelevant as this is not occuring.
or spell resistance.
And stated in the first post of mine on this that the wizard needs to get past the resistance. Why are you bring crap into this argument that doesn't have anything to do with anything?
It must be anchored in order for a creature to be forced to make a saving throw against it.
True. The wings are the anchor.
No, I contend that flies can be stuck to the web spell. I contend that creature size has no effect upon the web spell, as the spell states clearly "All creatures" it makes no discrepency between a fly and a dragon, they both make saving throws if they are in the area of effect or simply touch that area.
Right, but this isn't what the conversation is about in any way, shape or form. We're not discussing creatures that blunder into the web or are caught in the area. We're only discussing "solid" and "points", and what qualifies.
It's you who keeps saying that there is a special size criteria for the spell. The spell says NOTHING about it effecting creatures of different sizes, it just says All creatures.
Well, duh! That's because it affects creatures of any size. We're not talking about that. We're talking about what qualifies as "solid" and "points". It would really be nice if you were to join me in the conversation that is actually ocurring.
That is targeting a creature. A non-targetable spell means you can only choose the grid that you are casting the spell in, you cannot choose who it does or does not effect in that area.
So you're telling me that web fails completely, always? Because by your definition, it can never work. The spell is an area non-targetable spells that states that you choose the anchor points. Either you can "target" anchor "points", or you can't. If you can't, then web fails upon every cast. If you can, then dragon wings are as legitimate a "target" as a wall.
Or, put another way, if the spell automatically selects qualifying "solid points", the it would automatically select the wings without needing to target them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that jazz.
Selecting the dragon's wings is targeting the spell, exactly the same as choosing to target two objects. You can only select the area, and not the specific objects or creatures within that area. You cannot select or target the Dragon nor it's wings, only the area that the dragon is in.
Then don't. It will auto hit the wings as "solid points", just like it auto hits the walls of a corridor.
Not that it matters for this discussion, but to clear up something you've said a couple of times, nowhere in the spell description do the words 'choose', 'select' or anything else that implies caster choice beyond the blanket description for area spells appear. You cast it on a grid intersection, it spreads from there and anchors as appropriate within a 20ft radius. You can't choose the dragon wings any more than you can choose one hallway vs. another if cast at an intersection.
Whether a dragon wing is an appropriate anchor within that area is obviously up for debate. Clearly I disagree with you on that point (just as I disagree that the anchor only has to be present at the beginning of the spell despite the spell not stating otherwise)
Agree to disagree, I guess.
Out of curiosity, if I was a player at your table, what would be the exact definitions used for a valid anchor point in terms of size and mass?
Whether a dragon wing is an appropriate anchor within that area is obviously up for debate. Clearly I disagree with you on that point (just as I disagree that the anchor only has to be present at the beginning of the spell despite the spell not stating otherwise)
Now, I don't have the book to reference, but it seems like there is agreement that the spell says it must be anchored to a solid non-creature (this may or may not be the actual case). However, if the spell says it can't be anchored to a creature, then it can't-by the rules-be anchored to a creature. Dragon wings are not objects like trees and walls, dragon wings are a part of a creature and count as such for the purpose of determining these things. Either way, he's not listening...
Maxperson,
Not that it matters for this discussion, but to clear up something you've said a couple of times, nowhere in the spell description do the words 'choose', 'select' or anything else that implies caster choice beyond the blanket description for area spells appear. You cast it on a grid intersection, it spreads from there and anchors as appropriate within a 20ft radius. You can't choose the dragon wings any more than you can choose one hallway vs. another if cast at an intersection.
That doesn't matter. If you don't choose it and it happens automatically, it will automatically select the dragon's wings(or any other part) if the DM allows dragons to be used that way.
Whether a dragon wing is an appropriate anchor within that area is obviously up for debate. Clearly I disagree with you on that point (just as I disagree that the anchor only has to be present at the beginning of the spell despite the spell not stating otherwise)
I can go along with that one. I just re-read it and it seems to say that if there are no anchors, there is no web spell. So that would mean that if the dragon was the anchor, and it saved and moved out of the area, the spell would end.
Out of curiosity, if I was a player at your table, what would be the exact definitions used for a valid anchor point in terms of size and mass?
There are no exact definitions. That's the problem with the spell in the first place. The spell is so vague on that point, I just sort of go by feel on whether something is large enough or secure enough. Common sense has seen me through any uses of that spell so far, and no one has complained or even looked upset, so I'm doing something right ;)
Now, I don't have the book to reference, but it seems like there is agreement that the spell says it must be anchored to a solid non-creature (this may or may not be the actual case). However, if the spell says it can't be anchored to a creature, then it can't-by the rules-be anchored to a creature. Dragon wings are not objects like trees and walls, dragon wings are a part of a creature and count as such for the purpose of determining these things. Either way, he's not listening...
