Flying and Web

[Pielorinho]

Using real-world physics is one thing. Using common-sense is another.

For myself, a web that stretches between two walls is plausible in a fantasy universe. I can see it in my imagination.

A web stretching between two candles that can hold fast an ogre? Can't see it in my mind's eye. It's too implausible.

However, I've ruled web like this in the past: the web ONLY stretches between the anchor points. A web stretched between two candles 10' apart would be about 6" high, 1" wide, and 10' long.

And I'd rule, ad-hoc, that this web isn't going to entangle any creature of size M or larger, and that creatures of size S or smaller would get a +6 (at least) on their reflex save to avoid entanglement. I'd also rule that they could drag the web and candles behind them at no penalty.

And I'd furthermore call this completely within the rules -- the most important rule, of course, being that the DM should exercise common sense.

(Of course, if a player wanted this trick to work, I'd make sure they knew how I ruled it before springing the ruling on them).

********************

On a related subject, we were dragonhunting once in a game. We really wanted to prepare a web spell to catch the dragon.

The "diametric and opposed points" we'd use? The dragon's wings at the top of a flap. Wings raise; wizard casts; webs appear. Wings don't go down. Dragon plummets.

Our DM, naturally, nixed this plan. What would y'all have done?

Daniel

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Howdy BF,

I thought that might be the case before I posted, so I actually looked it up (didn't want someone posting what you did, amazing how great minds think alike ).

From the few sources I reviewed, wax is definitely considered a solid until the candle burns, at which point it becomes a liquid, a gas, and a plasma. If someone finds a source that states differently, I'll be glad to change it to candleholders.

Glass also has the qualities of solids and liquids and is amorphous, but is really considered a solid.

Ditto for rocks that have no crystaline structure. These are also amorphous, but nobody considers them to not be solid.

 

[Broken Fang]

That is true...its considered an amprphous solid in its natural state (but solid none-the-less). I was just being a smart ass since I do teach the subject (Science that is).

Daniel - I would not allow it to be cast on a creature. Though it talks about solid points it does not reference creatures...I guess you might assume they count though.

Someone ask the Sage?

 

[dcollins]

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...

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

This may in fact be the most tortured interpretation of a D&D rule I've ever seen.

The phrase "solid and diametrically opposed points -- floor and ceiling, opposite walls, etc." clearly gives the parameters of what's acceptable, and candles/pebbles do not fit that model.

Furthermore, the wording and examples are almost entirely unchanged from the way they've been written by the original designer since the earliest 1st Ed. AD&D materials: "These masses must be anchored to two or more points -- floor and ceiling, opposite walls, etc. -- diametrically opposed." (1st Ed. PH p. 72). That same designer further writes: "If this spell is cast without two firm anchoring places, the webs collapse and entangle themselves, effectively negating the spell" (1st Ed. DMG, p. 45).


- There's no way that a candle/pebble/blade of grass counts as a "firm anchoring place" in normal parlance.
- There's no way that the 3rd Ed. designers meant to radically revise this requirement and yet use the exact same words and examples.
- There's no way that any of the designers, least of all Skip "the Sage", would agree that tiny unattached objects satisfy this requirement.
- The criticism of using "real world physics" is most legitimately levelled at the person interpreting the words "point" and "solid" in their most technical, modern-science definitions.

 

[Artoomis]

This may in fact be the most tortured interpretation of a D&D rule I've ever seen.

Indeed.

 

[KarinsDad]

- There's no way that a candle/pebble/blade of grass counts as a "firm anchoring place" in normal parlance.

You are absolutely correct.

There is only one problem with your argument.

The phrase "firm anchoring place" is not written anywhere in the 3E books.

If you want to run the 3E Web spell as per the 1E rules, go ahead.

If you want to interpret the examples of "floor and ceiling, opposite walls, etc." to mean non-flexible contiguous surfaces, go ahead.

But the spell says:

Effect: Webs in a 20 foot radius spread.

If you try to Web up a doorway, guess what? You still get a 20 foot radius spread.

At least, according to the spell. The spell states that it only collapses if there are not two diametrically opposed points for it to be anchored to, and if it collapses, it disappears.

Does this mean with your interpretation that the 20 foot radius spread collapses and takes the entire spell away if cast in a doorway since the outer edges are not held up by walls, ceilings, or floors?

Does it mean that the opposing walls must be 40 feet apart, no more, no less, for the spell to work?

Or, does it mean that smaller sizes are allowed? If so, what happens in the doorway case? Does the rest collapse (taking the entire spell away as per the spell description), or does it stay up because it is magic? Or, do you throw yet another change into the spell description that says that the rest collapses, but the portion in the doorway remains (which the spell does not state)?

For your 1E interpretation to hold, it must be able to explain different cases as per the spell description.

 

[Pielorinho]

KD, if I cast Web in an outdoor area, there are certain to be dustmotes floating around in the air. Can I anchor the Web to two dustmotes?

If I can, then it's also an excellent anti-falling spell: I can cast it beneath me on two diametrically opposed dustmotes, and suddenly there's a web floating in midair that will catch me.

I'm wondering whether you're serious about this ruling, or whether you're trying to demonstrate the silliness of 3E rules.

Daniel

 

[Felix]

I would have to say that KarinsDad must be taking the pi-s*.

But, just in case, since we are talking syntax here...

di'a'met'ri'cal, adj. 1. of, pertaining to, or along a diameter. 2. in direct opposition; being at opposite extremes; complete: diametrical opposites; a diametrical difference.Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary** p. 547***

Web Spell, PHB p. 272
Web creates a many layered mass of strong, sticky strands...These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points...

You cannot have more than two complete opposite extremes on a diameter, and thus, by the wording of this spell, you can create a situation which is impossibe to exist according to the English language! If there is more than one diameter, those points cease to be opposites: in this case the spell crumples (anchored to...opposed points).

OBVIOUSLY, the only way to stop a Web spell from crumpling is to contain it to one dimension: one diameter.

But, LAWS NO! That can't happen! It says in the spell description that Web creates a "multi-layered mass"! Has no-one noticed this clear blunder by WTC? Writing a spell whose description is not only unclear, but contradictory! To think this awkward wording has been around since first edition!

Until Matlock gets here to sort this out, I am going to have to declare this spell broken.


*Uninted Kingdom slang, not an insult.
**This would be the Updated Revised Deluxe Edition.
***Emphasis lexographer's.

 

[Umbran]

Isn't it fun to pick and choose which definition of a word is most convenient in interpreting rules?

However, even if you can pick and choose on "solid", alone, there's another word in there that makes it difficult - "anchor". To "anchor" something means to hold it fast against the forces exerted upon it. You cannot anchor to an object that is lightweight, or easily moved, as those things would not hold anything in place.

Sorry, KarinsDad, but when two definitions of a word are possible choices, one is supposed to look at the context in which the word is used in order to make a reasonable choice. Given the context, your choice is not reasonable.

[Edit: Oh, one other thing - if you want to play with definitions - a "point" (in the mathematical sense- having zero dimensions) cannot be "solid" (in the mathematical sense - having three dimensions) Since a "solid point" is a contradition, the spell disappears in a puff of logic. So, please start being reasonable!]

 

[Felix]

Just to be thorough, I checked my Updated Revised Deluxe Edition of the Webser's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language's entry of "anchor".

There are 22 definitions of the word. Nouns, verbs, transitive verbs, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Umbran: your dissection of Web's description's contradictions is much more elegant than mine. tips hat