Can Web be cast amongst trees?

[Nail]

During our last game, the DM gave us a little surprise ruling, in the middle of combat.

We were in the woods, and being attacked by Dire Wolves. Our Wiz tried to cast Web, and the DM said: "Doesn't work. Sorry, but you need two or more solid archor points, and the trees don't count. If the trees were 10 feet in diameter, the web would be archored properly....but these trees are much smaller than that."

Huh.

We talked about it briefly, then moved on, allowing the ruling to stand. (After all, we came to "kill things and take their stuff", not argue about rules, eh? Besides, dire wolves are push-overs at our level.)

But I'm firmly convinced even a few mature trees would be enough for the Web spell to work, as long as they weren't saplings. Concider all the connecting points between even 1 tree and the ground surrounding it! And a tree of even 4" diameter is very solid....just try bending one over. Surely a forest of such trees is sufficent to archor a web spell!!!

What do you think?

Here's the relevant SRD text:

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.

 

[robberbaron]

Sounds like you were about to spoil his plans so he screwed you over.

I don't see why you can't anchor a Web on trees. So long as they are capable of bearing the weight, that is.

 

[mikebr99]

During our last game, the DM gave us a little surprise ruling, in the middle of combat.

We were in the woods, and being attacked by Dire Wolves. Our Wiz tried to cast Web, and the DM said: "Doesn't work. Sorry, but you need two or more solid archor points, and the trees don't count. If the trees were 10 feet in diameter, the web would be archored properly....but these trees are much smaller than that."

What do you think?

I think that he forgot to pass around whatever he was smoking last night... Crucifixion! Nail 'em up I SAY! NAIL some sense into 'em!


Mike

 

[0-hr]

Common sense, the rules-as-written, and even the later half of The Hobbit, all agree that trees make an excellent place for big webs.

 

[drnuncheon]

Awhahahaaaattt?

I can see not anchoring a web to a sapling, but requiring a 10' diameter tree?

I guess you can't anchor it to a building, either, because very few of those have 10' thick walls.

So you can use it...hmm. Underground?

Pfft. Bad call. If he's got a history of it, drop him. If it's a momentary brain fart, play on.

J

 

[the Jester]

I don't agree with his ruling, but I do agree with how you handled it- discuss for a moment, then move on.

 

[Liquidsabre]

Text for the spell states "two or more solid and diametrically opposed points". I think a forest of trees qualifies.

 

[Nail]

I don't agree with his ruling, but I do agree with how you handled it- discuss for a moment, then move on.

That's our usual MO, if we can swing it. Far more important to just play

....and really, the DM's a great guy, and I really enjoy playing in his adventures.....this ruling just threw me.

Also, to be fair....he might have said "5 foot diameter" trees.

Okay, so what sort of argument can I use to persuade him? The bit about "even 4-inch trees are pretty darn solid" didn't do it.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

You could just wave your hands and say in a mysterious voice "Its...magic!!!"

If THAT doesn't convince him, then I don't know what will. Heck, one of the favorite tactics of the Sorcerer PC in my game is to place webs between trees or other such objects. Even at high level, its a good spell to drive an enemy crazy.

 

[Videssian]

...and really, the DM's a great guy, and I really enjoy playing in his adventures.....this ruling just threw me.

Aww, thanks!..

Being the DM in question, my take on it is based on the following excerpt from the spell description: ".. these masses must be anchored by two or more solid and diametrically opposed points - floor and cieling, opposite walls, or the like.."

What I see here from the examples are that the anchoring surfaces are large flat solid surfaces. I think if you can move through a space, that space isn't solid enough for the purposes of this spell. In your typical forest where you can see enemies coming from a substantial distance away (and in the relevant case, I think something like 100' away), there's trees, but small thin ones and somewhat spread out. As well, all of the forest spaces could be moved through by PCs, and I imposed no movement penalties. In other words, sparse woods.. so I think it's reasonable here that there simply wasn't adequate anchoring points.. which has actually been to their favor since for this exact reason in a previous encounter, I thought about having their opponent(s) use Web but decided against it for this very reason..

Web is great indoors.. but outside, in many circumstances, it just doesn't work well. Cases where it would would include a narrow ravine (anchored on both sides, if the ravine walls are adequately high). One could make a case I know for any two particular thin trees to be the anchor points, since those trees are opposite each other (by definition).. but while the web would be there, there wouldn't be enough anchorage to provide a real barrier.. hence, for practical purposes, the Web isn't really there..

That's my take on it..
ttyl,
Videssian