It doesn't say any of those things. It must be anchored to two diametrically opposed solid points, and that's it.
This is not what is happening, though.
1) No creature gets stuck in a web until it makes its save. And every creature in the area of the web must make a save. The dragon is no exception to this.
2) The dragon is not stuck at the point that it is being used for "solid points", so there is no contradiction with the spell.
3) Once the dragon is used as for the "solid points", it THEN makes a save as normal for the spell. If the dragon makes its save, it's slowed until it gets out of the area, as normal.
4) If it fails its save, it's stuck as normal.
There is no chicken/egg scenerio going on.
Wow, just wow, you have completely and overwhelmingly suprized me with your arguement here. I, wow.
Lets look at point 2, the web anchors itself to the Dragon's wings, however the dragon is not stuck to the web at this point where it is connected to his wing. Lets repeat what you have just stated.
The dragon is not stuck at the point that it is being used for "solid points" so there is no contradiction with the spell.
You have just broken all limits of creduality here.
It is stuck to the creature, but it can then tear away from the creature as normal for a creature moving through the web. The spell does not go away if you remove its connection to the original anchors. At least not per the spell itself.
No, I was wrong, you could actually continue to be less credible.
The spell states:
These masses must be anchored to two or more solid...or else the web collapses...
At no point does the spell say "The spell must first be" or "the spell must start" only that the webs must be anchored or else it colapses. In short, if at any time the webs are no longer anchored (lets say a wall collapses) then the spell will collapse and disapear. The webs must be anchored for the entire duration of the spell.
Which means all the dragon would have to do to escape the web spell is tuck it's wings in, once flush with it's body the webs would have no "diamterically opposite) points to be anchored to and it would collapse.
No. Nothing in the spell requires that the anchors remain attached. ONLY that there be anchors in the first place.
Yes, becasue the web colapses if there is no anchor. The web does not hover in that air and float. It colapses if it is not anchored, and it says this clearly and in plain language in the spell "These masses must be anchored...or else the web colapses" it doesn't say "just in the begining of the spell" or anything else to that effect, the web must be anchored or else it will colapse, if it becomes unanchored then it colapses.
Where are you getting these rules from? Where? I have both the PHB 3.5 and I even checked my old copy of 3.0 to make sure it wasn't a rule change, but The web spell doesn't have any of your rules in it.
Your rules that don't appear in the rules:
-Web has additional effects on huge and larger creaures.
-Medium and smaller creatures have immunity to certain effects of the web spell.
-The Web will magically flaot in place even after the solid points is anchored to it. In this case the web will hover 100 ft above a deep chasm, unconnected to anything, yes the web spell will fly without being anchored because it only needs to be anchoered at the begining of the turn.
-Dragon Wings bypass targetting rules and can targeted where creatures and objects can't be.
-One object can stick to another object without that object being stuck to it in return, (which sorta defies the very definition of sticking and anchoring, but I digress, it must be mentioned in page 301 of the PHB)
Size and mass. Not even a dwarf would be massive enough to serve as an anchor for a web spell. Similarly, a 200 pound rock wouldn't be massive enough, either. Now, this is purely my subjective opinion, since the spell is incredibly unclear as to what solid actually means.
By what criteria are you using to determine this?
What the book does imply when it says solid is clear in it's examples. Opposing Walls, Floor and Ceiling, all are Solid (regardless of composition and strength) by merit of being...
Unmoving, stationary.
What do the walls of wooden house, a Cave and a castle's dungeon have in common?
Their walls are stationary, unmoving and solid.
The spell is not targetable, so it cannot be cast upon a creature, so what is it's target?
An area, you cast the spell on an area. But not every area works, the web when it appears must be anchored to something to stop it from simply collapsing. A web in the air (not stuck to anything) collapses in on itself. it must be attached to surrounding points.
What if the points are flimsy, such as a old rotting boarding in a delapitated building? The spell would still work, the only exception being is that if the walls colapsed at any point, then the web would alos collapse. Trap an ogre in this web spell and he is likely totear the walls down while yanking on the web (DM's descretion) in which case the spell would collapse. However it is unlikely that even an Ogre could pull down the stone walls of a castle.
A creature however is not a solid point, largely because creatures cannot be targeted.
It IS silly, but he's arguing that if we allow a massively large dragon to be used, then we must allow mosquitos to be used.
