Flying and Web

[Artoomis]

So with tree trunks would you need a vertical web instead of horizontal?

Sure. But with three-dimensional movement, that makes sense. Of course, the WEB would be quite thin, and so it would be easy to get out of it if made your strength check.

Basically, WEB is not very useful against flying creatures but it might be used in certain circumstances.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure. But with three-dimensional movement, that makes sense. Of course, the WEB would be quite thin, and so it would be easy to get out of it if made your strength check.

Why?

The spell does not state that the surfaces must be parallel to each other and contiguous. "These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points". It could be two candles.

It's magic.

You fly between any two trees, someone casts Web which grabs the branches (i.e. surfaces) of those trees, you are stuck as if it were two stone walls.

In fact, the spell description says nothing about how strong the surfaces must be, nor how contiguous those surfaces must be.

Any assumption along those lines would be you own spin based on real world physics.

It could be two spider webs and the web spell would not collapse and it would be just as strong as between two rocks.

Why?

Because it is magic and two spider webs at diametrically opposed points would be two solid surfaces. Enough to satisfy the requirements of the spell.

The designer's intent may have been for it to be non-flexible contiguous surfaces, but the spell does not state that.

 

[Artoomis]

Why?

The spell does not state that the surfaces must be parallel to each other and contiguous. "These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points". It could be two candles.

It's magic.

You fly between any two trees, someone casts Web which grabs the branches (i.e. surfaces) of those trees, you are stuck as if it were two stone walls.

In fact, the spell description says nothing about how strong the surfaces must be, nor how contiguous those surfaces must be.

Any assumption along those lines would be you own spin based on real world physics.

It could be two spider webs and the web spell would not collapse and it would be just as strong as between two rocks.

Why?

Because it is magic and two spider webs at diametrically opposed points would be two solid surfaces. Enough to satisfy the requirements of the spell.

The designer's intent may have been for it to be non-flexible contiguous surfaces, but the spell does not state that.

The objects must be "solid." Examples given are floor and ceiling and opposite walls.

Extrapolating that to "candles" or "rocks" (well, except really big rocks) is your own spin on this spell (I like your pun, BTW, so I stole it). The spell pretty clearly requires "solid" objects meaning basically immovable - a candle is only technically solid, anything attached to a candle has no strength at all.

Clearly, the examples are there for a reason - to help clarify what is meant by solid, diametrically opposed objects. If the spell was meant to be used between any solid objects, no matter how fragile or mobile, then they certainly would have included a better example to indicate that - something like your example of two candles.

 

[mikebr99]

Why?

The spell does not state that the surfaces must be parallel to each other and contiguous. "These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points". It could be two candles.

It's magic.

You fly between any two trees, someone casts Web which grabs the branches (i.e. surfaces) of those trees, you are stuck as if it were two stone walls.

In fact, the spell description says nothing about how strong the surfaces must be, nor how contiguous those surfaces must be.

Any assumption along those lines would be you own spin based on real world physics.

It could be two spider webs and the web spell would not collapse and it would be just as strong as between two rocks.

Why?

Because it is magic and two spider webs at diametrically opposed points would be two solid surfaces. Enough to satisfy the requirements of the spell.

The designer's intent may have been for it to be non-flexible contiguous surfaces, but the spell does not state that.

I'll second this... The web itself has enough flex to effectively cancel out any forces that the bug is applying... therefore nothing is being applied to the anchors.

 

[KarinsDad]

The objects must be "solid." Examples given are floor and ceiling and opposite walls.

Candles are solid.

Extrapolating that to "candles" or "rocks" (well, except really big rocks) is your own spin on this spell (I like your pun, BTW, so I stole it). The spell pretty clearly requires "solid" objects meaning basically immovable - a candle is only technically solid, anything attached to a candle has no strength at all.

The spell says nothing about immovable.

You are adding that based on the examples.

What if the ceiling is fragile or porous? Does the spell suddenly stop working?

Well, according to you it does.

Clearly, the examples are there for a reason - to help clarify what is meant by solid, diametrically opposed objects.

Examples are just that: examples. They are not all inclusive sets.

This is similar to the question:

If someone with Freedom of Movement falls into the ocean, will they immediately fall to the bottom as if the water isn't there.

WotC's answer on this: Do not use real world physics to determine how magic works. The spell does what it states that it does.

Web says two or more POINTS, not two surfaces.

Web says solid. Hence, no water or oil or air.

It does not state ANYTHING about how strong or flexible or "immovable" those points must be.


Ask Caliban. He'll tell you.

 

[Artoomis]

KarinsDad:

According to you, then, even two blades of grass would work. This means the spell could be cast nearly anywhere, for there is almost always something there.

Heck, I suppose you could carry two pebbles with you, and, as part of the spell, toss them in the air to form your anchor points.

C'mon now - you are being silly. But, if you want to ignore the clear intent that is implied by the examples, you go right ahead.

 

[Artoomis]

What if the ceiling is fragile or porous? Does the spell suddenly stop working?

Well, according to you it does.

Actually, in that case the ceiling is probably not "solid."

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad:

According to you, then, even two blades of grass would work. This means the spell could be cast nearly anywhere, for there is almost always something there.

They could as long as they are diametrically opposed.

Heck, I suppose you could carry two pebbles with you, and, as part of the spell, toss them in the air to form your anchor points.

Most DMs would not allow it since it would be 3 partial actions to do this in one round. But with Timestop, 2 pebbles and Web, no problem.

C'mon now - you are being silly. But, if you want to ignore the clear intent that is implied by the examples, you go right ahead.

Silly? Moi? Did I put up the two pebble example?

No, I am being literal.

From my point of view, you are being silly since you are not maintaining an open mind and using very vague examples (e.g. ceilings, floors, and walls can be made of dirt and straw in a hut) as the only possible uses of a spell, even though the spell explicitly states otherwise. It states points, not surfaces. It states solid, not immovable solid.

 

[Tobold Hornblower]

So couldn't the flying character be used as a 'POINT'? He's solid.

Stretch the web from the flyer to the ground? If the flying character makes his save, the web would collapse, but otherwise it seems fine.

 

[Broken Fang]

Hey KD...I agree with you but candles are amorphous (qualities of solid and liquid). I agree that they don't have to be solid imoveable objects.