Web and fireball combo

[Magus Coeruleus]

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)

I have to disagree to an extent here. Spreads go around cover because there is a space to go around that doesn't have total cover. In other words, Fireball can only spread around a wall if there's a space for it to do so. If you go with KD's interpretation, then all of those Web squares 20'+ away provide total cover, so there's no way for the FB to spread around--it's as if there's a wall. Mind you, I disagree with his interpretation of the exact circumstances under which there is cover (I think he's treating it too much like a wall per se), but he's being consistent.

That said, I still have to disagree with his interpretation. I was thinking more and wondering other scenarios, for instance, would Web provide cover against a fog or cloud type spell? I don't think so, but why not? I think it's because it seems that the cover should NOT work against things that can easily flow around and between strands of web. But that intuition is not a rule, so I looked at Web again more closely just now, and noticed this highly relevant passage, i.e the one about cover:

If you have at least 5 feet of web between you and an opponent, it provides cover. If you have at least 20 feet

Emphasis mine. Aha! Web does NOT necessarily provide universal cover. It provides cover against OPPONENTS. Now clearly it will provide cover against things other than just opponents (e.g. debris randomly picked up by wind), but the rule only guarantees cover against opponents. Now KD and anyone else can interpret that as meaning any and all attacks or effects caused by an opponent, and the rules don't contradict that, but I think the intent is for some judgement to be applied. For instance, does 20' of web provide cover against magical darkness, a Cloudkill, a turn effect? I think not. I think some common sense should be applied as to what should be affected, but it's anyone's guess what's sensible.

Oh, and KD, if you're saying like I think you are that a flaming sword can slash through Web but a flaming mace can't, I can respect that view but clearly we have very different ideas of the strengths and weaknesses of Web and I think I'm going to leave it at that. It certainly would have been helpful, if it was the intent, that they say the Web be vulnerable to weapons only if they do slashing and fire damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Actually, that is not how spreads and cover work. Spreads can turn corners, but opponents do not lose their cover bonus due to a spread. Neither the spread rules nor the cover rules indicate that this occurs (and in fact, the FAQ states that cover is not lost for Spreads or any other areas).

Say a Spread went 20 feet and then stops (like Fireball) and a character was behind a total cover tower shield at that point (with the Tower Shield cover provided on the edge towards the origin point). The spread would not affect him:

12345
OFFFT
67890

It could not get into his square because it does not have enough area. Starting at origin point O, it would have to first go either into square 4 or square 9 (somehow or other) and it would then not have enough area remaining to get to square T. If the target was 5 feet closer, than the spread would turn corners and get to him from squares 3 and 8. Then, he would lose total cover, but still maintain cover.

Ruling that it "turned the corner" over the top of his Tower Shield and affected that entire square does not match the cover rules.

The same applies to a Web because a Spread does not state that it ignores the cover or total cover rules. That's an inference.

Now, whether the attack is considered from the point of origin and hence gets total cover (my POV) or from the square next to the character and gets zero cover (your POV) is debatable.

I really do see your POV on this and I agree an emanation would work that way, but I also see that instantaneous spreads and bursts do not change the cover rules and that "a many-layered mass of strong, sticky strands" can and even should provide cover.

Emphasis mine. Aha! Web does NOT necessarily provide universal cover. It provides cover against OPPONENTS. Now clearly it will provide cover against things other than just opponents (e.g. debris randomly picked up by wind), but the rule only guarantees cover against opponents.

Interesting point.

But what does it mean? Does it mean melee attacks? Missile attacks? Rays? Other spells? Aren't all of these attacks typically made by opponents?

I suspect it means that a Web spell provides increasing cover as an attack goes further through the Web, but you are correct in that it does not actually state this.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

I was about to agree with KD on the cover/spread issue but I reread the rules and Infiniti2000 is in the right here. From the SRD: "Cover grants you a +2 bonus on Reflex saves against attacks that originate or burst out from a point on the other side of the cover from you. Note that spread effects can extend around corners and thus negate this cover bonus." It is precisely that difference from a burst, i.e. that it spreads around, that negates cover versus a spread where it would apply to a burst.

Regarding what sorts of things by opponents suffer from cover, I think that's the wide open question. A simple solution is to say simply everything, but for many there are just certain effects that don't seem like they should be blocked. I strongly feel that a poisonous gas should not be blocked by the cover provided by a Web, for instance. But how far one is willing to go is personal. I can respect the position that (assuming it isn't burned away quickly enough) a Web's sticky strands provide enough insulation to provide some cover against a Fireball, even if I wouldn't necessarily rule it that way myself. Letting 20' totally block fire is something I just could go for, but again that's a choice of how to interpret cover provided from opponents.

 

[KarinsDad]

I was about to agree with KD on the cover/spread issue but I reread the rules and Infiniti2000 is in the right here. From the SRD: "Cover grants you a +2 bonus on Reflex saves against attacks that originate or burst out from a point on the other side of the cover from you. Note that spread effects can extend around corners and thus negate this cover bonus." It is precisely that difference from a burst, i.e. that it spreads around, that negates cover versus a spread where it would apply to a burst.