NO, I am stating the spell makes no mention of Creature size, it says All Creatures are effected by it. It would effect a Fly the same as a Dragon. I am arguing the reverse, that if the spell does not work this way on a fly, if it cannot be anchored between 2 flys, then it cannot be anchored on a dragon either. Both creatures, All Creatures are treated the same by the spell.
Just like a Fireball spell that does 6d6 fire damage will do 6d6 fire damage to a fly and will do 6d6 fire damage to a huge or colosoal creatures. it does 6d6 damage to all creatures. Despite the fact that a huge creature ha a larger surface area to be burnt (and therefore would logically take more fire damage by the square inch or exposure to the flame) It does 6d6 damage to All creatures.
Web likelywaise effects all creatures the same.
And no, this is NOT what my definitions would result in. Not at all. My ruling has absolutely nothing to do with creatures being used as a "solid point" and everything to do with size and mass being the sole defining feature of what constitutes a viable "solid point". A size huge or better dragon just fits the bill of being massive enough to serve.
A Dragon is much, much larger then two old wooden fences lined up next to each other, are you saying that the spell would fail on two opposing, solid fences because they aren't the size and bulk of a dragon?
By what criteria in the rules are you using to determine what can and cannot be effected by the spell.
Page 175 is the rule. Web is the exception. With web, you must select the anchors. You inform the DM that you're using the two walls as the anchors. Or the ceiling and the floor. Or the two opposing dragon's wings.
You do NOT select the anchors with a web spell, you only select the area you cast the spell in, the web appears and anchors itself accordingly to the available points. Nowhere in the spell description does it say the payer chooses the points that the spell anchors itself to.
It only says "Webs in a 20-ft radius spread" The Player only chooses the starting point, and the web spreads out from that point in a 20 ft radius
Wow, just wow, you have completely and overwhelmingly suprized me with your arguement here. I, wow.
Lets look at point 2, the web anchors itself to the Dragon's wings, however the dragon is not stuck to the web at this point where it is connected to his wing. Lets repeat what you have just stated.
Once again, you fail to grasp the simple. The dragon IS stuck, it doesn't get a save vs. stuck. No one does. The save is merely to determine HOW stuck the web is to you. Are you stuck enough to stop you, or are you only stuck enough to be slowed down as you rip the webs away as you move out of the area.
No, I was wrong, you could actually continue to be less credible.
Wow. You're really slow, you know that. I already admitted that I was wrong on that. You see, I can admit when I'm wrong. You apparently cannot.
At no point does the spell say "The spell must first be" or "the spell must start" only that the webs must be anchored or else it colapses. In short, if at any time the webs are no longer anchored (lets say a wall collapses) then the spell will collapse and disapear. The webs must be anchored for the entire duration of the spell.
Then clearly, if the dragon saves and the anchors leave the area, the spell goes away, just like I said.
Which means all the dragon would have to do to escape the web spell is tuck it's wings in, once flush with it's body the webs would have no "diamterically opposite) points to be anchored to and it would collapse.
Which is what I said would happen several posts ago. I just said it because it made sense, not because of the spell's description. Even so, you plainly have reading comprehension issues, or you'd have known I said that.
Your rules that don't appear in the rules:
-Web has additional effects on huge and larger creaures.
Not a rule that I made up. Web says "solid" and "anchors". It does not give even one tenth of one percent of all the things that could qualify, so I have to decide on a case by case basis what qualifies, and in my game, most size huge creatures do. So this rule DOES appear in the spell. It's just not some lame ass "creature" rule that you keep trying to twist this into, but a "solid anchor" rule that DOES appear in the spell.
I mean, really. After all this time, you still don't know what we're discussing? And you say that I'm not being credible. At this point, since you're clearly not stupid, you're being intentionally deceptive, and that makes you no better than a liar.
-Medium and smaller creatures have immunity to certain effects of the web spell.
See above. I've never once said this. At no point are medium or smaller creatures immune to ANY effect of web. Qualifying as a "solid anchor point" is not an effect of web.
-The Web will magically flaot in place even after the solid points is anchored to it. In this case the web will hover 100 ft above a deep chasm, unconnected to anything, yes the web spell will fly without being anchored because it only needs to be anchoered at the begining of the turn.
And now you actually ARE a liar. You can't quote me as having said this, because you know it for the lie that it is.
-Dragon Wings bypass targetting rules and can targeted where creatures and objects can't be.
See the first response to your intentional deceptions. Dragon wings qualify as anchors, so if the spell doesn't target walls, it doesn't need to target the wings to use them either. That's not getting around "targetting rules", it's a fact of the spell. Either it targets or it doesn't, but in no case is the spell going to fail when qualifying "solid points" are there.
