Web and fireball combo

[Magus Coeruleus]

Minor point: Spreads circumvent both total cover and normal cover where possible, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to say (as the rules do) that spreads negate the cover bonus since such a bonus only applies to normal cover; total cover completely blocks spreads, rather than providing a bonus, when not circumvented.

I don't think this changes anything KD is saying right now, but I think it's relevant because if you have Web or underbrush or anything providing cover but not total cover, I see no reason why a spread shouldn't wrap around if possible. Remember that this circumvention never allows a spread to go beyond its normal radius--in fact taking the indirect path will always make that part of the spread reach less far than it would have otherwise. So in the case of Web I think circumvention can potentially negate total cover and/or standard cover depending on the situation (as shown in my diagram from a previous post).

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Infiniti: I'm perplexed by your position on spreads and going through Web. Why do you think that the successive layers of Web that a spread goes through somehow automatically don't accumulate in their effect to soften and ultimately block that spread while it does for other things like arrows? The rule for negating cover does not say that spreads ignore cover as it goes through spaces with cover. It just says that if there is a way around that cover to reach the target then the cover does not apply to the target. Unlike the arrow example, that is, where if there is cover along the straight line between source and target bonuses/blockage applies even if there could be a roundabout way because arrows don't turn corners. That's all the rule is saying: spreads can circumvent cover; they don't go through and ignore it.

Of course the funny thing about me arguing this is that I'm hard pressed to think of a type of known spread that I wouldn't say goes through the Web just fine because it can slip between and around Web strands on account of what the spread is. But that's a different issue.

 

[KarinsDad]

Continuing to say that does not make it true, nor does it help your case at all.

Then quote rules that state that cover is not accumulated for Spreads, but is for Arrows.

All you quoted was a rule that Spreads can go around when they hit Total Cover and that they can ignore the cover bonus if they do go around.

What does this say about accumulated cover? Nothing.

What does the phrase "can go into areas you cannot see" say about accumulated cover? Nothing. Bursts can go into areas you cannot see as well, but that too says nothing about accumulated cover.

Apples and Oranges.

Imagining that a Spread infiltrates into every nook and cranny is fine for your game, but where is the rule that states that it does that?


What rules we have are:

Bursts cannot penetrate Total Cover.
Spreads work exactly the same as Bursts except they can go around Total Cover if possible.
Web results in Total Cover in all directions after 20 feet.

Hence, Spreads cannot penetrate more than 20 feet of Webs because they cannot penetrate Total Cover.

These are the rules. The rules you quoted are really non-sequitor to the discussion. You have no rules that cover is recalculated as you calculate where a Spread can go.


Now, you can continue to claim that the rules you quoted are relevant, but that is not logical.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I just had a thought. Wouldn't it be valid to think of web as providing soft cover? I see nothing that identifies it as hard cover and the fact that it requires an accumulation of webs to even provide cover probably justifies it as soft cover.

That would render this discussion moot, wouldn't it?

Infiniti: I'm perplexed by your position on spreads and going through Web. Why do you think that the successive layers of Web that a spread goes through somehow automatically don't accumulate in their effect to soften and ultimately block that spread while it does for other things like arrows?

...and don't for things like movement? The answer's in how you ask the question. How does a spread work? Does it work from point A to point D or from A->B->C->D. For your interpretation to work, it has to be the former, ignoring the effects of moving (the spread rules allude to this both times for effects and area, using the word 'distance'). The section on effects even says, "as with movement." So, if I move through a web (ignoring hampered movement effects), do I ever try to move through cover? No.

The rule for negating cover does not say that spreads ignore cover as it goes through spaces with cover.

Well, the key is that the web has no cover at all for the first/adjacent/next 5ft. This means that the spread never actually goes through spaces with cover. I said this before, that a web has no blocked squares, only an accumulation of them. It's this accumulation that makes the cover of a web irrelevant to a spread area/effect.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Then quote rules ...

Do you need me to repost the thread for you? Your attempted dismissal of my arguments is gratuitous and unwelcome.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

But, Infiniti, while I see what you're saying with A->B->C->D vs. A->D, if you say the former is the way to think of it for a spread, why is that not also the way to think of it for an arrow? An arrow does not teleport from the bow to chest of the orc; it goes A->B->C->D as well. So if you allow spreads to redetermine cover as they progress, why not everything else, in which case a Web would never provide cover and thus the rules about providing them would be moot?

 

[KarinsDad]

Do you need me to repost the thread for you? Your attempted dismissal of my arguments is gratuitous and unwelcome.

My dismissal of your quotes is because they are not rules relevant.


Btw, I totally agree with your position. The Spread should totally ignore Webs and their cover completely.

But, I see no rules that support your position. The ones you quoted discuss how Spread moves around Total Cover, nothing more. If a Spread has already moved 20 feet through a Web, any direction it moves will be into Total Cover and it cannot move more. Based on what Web states. I cannot dismiss the one rule we have that tells us when Total Cover applies in a Web like you are.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

This is crazy. Our arguments and actual positions have actually reversed in many cases!

 

[Infiniti2000]

But, Infiniti, while I see what you're saying with A->B->C->D vs. A->D, if you say the former is the way to think of it for a spread, why is that not also the way to think of it for an arrow?

Because spreads have text that outline it as such, as I noted, similar to movement. An arrow does not. Sure, it passes through those squares but then end result is A->D. The famous example of this that I recall that I hope will explain this better was brought up by I think Hyp many years ago on another board. Consider shooting a +4 arrow at a target 80ft away. In the middle of its path, the arrow passes through a 20ft diameter anti-magic field. Considering only the enhancement bonus, what's the final bonus you use to calculate the attack roll? The choices are obviously either +4 (no adjustment) or +3 (subtract out 20ft/80ft, or 25%). I hope you'll agree that it's undeniably +4, but if the arrow worked like a spread (admittedly almost impossible to conceptualize) I'd lean towards +3.

Can you or KD respond to my point about soft cover?

 

[Infiniti2000]

My dismissal of your quotes is because they are not rules relevant.

It is likely, not just possible, that I have provided some rules that were irrelevant. Case in point was the idea about the fire burning away the webs, which I conceded. However, does my argumentation based on 'movement' (with the corresponding rules quotes) not hold any water? This is the part I think applicable...for the moment.