I'll concede that point.

Regarding what sorts of things by opponents suffer from cover, I think that's the wide open question. A simple solution is to say simply everything, but for many there are just certain effects that don't seem like they should be blocked. I strongly feel that a poisonous gas should not be blocked by the cover provided by a Web, for instance.

Wouldn't poisonous gas be a spread?

 

[javcs]

Yes, presumably.

Fireball is also a spread as you yourself stated earlier.

If you're blocking fireballs, you'd also have to block the gas in order to be consistent.

 

[Infiniti2000]

MC, KD, so you guys agree that a spread effect (e.g. fireball) would go at least 20ft into a web with no cover gained? The point of contention is that the spread effect (e.g. widened fireball) could not go further? Ignoring the point about "opponent" for this (good catch btw), what keeps the spread effect from continuing? Unlike a tower shield (or a wall), the spread effect does not actually need to go around anything. It spreads through the web and, as it goes, cover is lost (entirely within 5ft).

The concept of "going around" offers (if I may suggest it) and non-instantaneous life-like progression of the spread effect. Quite honestly, I think it's the correct interpretation per the rules on spread effects and, to a lesser extent, cover.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

MC, KD, so you guys agree that a spread effect (e.g. fireball) would go at least 20ft into a web with no cover gained? The point of contention is that the spread effect (e.g. widened fireball) could not go further? Ignoring the point about "opponent" for this (good catch btw), what keeps the spread effect from continuing? Unlike a tower shield (or a wall), the spread effect does not actually need to go around anything. It spreads through the web and, as it goes, cover is lost (entirely within 5ft).

The concept of "going around" offers (if I may suggest it) and non-instantaneous life-like progression of the spread effect. Quite honestly, I think it's the correct interpretation per the rules on spread effects and, to a lesser extent, cover.

The rules don't make clear that you wouldn't get cover, just that the spread could circumvent cover by going through spaces without the cover to reach the target spot. Now, I would not grant cover because I feel that the fire can go between and around strands, and probably burn right through them, but that's my interpretation. If you just think of the Web squares within 20' as "cover squares" then that's not the case. I think KD would count those has providing cover. Thus, I would not say a Fireball is blocked after 20' whereas KD (I think) would say it does. I think the idea with Web is that the cumulative effect of layers and layers of webbing is such that 5' or less provides no meaningful cover, 10 or 15 provides cover, and 20 provides total because of the virtual impossibility that an opponent can get something through all of those layers.

So I think at this point the issue is not really how a spread works but rather how the strands of a Web spell are affected by a Fireball, as compared to other sources of fire or other attacks. Maybe KD can clarify on his side.

 

[KarinsDad]

The rules don't make clear that you wouldn't get cover, just that the spread could circumvent cover by going through spaces without the cover to reach the target spot. Now, I would not grant cover because I feel that the fire can go between and around strands, and probably burn right through them, but that's my interpretation. If you just think of the Web squares within 20' as "cover squares" then that's not the case. I think KD would count those has providing cover. Thus, I would not say a Fireball is blocked after 20' whereas KD (I think) would say it does. I think the idea with Web is that the cumulative effect of layers and layers of webbing is such that 5' or less provides no meaningful cover, 10 or 15 provides cover, and 20 provides total because of the virtual impossibility that an opponent can get something through all of those layers.

So I think at this point the issue is not really how a spread works but rather how the strands of a Web spell are affected by a Fireball, as compared to other sources of fire or other attacks. Maybe KD can clarify on his side.

That's basically it.

The fact that it is a spread doesn't matter too much. Weaving its way "through cover" is not exactly what a spread does. Spreads go around corners, they do not disregard cover (that's an additional inference that is not precisely called out in the rules). If it goes around corners and comes in from an angle that does not have cover, then no cover bonus. But, all angles in a web spell have cover.

I think that I2K's point is that in no 5 foot square does the next 5 foot square have cover, hence, as the Spread spreads, there is never any cover. I view this as an instantaneous spell that still has to get past all of those strands and has to get past the cover (irregardless of the opponent's attack argument). In other words, the attack comes from the origin point (which does have cover at 10 foot range through Web), not from the next square over.

If a Rogue can use Evasion to take no damage from a Fireball while in its area of effect, there has to be "gaps in the spread" and Web can provide cover.

 

[lukelightning]

...it is a "glowing pea sized bead".

It burns when I pea!

 

[Infiniti2000]

So I think at this point the issue is not really how a spread works but rather how the strands of a Web spell are affected by a Fireball, as compared to other sources of fire or other attacks.

Actually, I think it's entirely based on spread. I say it has nothing to do with it being fire. I agree with KD on this point that none of the web is burned away instantaneously, so as the fireball spreads the web still exists in all those locations. But, being a spread, there is never any cover.