-One object can stick to another object without that object being stuck to it in return, (which sorta defies the very definition of sticking and anchoring, but I digress, it must be mentioned in page 301 of the PHB)
This I'll chalk this one up to your reading comprehension failures. I said you don't get a save to see if you're an anchor. It anchors and then you get a save, and at the point of anchoring, you aren't fully stuck. You're the one who came up with the nonsensical suggestion that a creature would get a save to see if it could be used as an anchor, when the spell doesn't allow a save until after, AND not getting a save until after the anchor doesn't in any way change the spell or its effect on the creature being used.
What the book does imply when it says solid is clear in it's examples. Opposing Walls, Floor and Ceiling, all are Solid (regardless of composition and strength) by merit of being...
So you're contending that those THREE examples somehow prove that all "solid points" must be large and unable to move? Trying going into a college class and claiming that you can tell anything definitive from a sample size of three and see if the professor doesn't laugh you out of class. There's nothing about those three examples that a sitting dragon does not also meet. The sitting dragon is as large or larger, it's as solid, and it isn't moving. .
What do the walls of wooden house, a Cave and a castle's dungeon have in common?
Their walls are stationary, unmoving and solid.
And in a sample size of three, you are making an assumption about the inability to move being a criteria. Just as valid a set of criteria that those three meet are, solid, large and not moving at the moment. The spell could have easily been clearer about this by simply stating that it had to be an unmovable object, but it didn't. And that leaves us to interpret what it does mean.
The spell is not targetable, so it cannot be cast upon a creature, so what is it's target?
It doesn't matter. The spell will still anchor to any valid "solid point", regardless.
What if the points are flimsy, such as a old rotting boarding in a delapitated building? The spell would still work, the only exception being is that if the walls colapsed at any point, then the web would alos collapse. Trap an ogre in this web spell and he is likely totear the walls down while yanking on the web (DM's descretion) in which case the spell would collapse. However it is unlikely that even an Ogre could pull down the stone walls of a castle.
So what. I've already said this would happen if the dragon saves and moves out of the area.
A creature however is not a solid point, largely because creatures cannot be targeted.
The spell will hit any valid "solid point" without targeting it, regardless of whether it's a creature or not. At least in my game. As you have clearly ruled it differently for YOURS, this makes us both right in our separate interpretations of the unclear web spell.
NO, I am stating the spell makes no mention of Creature size, it says All Creatures are effected by it. It would effect a Fly the same as a Dragon. I am arguing the reverse, that if the spell does not work this way on a fly, if it cannot be anchored between 2 flys, then it cannot be anchored on a dragon either. Both creatures, All Creatures are treated the same by the spell.
You keep repeating this like I should somehow start to consider it a valid part of this conversation. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS AT ALL.
A Dragon is much, much larger then two old wooden fences lined up next to each other, are you saying that the spell would fail on two opposing, solid fences because they aren't the size and bulk of a dragon?
It would depend on the size of the fences.
By what criteria in the rules are you using to determine what can and cannot be effected by the spell.
Um, there are no criteria in the "rules" that determine this. There are only three examples that cannot show one way or the other if big enough creatures qualify or not. THAT'S THE FREAKING PROBLEM.
You do NOT select the anchors with a web spell, you only select the area you cast the spell in, the web appears and anchors itself accordingly to the available points. Nowhere in the spell description does it say the payer chooses the points that the spell anchors itself to.
Yes, yes. I already said this.
Then clearly, if the dragon saves and the anchors leave the area, the spell goes away, just like I said.
So what. I've already said this would happen if the dragon saves and moves out of the area.
I know the writing of the spell is kinda vague (otherwise this discussion wouldn't continue), but my interpretation is that the spell would only collapse in the initial casting if it doesn't have an anchor.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that once something is created and it physically exists, that it would just simply disappear if a wall fell down.
If it was an illusion sure, but I'm not so sure about the web spell. Just my opinion though.
That doesn't matter. If you don't choose it and it happens automatically, it will automatically select the dragon's wings(or any other part) if the DM allows dragons to be used that way.
Yep. I was just clarifying what the rule actually states.
There are no exact definitions. That's the problem with the spell in the first place. The spell is so vague on that point, I just sort of go by feel on whether something is large enough or secure enough. Common sense has seen me through any uses of that spell so far, and no one has complained or even looked upset, so I'm doing something right ;)
Ha ha. For sure. I'm guessing this particular situation hasn't come up? I was just wondering since you seem to have an idea of what is big or heavy enough to use in your game what you tell your players (if anything) in advance. I can certainly imagine players getting upset if I was to rule dragon wings as OK but two giants, or two 200lb boulders or even two dwarves as not OK.
