Web and fireball combo

[Infiniti2000]

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 it is what it does. The spread finds its way around cover. In the case of a web spell, it need not "go around."

The question I have to ask you then is, what stops the spread? Aside from range, the only thing that stops a spread is "When determining distance for spread effects, count around walls, not through them." You don't need to go around the web, right?

 

[elnanoh]

First of all, sorry about my english.

In second place...... Ok the rule book, but it doesn't seem quite right.
What are we saying here? That you will make extra fire damage when you are doing fire damage? Why? Yoy are beeing striked with a Fire Ball....you are completly surrounded by fire!! Will you burn harder if you are entangled in a web :\ ??

..... well, It's just my opinion.... I'm no master and I've played D&D arround 20 sessions....

El Nanoh

 

[KarinsDad]

I think it is what it does. The spread finds its way around cover. In the case of a web spell, it need not "go around."

The question I have to ask you then is, what stops the spread? Aside from range, the only thing that stops a spread is "When determining distance for spread effects, count around walls, not through them." You don't need to go around the web, right?

It's not this at all.

It's path.

From the point of origin to the target, is there cover? Yes.

For any path (i.e. squares travelled through), is there 10 feet of Web between the point of origin and the target? Yes.

Is there a path from the point of origin to the target that does not go through at least 10 feet of Web? No.

Spreads CAN drop cover if they go through a path that does not have cover. The only time they can drop cover is if:

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.

All paths are "on the other side of cover" with regard to 10 feet or more of Webs. In the case of a Web, there are no corners for the Spread to extend around.

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

.WWWWWW
FWWWWTW
.WWWWWW

No matter which path you take, if you draw a line as per the cover rules, you will always go through a corner that has cover and you will never find a line that does not go through cover (as long as the line you draw goes at least 10 feet).

This is an interpretation according to the cover rules. It is not one which expands upon spreads to bypass cover "through the cover". Your interpretation is that Spreads can go through the cover.

There is nothing in the Spread rules to indicate that if there is no corner to go around (i.e. a direction for which no cover exists), that the Spread can still go around.

 

[Nail]

Isn't his point that: "The fire removes the web as it spreads, thus removing the cover as it spreads.....thus no cover."

 

[Infiniti2000]

Isn't his point that: "The fire removes the web as it spreads, thus removing the cover as it spreads.....thus no cover."

No, although I may have tried that earlier (or someone did). I conceded that point earlier to KD on the grounds that the web takes a round to burn away. Based on the rules on spreads, though, I don't think that the burning is necessary to negate the cover. Thus, my stance is based on any spread, not just a fire-based spread.

Your interpretation is that Spreads can go through the cover.

Not quite. This may be what it seems like to you, but it's not correct. My interpretation is that there is no cover vs. the spread by the time the spread gets to the (next) square. IMO, this is the only interpretation you can have because otherwise you have no method in which to adjudicate an effect spreading around a wall. Compare these two situations, where we assume that range is not a factor (widened or whatever). I'll use your interpretation as an attempt to show why I think it's invalid.

A. A point on the other side of a wall from the origin of a spread effect. The effect spreads around the wall despite the fact that the point has total cover from the origin, because that's what the rule says it does.

B. A point 20 or more feet inside a web from the origin of a spread effect. The effect does not spread to the point because the point has total cover from the origin ("...if you draw a line as per the cover rules, you will always go through a corner that has cover and you will never find a line that does not go through cover...").

Aren't you using the point-origin cover rule to negate one scenario and not the other?

 

[KarinsDad]

Not quite. This may be what it seems like to you, but it's not correct. My interpretation is that there is no cover vs. the spread by the time the spread gets to the (next) square. IMO, this is the only interpretation you can have because otherwise you have no method in which to adjudicate an effect spreading around a wall. Compare these two situations, where we assume that range is not a factor (widened or whatever). I'll use your interpretation as an attempt to show why I think it's invalid.

A. A point on the other side of a wall from the origin of a spread effect. The effect spreads around the wall despite the fact that the point has total cover from the origin, because that's what the rule says it does.

B. A point 20 or more feet inside a web from the origin of a spread effect. The effect does not spread to the point because the point has total cover from the origin ("...if you draw a line as per the cover rules, you will always go through a corner that has cover and you will never find a line that does not go through cover...").

Aren't you using the point-origin cover rule to negate one scenario and not the other?

No.

In case A, if there is a different path around the wall that goes through a corner that does not have cover, then the Spread goes around in that path and ignores the cover.

In case B, if there is a different path around / through the web that goes through a corner that does not have cover (and still has gone through no squares until that point that do not have cover), then the Spread goes around in that path and ignores the cover.


