Web and fireball combo

[Infiniti2000]

Since a web provide total cover after 20ft, the furthest in you can throw a fireball is 20ft. How hard it is to reach even that far, however, is up to the DM. I have to retract my previous statement, however, that a fireball will burn through as much of the web as it's area of effect will allow. Thus, it's impossible that total cover can be gained from the fireball (if the fireball effect would reach you). If total cover cannot occur, then it stands to reason that cover cannot occur. So, let's say you are on the edge of the web -- no cover, but entangled. Note that this will always be the situation for a fireball because it will always reach you, burning away the webs up to your square. When the fireball reaches you, what happens first? Are you burned by the fireball first or by the webs burning? If the former, you get the entanglement penalty and no cover. If the latter, you get no entanglement penalty. I'd say it's simultaneous and thus equal to the former.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Since a web provide total cover after 20ft, the furthest in you can throw a fireball is 20ft. How hard it is to reach even that far, however, is up to the DM. I have to retract my previous statement, however, that a fireball will burn through as much of the web as it's area of effect will allow. Thus, it's impossible that total cover can be gained from the fireball (if the fireball effect would reach you). If total cover cannot occur, then it stands to reason that cover cannot occur. So, let's say you are on the edge of the web -- no cover, but entangled. Note that this will always be the situation for a fireball because it will always reach you, burning away the webs up to your square. When the fireball reaches you, what happens first? Are you burned by the fireball first or by the webs burning? If the former, you get the entanglement penalty and no cover. If the latter, you get no entanglement penalty. I'd say it's simultaneous and thus equal to the former.

Excellent point. As a burst, the Fireball progresses from the point of origin toward the victim, so by the time it gets within 5' of him/her the Web provides no cover. Logical and consistent with the intuition (for those who share it, anyway) that, on balance, being entangled in a Web when Fireballed is supposed to be not helpful, not neutral, but a BAD thing.

 

[KarinsDad]

Thus, it's impossible that total cover can be gained from the fireball (if the fireball effect would reach you). If total cover cannot occur, then it stands to reason that cover cannot occur.

The one does not follow from the other.

The reason total cover cannot be achieved is that the radius of the Fireball is the same as the distance of total cover (again, assuming as you did that the fireball effect would reach a creature within the web).

This says nothing about whether cover can be achieved because there are no rules that Webs do not provide cover from fire. Spreads might turn corners, but they do not completely ignore cover.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The one does not follow from the other.

Sure it does.

The reason total cover cannot be achieved is that the radius of the Fireball is the same as the distance of total cover (again, assuming as you did that the fireball effect would reach a creature within the web).

That's why I said "if it would reach you", so therefore assume a widened fireball.

This says nothing about whether cover can be achieved because there are no rules that Webs do not provide cover from fire. Spreads might turn corners, but they do not completely ignore cover.

Cover cannot be achieved because by the time the fire gets to you, there is not 5ft of web between you and the fire (whether you consider the point of origin or the nearest point).

 

[KarinsDad]

That's why I said "if it would reach you", so therefore assume a widened fireball.

A Widened Fireball still has a max radius of 20 feet from its origin point in a Web spell. Beyond that, any web gives total cover and total cover prevents the radius from expanding. There are no rules that the web burns away instantaneously and in fact, the Web spell states differently (see below).

You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.

Cover cannot be achieved because by the time the fire gets to you, there is not 5ft of web between you and the fire (whether you consider the point of origin or the nearest point).

That is an assumption not based in the rules.

Fireball is an instantaneous spell. The same instant that it attacks the Web cover, it attacks the PC.

You are using some form of real world physics to assume the fire reaches the web cover and destroys it before it reaches the creature. The spell does not do this. It's instantaneous magic.

The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast

Beyond that, the Web spell is not instantaneously destroyed either.

Any fire can set the webs alight and burn away 5 square feet in 1 round.