I think that might be part of the problem here. People are viewing those choices as arbitrary, while a simple fix of adding 'immobile' to the requirements (or something like that) eliminates these problems and gives players a priori knowledge of whether their plan will work.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that once something is created and it physically exists, that it would just simply disappear if a wall fell down
OK, that's fair. I can definitely see a case where if a creature is stuck in the web (failed reflex save) that they continue to be stuck. My view on that is that it becomes ineffective if not properly anchored. I imagine, for example, a web anchored between two trees. If one tree goes down, that web might not disappear, but will certainly collapse. For me, that's good enough for the web to no longer entangle people passing between the two trees. Most of the time, that situation doesn't happen but with mobile anchors it will happen a lot more.
Ha ha. For sure. I'm guessing this particular situation hasn't come up? I was just wondering since you seem to have an idea of what is big or heavy enough to use in your game what you tell your players (if anything) in advance. I can certainly imagine players getting upset if I was to rule dragon wings as OK but two giants, or two 200lb boulders or even two dwarves as not OK.
I have an idea, yes. It has to be large enough and/or heavy enough to be able in my mind to support the web while keeping struggling medium sized creatures immobilized. I just don't see two dwarves doing that. The 200lb boulders might, depending on the shape and the terrain, and the giants probably could, but then you'd run into the same problem you have with the dragon. If one of them saved and left the area, you'd have no anchor point to suppor the web and it would leave.
I think that might be part of the problem here. People are viewing those choices as arbitrary, while a simple fix of adding 'immobile' to the requirements (or something like that) eliminates these problems and gives players a priori knowledge of whether their plan will work.
Definately. If they had specified immobile and/or innanimate, it would make this spell all kinds of easier to interpret, but they didn't. It's on individual DMs now to determine what works as anchor points for the spell.
I know the writing of the spell is kinda vague (otherwise this discussion wouldn't continue), but my interpretation is that the spell would only collapse in the initial casting if it doesn't have an anchor.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that once something is created and it physically exists, that it would just simply disappear if a wall fell down.
If it was an illusion sure, but I'm not so sure about the web spell. Just my opinion though.
It physically exists prior to anchoring in the first place. The way the spell reads, it says that if the web has no anchor points, it collapses. It doesn't say "If it has no anchor points when cast." This would indicate that if an anchor point goes away somehow, the spell will as well.
If you want to talk sense, though, a web can stick to a floor or a person just fine without walls or a dragon, so opposing anchor points aren't even necessary for it to exist. Anchor points are just an arbitrary limitation the spell's creator put in.
You keep repeating this like I should somehow start to consider it a valid part of this conversation. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS AT ALL.
Wrong. "We" are talking about exactly that. You just choose to ignore it as it would collapse your entire argument (like a web spell casted into the air)
I have an idea, yes. It has to be large enough and/or heavy enough to be able in my mind to support the web while keeping struggling medium sized creatures immobilized. I just don't see two dwarves doing that. The 200lb boulders might, depending on the shape and the terrain, and the giants probably could, but then you'd run into the same problem you have with the dragon. If one of them saved and left the area, you'd have no anchor point to suppor the web and it would leave.
AKA "Its my arbitrary decision and everyone who questions it is wrong"
Definately. If they had specified immobile and/or innanimate, it would make this spell all kinds of easier to interpret, but they didn't. It's on individual DMs now to determine what works as anchor points for the spell.
Only if those individual DMs are rules illiterate.
If a player eyes lit up and decided it would be a good idea to start a forest fire to gain the exp for killing some of the random creature encounters in the forest.... would you give him exp for it...
The edition doesn't matter. I'm assuming that I'm not running an evil campaign.
No, I would not give XP for killing animals, because I do not wish to reward this behavior. "creative", yes. But it is not the deed of a heroic character.
Once again, you fail to grasp the simple. The dragon IS stuck, it doesn't get a save vs. stuck. No one does. The save is merely to determine HOW stuck the web is to you. Are you stuck enough to stop you, or are you only stuck enough to be slowed down as you rip the webs away as you move out of the area.
Wow, way to not read the rules.
The spell says, and is very specific on this point:
"Anyone in the effect's area ...must make a reflex save. If this save succeeds, the creature is not stuck in the webs and is free to act."
it also says:
"Saving Throw: Reflex negates"
They are decided not Stuck if they make the save and are free to act. However to move through an area with webs in it requires that they either tear their way through with force, or else they weave their way through, but they are free.