The difference between your POV and mine is that I consider the cover to work based on the origin point and you consider it to work based on each square it gets to, hence, resetting cover for the next square over. From your POV, the fact that this massive underbrush of Webbing which stops all attacks at 20 feet does nothing to hinder a Spread (as if a Spread goes right through the cover, yes, I know you do not view it as going through, but that is the result).

If I burst a very large water balloon over a tree top canopy, it hits the leaves and disperses. Some water might get through and someone under the canopy might get damp, but they won't get drenched as if the canopy wasn't there. And that is what I think the intent of the Web cover bonus is supposed to represent.

That is the difference between an origin point interpretation which allows for more and more Web to slowly build up the cover until it is finally total cover at 20 feet and one where the Fireball Spread is like intelligent tendrils that snake between the web strands.

 

[Infiniti2000]

In case A, if there is a different path around the wall that goes through a corner that does not have cover, then the Spread goes around in that path and ignores the cover.

In case B, if there is a different path around / through the web that goes through a corner that does not have cover (and still has gone through no squares until that point that do not have cover), then the Spread goes around in that path and ignores the cover.

Why do you "reset" the path for case A and not case B? If you have to draw a line all the way back to the origin for case B, why not for case A? In other words, do the same thing for the web by drawing the path from square to square. Any cover between intermediary squares? No. What you are doing is always comparing back to the origin for the web, but not for the wall.

 

[KarinsDad]

Why do you "reset" the path for case A and not case B? If you have to draw a line all the way back to the origin for case B, why not for case A? In other words, do the same thing for the web by drawing the path from square to square. Any cover between intermediary squares? No. What you are doing is always comparing back to the origin for the web, but not for the wall.

No, one does the same for both. One starts at the origin and takes all paths. If one path has no cover, then the target gets no cover.

Example:

CCC......
FCC..XT
CCC......

Say we have a Widened Fireball. It has cover squares everywhere around it. X is total cover and T is the target. The target gets cover from the C cover squares, but does not get total cover from the X total cover square since there is a path from the origin that avoids that total cover.

In the case of Web it becomes:

CCCCX....
FCCCXXT
CCCCX....

There are no total cover squares that can be avoided if you determine this from the origin point. It only happens in your interpretation as:

CCCCX....
FFFFFXT
CCCCX....

The fire "removes" the cover as it advances (not literally removes, but removes because here is no cover 5 feet away).

But, that is your interpretation that assumes that the cover changes along the path. My interpretation assumes that when the Web spell states that there is total cover after 20 feet, that is what happens (as per the second diagram). The fact that it is a Spread does not change that because there are no corners without cover along the path.


The rules do not really have this concept of cover changing as a spread advances. That is a model you introduced.

The rules do, on the other hand, state that cover occurs after 5 feet and total cover occurs after 20 feet in a Web. They also state that Spreads can avoid cover if they can go around a corner and avoid cover by doing so. That is not what happens with Web. Web provides cover everywhere beyond a certain distance.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But, that is your interpretation that assumes that the cover changes along the path.

But, it does change. When you create a path for the spread in case A (wall), aren't you doing the exact same thing as creating a path for case B (web) under my interpretation?

Consider the following diagram for case A (and edits may follow as I try to get it to display right):

    |
F...|T
   ...

The dots are the path of the spread effect (e.g fireball) to the target T around the shown wall. Isn't this path nondeterministic by the spread effect? If so, the spread doesn't "take the turn" until such a time as the wall is encountered. This supports my interpretation when you apply the above to case B (web). Since the spread is nondeterministic, each "segment" is not hindered by cover.

The corollary is that if the spread is deterministic, which is what is required for you to discount my interpretation, then the spread cannot turn the corner. I.e. we draw a line between F and T to determine cover, whether it's a web or wall. You should not use deterministic for one case and nondeterministic for another.

PS. It's not my goal to attempt a purely logical reasoning for this. I do think that my interpretation is the one supported (more) by the rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

PS. It's not my goal to attempt a purely logical reasoning for this. I do think that my interpretation is the one supported (more) by the rules.

If you say so.

According to the rules, the Web gives cover after 5 feet and total cover after 20 feet and you are dismissing that rule.

You are adding a "go to square, calculate cover, go to next square, recalculate cover" set of steps that are not indicated in the rules.

The rule for spreads does not even do that. It merely states that it goes around corners and can hence bypass cover. This assumes that there is a corner or edge for which cover does not apply (which is not the case for Web).

The cover rules are quite specific. Choose any corner of attack square (in case of origin point, this would be origin point corner). Draw line. See if cover exists anywhere on the line.

You are drawing line segments and removing cover that is stated in the spell when you get to each square.

No cover rules in the book are like that.


Web is a special cover case that effectively states that the more Web squares an attack goes through, the more cover is encountered until total cover is achieved. You are throwing that rule out the window.