Even though all of the 5 foot squares in the Fireball radius are attacked by fire instantaneously, it takes a round for each of those squares of web to burn away. There are no hardness or hit points for a Web, hence, it does not get destroyed earlier. It gets destroyed as per the Web spell.

Having the Fireball spell completely destroy the Web instantaneously is a house rule. Having the Fireball spell completely destroy the Web instantaneously 5 feet at a time (so that the cover recedes) is also a house rule.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Some good points, KarinsDad, but I think it's overly confident to state that you're totally in line with rules and those disagreeing are making house rules. Some of what people saying is definitely house rule material, i.e. chances for lobbing that bead into the web, but other things are merely interpretation of ambiguous rules (as is the norm). I think your best case is made based on the 5' burned per round part of the spell description; it gives me the most pause in my thinking, for certain. On the other hand, the spell says that a flaming sword can burn away the webs as easily as brushing normal webs aside, and I think it's safe to assume that if you had someone with a flaming sword (or to be less ridiculous, a torch) in each of the 5' squares, the web would all burn up. A fireball deals damage to all of those squares in the same round, so it gets them all. By contrast, a normal fire burning at the edge of the web catches the edge on fire and propagates at 5' per round, I'd suggest. I suspect this is the thinking behind the spell description, actually. Finally, even though the fireball spell is instantaneous, it is a burst spell, and the rules clearly explain the mechanics of that in which the effect does radiate from the center outwards. It is not like, say, Flame Strike, which comes from above and so would affect all areas in a horizontal plane simultaneously. So, there is plenty reason to think the Fireball 1) does enough damage to instantly burn away webs and 2) makes the web line recede (however quickly) since it expands outward in an instant doing at least as much damage as a flaming sword. Now, this is not a house rule, but an interpretation of the rules. I think a valid alternative interpretation is that even though flames burn away at the web as easily as brushing normal webs away, it simply takes a full round for any sort of fire effect to destroy webbing to the point where it no longer provides cover. What I can never accept is that a fireball can only progress 20' into a web effect and then is somehow blocked because of the total cover rule. The fireball is a burst that fills in all available space, and clearly since the first 19 feet do not completely stop the fireball's flames from encroaching, there is flame right up against that 20th foot, which is less than 5' away and thus is not blocked by any cover whatsoever. By contrast, an arrow is targeted and has a miss chance due to cover. An arrow does not fill up a space but is a single, simple object that can be blocked by hitting a strand of web. Much like, say, the bead of an undetonated fireball.

 

[KarinsDad]

On the other hand, the spell says that a flaming sword can burn away the webs as easily as brushing normal webs aside, and I think it's safe to assume that if you had someone with a flaming sword (or to be less ridiculous, a torch) in each of the 5' squares, the web would all burn up. A fireball deals damage to all of those squares in the same round, so it gets them all. By contrast, a normal fire burning at the edge of the web catches the edge on fire and propagates at 5' per round, I'd suggest. I suspect this is the thinking behind the spell description, actually. Finally, even though the fireball spell is instantaneous, it is a burst spell, and the rules clearly explain the mechanics of that in which the effect does radiate from the center outwards. It is not like, say, Flame Strike, which comes from above and so would affect all areas in a horizontal plane simultaneously. So, there is plenty reason to think the Fireball 1) does enough damage to instantly burn away webs and 2) makes the web line recede (however quickly) since it expands outward in an instant doing at least as much damage as a flaming sword. Now, this is not a house rule, but an interpretation of the rules.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion.

First off, a Fireball is not a Burst. It is a Spread.

Second, your definition of instantaneous is a gradual one and that is not what instantaneous states. So, if Fireball stated that it blew away webs instantaneously or Web stated that fire blows through it instantaneously, your interpretation would have merit. But, Web states that it supplies total cover after 20 feet and that burning requires a round per 5 foot section for any fire. Nothing in either spell indicates that this total cover or the webs are destroyed.