Someone on the edge of the webs who made their initial save could simply walk away, since they are not stuck to the webs and are not trying to move through them.
Of course if the web is not anchored to something then it will collapse and any creature in it's area of effect will not have to make a reflex save. The dragon is not stuck until it fails it's reflex save and the web cannot be stuck (meaning anchored) to the dragon until it fails that save. That being the case the web when cast is not anchored and will collapse.
Not a rule that I made up. Web says "solid" and "anchors". It does not give even one tenth of one percent of all the things that could qualify, so I have to decide on a case by case basis what qualifies, and in my game, most size huge creatures do. So this rule DOES appear in the spell. It's just not some lame ass "creature" rule that you keep trying to twist this into, but a "solid anchor" rule that DOES appear in the spell.
Then it is a House rule that you are using. The rule that does appear in the spel is "Any", "All Creatures" which would I beleive cover all creatures in the Monster Manual that are solid (oozes and non-coporial creatures notwithstanding)
See above. I've never once said this. At no point are medium or smaller creatures immune to ANY effect of web. Qualifying as a "solid anchor point" is not an effect of web.
Medium and Smaller creatures are immune to being used as an anchor for the web.
The Web will anchor itself to huge and larger creatures, it will not anchor to medium and smaller creatures, therefore medium and smaller creatures are immune to this effect of the web spell.
If you cast it upon a Dragon flying in the open the spell will anchor to the dragon and the dragon will get entangled.
If you cast it upon a harpy flying in the same area, the spell will not anchor to the harpy, it will collapse on itself and the Harpy would be immune to it's effects by merit of being a medium sized creature, medium sized creatures are therefore immune to the web spell unless it sticks to something else in the area.
The Spell can be cast upon Huge and larger creatures, it cannot be cast upon Medium and smaller creatures. Medium and smaller creatures can be caught in the area of effect, so long as the spell targets larger objects in the area and not them.
This is the same as spells like Darkness, you can't cast Darkness or Light upon an objects and creatures who are immune to magic, however these creatures would still be effected by the effects of darkness in the area it is cast. (immune to the spell but not it's effects)
Your statements amount to the same thing, medium and smaller creatures are immune to the spell (but not it's effects) Web cast upon an Orc in an open area, would fail, web cast upon a Dragon in the same space would succeed.
Which is contrary to the spell's description that states "Anyone" and "All creatures" without limitations due to size. The spell must work the same for creatures of all sizes.
This I'll chalk this one up to your reading comprehension failures. I said you don't get a save to see if you're an anchor. It anchors and then you get a save, and at the point of anchoring, you aren't fully stuck. You're the one who came up with the nonsensical suggestion that a creature would get a save to see if it could be used as an anchor, when the spell doesn't allow a save until after, AND not getting a save until after the anchor doesn't in any way change the spell or its effect on the creature being used.
Again, I quote the rules as written "Saving Throw: Reflex negates" and "Anyone in the effect's area ...must make a reflex save. If this save succeeds, the creature is not stuck in the webs and is free to act."
Which oppose what you are claiming. The web cannot stick to the dragon in any way (anchor, stick whatever) without the dragon being allowed a saving throw to resist, the spell is very clear on this.
Again it also comes down to the spell effecting Anyone and All creatures the same. Medium creatures are immune to the web anchoring itself to them in this way, why would this not be the same for "All Creatures"?
So you're contending that those THREE examples somehow prove that all "solid points" must be large and unable to move? Trying going into a college class and claiming that you can tell anything definitive from a sample size of three and see if the professor doesn't laugh you out of class. There's nothing about those three examples that a sitting dragon does not also meet. The sitting dragon is as large or larger, it's as solid, and it isn't moving.
The difference is that the Dragon is not immobile, it is not anchored unless it chooses to stay in one spot. The dragon can walk away
The other difference between a Dragon and a Wall, is that the Wall doesn't get a Reflex Save, the Wall has zero Dexterity, the Wall doesn't get a Strength check, nor can it make an Escape Artist skill check. The Dragon is not an Object, the Wall is not a Creature, the rules are specific in these definitions.
Objects in the area of effect of a web spell do not get any saves because they don't have the stats with which to make those saves (ie an orc who is under the effect of a sleep spell when Web is cast would not get a reflex save) Similairly a wall cannot make a reflex save.
