KarinsDad said:
Here are my two rules. My position follows both of them.
I'll provide three more rules:
Rule #3: 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).
Rule #4: 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.
Rule #5: Saving Throw: Reflex negates; see text
For completeness, I'll include the following rule (unused by either of us, but note they are out of order):
Rule #6: 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.
Your points 1 and 2 I agree with. Your point 3 is the one I disagree with because it is incomplete. It should be modified as follows:
3) The spell says movement rules for moving through while within
when a saving throw is made.
You ignore the "when the spell is cast" rule.
Yes.
You use the "If this save succeeds" rule to infer a save must exist. The "when the spell is cast" rule trumps that rule. Why? Because if there is no save, then there is no what happens if you save or do not save clause.
I can agree with that, which leads us to the third option, but certainly not to your interpretation.
This concept that you have a rule when I do not is totally invalid, made up, and ignores the facts. I have two rules, you have one.
Actually, you have 1, not counting the web spell (as I pointed out before). Only now do you claim to use the same one I claimed supported my side. (Without the one for the web spell and the one you only now adopt as supporting your side, it would be zero.) However, I've provided three more above (since we're using the web spell after all), so I'm in the lead 4-2.
You cannot just ignore this sentence as if it does not exist. No other sentence in the spell description trjmps this with regard to whether a save is made or not. It IS the sentence on whether to make a save.
There should be no trumping of any rules. You're effectively arguing to trump TWO rules while I'm arguing to trump ONE. You have yet to show substantiation why you are allowed to trump TWO rules. You are not arguing
for your interpretation, you are only arguing
against mine. Please explain to me why you don't require a save
and yet still use the two rules clearly predicated on a saving throw. I have not heard any arguments in that respect despite my repeated requests.
Let's follow through the process of adjudicating this: A new combatant Bill gets bull rushed into an existing web.
A. We start with Rule #2 that requires he be subject to the spell.
B. We then read the spell and find no clear indication of what happens to a a new combatant. We find that he is entangled (we all agree on this I hope) and the bit about the flaming web, but the main paragraph is the problem area.
C. We then get to rule #1, the first part of the main paragraph and find that no save is required. Or does it? What does Rule #5 mean? Looking in the paragraph further we find that the "see text" means that "Reflex negates" is not entirely true. If you make the save, you do not entirely negate the spell as per the rule on negating, namely "The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw." Surely, then, the "see text" on Rule #5 modifies the "negates" and not the requirement of a saving throw. This directly IMO contradicts the text (and I don't think that's a good thing or in anyone's favor quite honestly).
D. So, Rule #5 indicates that a save is required for the spell effect. At this point, we have one of two choices. The first is to throw out the entire main paragraph because it is predicated upon a save made only when cast (Rule #1) (valid interpretation). The second is to use the main paragraph and ignore Rule #2 (my interpretation). (choice three now that I think about it) The third choice is to require a save for the entangled effect such that reflex negates and still ignore the main paragraph (valid interpretation, but too bizarre to seriously consider).
E. Another option is to ignore Rules 3, 4, and 5 and read the main paragraph assuming a successful save (your interpretation).
PS. Hopefully, my argument is cogent and I have shown that I'm not here just to hear myself arguing. I think I have provided substantial evidence to prove my case. Can you at least agree to the third option (i.e. entangled but no other movement rules)?
i hope things work out in time.