Third, a flaming sword does not burn away a Web. It slashes them away:

A magic flaming sword can slash them away as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs.

Nothing in this sentence indicates that webs burn away quickly.


So sure, if you selectively ignore how the rules are actually written and slightly modify them to match your POV, your POV can be anything.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

No need to be snippy with the accusation of "selectively [ignoring] how the rules are actually written." First, you're right, it's a spread, not a burst. Doesn't change anything here, in fact a spread turns corners but is otherwise like a burst, so my point is better made with reference to the correct type. My bad, thanks for pointing it out. Next, we can argue (and we are) about "instantaneous" but no one (not your nor I) is bending or twisting rules, but just trying to interpret then. If something is truly instantaneous, it makes no sense at all for it to be a burst or spread because it is meaningless for an effect to radiate out form a point of origin if it applies everywhere in the area simultaneously. So if my interpretation conflicts with true meaning of "instantaneous" then yours violates the true meaning of a "spread." No one here can claim to be flat out correct on this point. Third, I think you are reading too literally and picking at nits when you point out that a flaming sword is said to "slash" rather than "burn" away a Web. Clearly, the fire is the responsible agent since a non-flaming sword is probably not up to the task otherwise it would be pointless to specify "flaming." And, I would argue, "as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs" does, in fact imply something about the ease or speed with which fire burns away a Web. Does it make it clear? No. But this is about interpretation, not adherence to or violation of some clear rule as you make it out to be.

So thanks for validating my entitlement to an opinion, but I took that for granted. I also take for granted that when the rules are not clear on certain points, we are all welcome to agree and disagree on interpretation and that no one is justified in accusing others of willful ignorance or distortion when the rules are simply silent or ambiguous on certain points. I would appreciate the courtesy of more polite discourse along those lines. Thanks.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion.

First off, a Fireball is not a Burst. It is a Spread.

Second, your definition of instantaneous is a gradual one and that is not what instantaneous states. So, if Fireball stated that it blew away webs instantaneously or Web stated that fire blows through it instantaneously, your interpretation would have merit. But, Web states that it supplies total cover after 20 feet and that burning requires a round per 5 foot section for any fire. Nothing in either spell indicates that this total cover or the webs are destroyed.

Third, a flaming sword does not burn away a Web. It slashes them away:



Nothing in this sentence indicates that webs burn away quickly.


So sure, if you selectively ignore how the rules are actually written and slightly modify them to match your POV, your POV can be anything.

 

[KarinsDad]

Third, I think you are reading too literally and picking at nits when you point out that a flaming sword is said to "slash" rather than "burn" away a Web. Clearly, the fire is the responsible agent since a non-flaming sword is probably not up to the task otherwise it would be pointless to specify "flaming."

Web states that any fire takes a round to burn a 5 foot section.

Web states that a flaming sword can slash. Not burn, slash. A Flaming Mace does not have this property. A Non-Flaming Sword does not have this property. Fire might allow the slash, but it does not instantaneously burn the web away. Otherwise, a Flaming Mace would do so.

Your interpretation is adding a "quick burn" concept that the spell explicitly states as a slow burn.


This is called inferring. The spell does not state what you are interpreting, you are adding new concepts that the spell itself does not state. Plus, your inference is the opposite of what the spell states. In cases like that, yes I believe that your interpretation is extremely suspect and ignoring two aspects of the Web spell that are explicit.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That is an assumption not based in the rules.

Fireball is an instantaneous spell. The same instant that it attacks the Web cover, it attacks the PC.

It is based in the rules. Fireball is a spread. It goes around cover. I don't agree that by the time the fireball spreads to within the web, 20ft away from the point of origin has total cover.

That's how spreads and cover work.

You're arguing as if it were a burst. It may be instantaneous, but it's still a spread effect, not burst. Fireball will go around total cover and in this case, the web will never provide even cover (against any spread spell)