When cast the Web spell anchors itself to any appropriate object in the area of effect provided that they are solid (between a pool of water and the ceiling would not qualify for obvious reasons) a wall that is effected by a Grease spell might not (since the web would possibly slide off) the only criteria being that they can't save or resist the webs (webs can't stick to a non-solid surface)
The Dragon, mentioned above, would get a saving throw to resist, and therefore can't be used to anchor the spell with since the Dragon only has to make a save vs the effect of the web, it can avoid being the point of anchoring, whereas a wall cannot avoid the web being anchored to it.
It physically exists prior to anchoring in the first place. The way the spell reads, it says that if the web has no anchor points, it collapses. It doesn't say "If it has no anchor points when cast." This would indicate that if an anchor point goes away somehow, the spell will as well.
If you want to talk sense, though, a web can stick to a floor or a person just fine without walls or a dragon, so opposing anchor points aren't even necessary for it to exist. Anchor points are just an arbitrary limitation the spell's creator put in.
True, I think maybe it just points more to the flaws in the way the spell was written.
Kinda like the writers were wronged by some earlier edition version and this time they would make it clear that it couldn't do that.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
No, you don't take up the challenge because your assertion is undefensible. It is utterly impossible for you to come up with a rule that defines everything a web can anchor to with no need for DM interpretation. Your post was nothing more than you trolling at me.
Easy to come up with a rule that defines everything a web can anchor to with no need for DM interpretation.
Any solid objects that can bear the weight of whatever creatures are caught in the web. Otherwise the web is pulled off and collapses or the object is pulled over. Solid being in relation to what the web is holding (web itself is light)
That is, casting it in an area between two old rotten fences would work, however if the fences could not bear the wieght of a medium sized creature that is caught in the spell, then that creature would either pull the fence over or pull the web off the fence along with some loose boards, whereupon the spell would collapse.
Easy enough, cast it between 2 small trees (3 inch trunk, 10 ft high) would easily entrap a medium sized creature, but a colosal dragon would tear the trees out of the ground, and so, again, the spell would fail.
Easy enough rule.
Easy to come up with a rule that defines everything a web can anchor to with no need for DM interpretation.
Any solid objects that can bear the weight of whatever creatures are caught in the web. Otherwise the web is pulled off and collapses or the object is pulled over. Solid being in relation to what the web is holding (web itself is light)
That is, casting it in an area between two old rotten fences would work, however if the fences could not bear the wieght of a medium sized creature that is caught in the spell, then that creature would either pull the fence over or pull the web off the fence along with some loose boards, whereupon the spell would collapse.
Easy enough, cast it between 2 small trees (3 inch trunk, 10 ft high) would easily entrap a medium sized creature, but a colosal dragon would tear the trees out of the ground, and so, again, the spell would fail.
Easy enough rule.
It is easy enough, but that's not what I asked him for. He claimed that the spell itself as written had rules that defined everything that could be used as a target and would require no DM interpretation. So I asked him to show me that rule.
Your rule is a good one, but it's your rule, not the spell's ;)
It is easy enough, but that's not what I asked him for. He claimed that the spell itself as written had rules that defined everything that could be used as a target and would require no DM interpretation. So I asked him to show me that rule.
Your rule is a good one, but it's your rule, not the spell's ;)
Yes, but as I had explained extensively (and regardless of if you understand or agree) creatures aren't solid objects, so how would you determine how solid an object is? It seems to be obvious to scale how solid the points the spell is anchored to vs the size of the creature, a dragon would tear a small tree out of the ground without even noticing it, so for purposes of trapping a dragon with the web spell, well epic fail.
This is within the rules of the web spell, (implied logical conclusion of following all the rules in the book) The web must be anchored to a solid object, if the object in question is removed then the web would colapse.
If the web is anchored between two walls and one or both of those walls are pushed over, then the web will collapse (since it must be anchored between two solid points)
It then stands to reason that if the web is anchored to any objects that the creatures trapped inside would pull over, knock down or break, that they could collapse the web by simply pulling the objects down.
So did the OP just post this to get sympathy and consolation, and then jump ship when it failed? 4 pages, and I've only seen him post once.
I don't blame him. It's just a lot of pointless bickering over who's interpretation of the spell is correct, which really doesn't matter unless anyone here is playing in the same group.
What I would give is 100 XP for all the creatures they burned to the ground. And then I'd give them the consequences of their action, which is at least one powerful druid reporting back to a more powerful Druid about this happening. And the suffering of villages all around is another thing that'll happen; PCs won't be able to be paid for jobs they're doing because the villages are barely able to keep going without their lumber supply.
Burn down a forest, you destroy a lot of things. No DM will refute that fact. But players have this way of forgetting it.
