D&D (2024) Web: Power Overwhelming

[Ancalagon]

We all know (or should know) that web is an excellent spell in the 5e era. It provides pretty good control for a 2nd level spell, and because of the way saves work in 5e, the spell can stay relevant throughout the game - casting web in a fight at level 15 can be a legitimate move.

Because of this, I re-read the 5.5 version carefully, and then found a rather potent combo... which turns out was in the 5.0 rules all along too!

Say an orc foe is in the web, and then get hit by a fire spell - the orc is going to take an extra 2d4 fire damage from the burning web. But we all know that, it's not much damage, you would be better off keeping the web up in most circumstances instead of burning it down. But the rule says each five foot cube of web inflicts that damage. I think it's reasonable to say that the average medium creature, such as our orcc, will fit in such a cube.

But an ogre? or a giant? An ogre is what, 9-12 feet tall? So they will definitely take fire damage on the upper and lower body. And they take a 2X2 square space - so that's 8 cubes of web, so + 16d4 damage. A huge giant, say 16 feet tall and 3X3 squares? That's 54 d4 extra damage!!!! And with no save!

This makes web, which traditionally has been a poor performer vs large and very strong enemies, quite dangerous to such foes, if you can get the timing right.

Some may feel that this is TOO good, and I'm inclined to agree. Perhaps the "height" of the creature shouldn't be considered, which still means a burning web would inflict up to 8d4 fire damage to a large creature, or 18 d4 to a huge one.

 

[Clint_L]

We all know (or should know) that web is an excellent spell in the 5e era. It provides pretty good control for a 2nd level spell, and because of the way saves work in 5e, the spell can stay relevant throughout the game - casting web in a fight at level 15 can be a legitimate move.

Because of this, I re-read the 5.5 version carefully, and then found a rather potent combo... which turns out was in the 5.0 rules all along too!

Say an orc foe is in the web, and then get hit by a fire spell - the orc is going to take an extra 2d4 fire damage from the burning web. But we all know that, it's not much damage, you would be better off keeping the web up in most circumstances instead of burning it down. But the rule says each five foot cube of web inflicts that damage. I think it's reasonable to say that the average medium creature, such as our orcc, will fit in such a cube.

But an ogre? or a giant? An ogre is what, 9-12 feet tall? So they will definitely take fire damage on the upper and lower body. And they take a 2X2 square space - so that's 8 cubes of web, so + 16d4 damage. A huge giant, say 16 feet tall and 3X3 squares? That's 54 d4 extra damage!!!! And with no save!

This makes web, which traditionally has been a poor performer vs large and very strong enemies, quite dangerous to such foes, if you can get the timing right.

Some may feel that this is TOO good, and I'm inclined to agree. Perhaps the "height" of the creature shouldn't be considered, which still means a burning web would inflict up to 8d4 fire damage to a large creature, or 18 d4 to a huge one.

Here's an example where I would definitely veto the first interpretation of RAW. It doesn't make sense that a giant would take so much more damage from what is proportionally the same effect: being burnt. Presumably a human-sized creature and a giant-sized creature are suffering the same effect: being burned all over their body. Except the smaller creature is being mostly immersed in the fire, whereas the giant is basically just having their feet torched. So I think your second reading of the rule is better, though even there it will create some oddities, such as a high level gnome taking a negligible 2d4 damage while a tarrasque, with the vast area it covers, gets basically one-shot.

 

[Plaguescarred]

While not official ruling per se, the Dev intended to have creature takes 2d4 fire damage regardless of size.

@JeremyECrawford The web spell in D&D creates a flammable web. If you set the web on fire, any creature that starts its turn in the fire—regardless of the creature's size—takes 2d4 fire damage. #DnD

 

[Oofta]

While not official ruling per se, the Dev intended to have creature takes 2d4 fire damage regardless of size.

That's how I would rule as well in the rare case that it came up. Still not necessarily a bad thing to do, since a giant isn't likely to be stuck in the web anyway. Slow them down for a round or two and then apply fire works for me.

 

[Stalker0]

just for funnsies, it looks like a 20 foot cube contains 64 5 foot cubes if I did my math right. So 128d4 damage if you can find something big enough!

 

[Ancalagon]

Here's an example where I would definitely veto the first interpretation of RAW. It doesn't make sense that a giant would take so much more damage from what is proportionally the same effect: being burnt. Presumably a human-sized creature and a giant-sized creature are suffering the same effect: being burned all over their body.

I agree with you that this is too much damage but I don't agree with your reasoning as to why. There is "more giant". So more HP, and more areas to be hurt.

Imagine a different effect: a rain of arrows from above. A medium creature might get hit by 2-3 arrows, but the giant, being so much bigger, will be hit by many more arrows.

Except the smaller creature is being mostly immersed in the fire, whereas the giant is basically just having their feet torched.

That is incorrect. If anchored properly, the web cube is 20 feet tall. The giant is also immersed in flames.

 

[Ancalagon]

While not official ruling per se, the Dev intended to have creature takes 2d4 fire damage regardless of size.

I'm not surprised I'm not the first one to come up with this combo, it's right on the page.

I do like the idea that a web spell going up in flames would do more damage to a large creature. But cubic scaling is clearly too much. Is my "square scaling" compromise still too much? I'm not sure.

 

[Distracted DM]

A fireball hits multiple squares as well, but larger creatures still only take the instance of damage from that spell once. I know folk can argue otherwise for a variety of reasons, but this would quickly make a 2nd level spell far better than would otherwise be intended. Ultimately like everything else it's up to the GM. If someone wanted to set fire to one square, then next turn someone else wanted to set fire to another square, sure that'll do damage twice.

But setting fire to the whole web in one turn via burning hands, fireball, etc. and expecting a big burst of damage from it wouldn't fly with me personally
It reminds me of those videos that say "you can deal 3000dmg with this cantrip, watch video to see how!"

 

[UngeheuerLich]

just for funnsies, it looks like a 20 foot cube contains 64 5 foot cubes if I did my math right. So 128d4 damage if you can find something big enough!

Hmmh. I am not sure that you should use the whole interior od the cube. I think it is the surface at most.
Which is actually not much less....

 

[Clint_L]

I agree with you that this is too much damage but I don't agree with your reasoning as to why. There is "more giant". So more HP, and more areas to be hurt.

Imagine a different effect: a rain of arrows from above. A medium creature might get hit by 2-3 arrows, but the giant, being so much bigger, will be hit by many more arrows.

But hit points don't equal more creature. D&D is not a simulations game. But I also don't think that your reasoning is a better simulation, anyway.

Because see my counter example. Let's say a gnome is a level 10 fighter - it likely has similar HP to the giant. Both are being burned - same experience. But the gnome's damage is likely about 5% or less of its HP, while the giant suffers at least 50%.

And we have a "rain of arrows" effect in the game: hail of thorns. It doesn't do extra damage to giants because they are bigger.