Yes, but as I had explained extensively (and regardless of if you understand or agree) creatures aren't solid objects,
HOLY COW! I knew it. We are all incorporeal beings.
so how would you determine how solid an object is?
Simple, if I can touch it. Then it is solid.
Because to me Experience Points earned from fighting monsters is earned from actually fighting and defeating the monsters themselves. It entails learning from your encounter with the monster. It entails facing a danger and after the fight you are now more experienced.
In the question of the original poster the player/group would not have faced the challenge of fighting any of those monsters so they would not earn Experience Points. They would not have known with 100% certainty that those monsters even existed.
There is also the possibility that good "monsters" living in the forest could die from this. And even if no good monsters are killed there is also the possibility that the livelihood of some non-evil people is destroyed. Setting a forest on fire to try and kill some monsters that may or may not be in the forest could easily be construed as going against some alignments.
I would laugh hilariously at the PC, grant him no experience points, and send a Circle of High Druids after him seeking vengeance.
Wow, you certainly sound like an ass to play with. It's not like there have never been cases where people have used forest fires to destroy their enemies. If I recall, there was a series of battles in a part of the world called Vietnam, some years ago, where that very tactic was a major part of the strategy. And I can certainly imagine dwarves torching forests to harm foes, or even just out of spite (this was done in the Warhammer setting). Would I award experieces points for it? Probably not, unless the players had some goal, such as "destroy the elf camp." Even then, I'd give a quest reward, not individual monster awards. Even so, the tone that many of you are using is exactly the kind of behavior the OP is commenting about...a player has an idea that is original or creative to him. Instead of a) allowing the action to happen and giving some reward for thinking or even b) explaining why such an action wouldn't achieve their results and wouldn't grant xp, you've chosen c) to insult and arbritrarily punish the character using unrealistic and overwhelming scenarios. This neither encourages the players to come up with new ideas, nor to avoid the actions you're punishing. It just leads to the DM horror stories we've all heard before.
For webbing the dragon, i would say the dragon fell down, would reduce the fall damage (to about 1/4th), and he'd be stuck down the chasm till he get's free, or perhaps he'd use his dragon breath on the webs, burning them off. It's creative and deserves to be effective, but doesn't deserve to kill the dragon outright.
But yeah; players of mine I would probably tell that this act gains no experience and is blatant meta-gaming unless they actually know for certain there's something in the forest; in which case it'd be allowed; earn them lots of enmity and depending on their track record shift them a step closer to evil.
I fail to see how burning down a forest for any reason is "evil." It might be irrational, or even stupid, but evil? How do you figure? Unless your game setting has strong eco-friendly themes.
Some people would consider wonton destruction to be evil. I would see it as being very chaotic.
They aren't just trees and random animals.
(Actually; if a player in my game would set a random animal on fire, that'd be an evil act too; it's still murder if you kill for no reason)
It's not a modern-day forest... if you burn down a forest, you are likely to destroy at least a few hamlets that are hidden in them; along with various other forms of intelligent life that happen to live there.
They aren't just trees and random animals.
(Actually; if a player in my game would set a random animal on fire, that'd be an evil act too; it's still murder if you kill for no reason)
Exactly. And by "exactly," I mean that everyone is going to have a different, subjective interpretation of why burning a forest may be evil or not-evil. It might be evil, if that's the way that DM is going with it.
For the OP, just laughing in the player's face, insulting him, arbritrarily telling him he can't do it, or punishing him with overwhelming force are not constructive ways to interact with a player as a DM. Sometimes the DM needs to step back and explain his in-game theories in an out of game way.
"You won't gain experience from burning down that forest because experience is given for overcoming challenges that are an actual threat to you."
"You, as a player, might not have thought of this, but your character knows that this forest is home to several wood elf settlements. Are you prepared to commit murder by arson?"
"In a fantasy world, sometimes forests and wild places of nature are defended by powerful guardians. I'm not saying that this is one of those places neccessarily, but I want you to be warned before you take this action."
Any of the above would have been a mature way to respond to the OP's idea, without steering him or flat out refusing.
What is and is not evil depends mainly on how the DM views the world (and hopefully his players share that view) which again just shows how hard it is to have a hard and set line between good and evil.
That's also why most people area simply sharing their view on the OP. It's never right to sneer at people for coming up with ideas, but personally I value common sense in my players, so unless they have a character that absolutely warrants this idea (low wis, never been in a forest before, something like that), I will screw the character over for coming up with this.
The same way I will screw someone over who thinks it'a good idea to test how hot something is by touching it. It helps players think before they scream things, which usually helps to make the game more interesting.