Web Spell Questions

[Mistwell]

I'm with Steve on this, though if the web blocks LoS wouldn't it block light?

That's one of the reasons I asked. If light can make it through, then it's at least arguable that you should be able to target a line of effect spell to a space beyond the web that you know exists and just saw moments ago (unless people think magic is "thicker" than light).

However, if you cannot see any light through the web, then web can be used essentially as a darkness spell if cast to block the light sources in the room, which would be an added bonus to Web that I do not think was intended.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like Web should give concealment rather than cover. I know that is not the RAW, but it makes more sense to me. Webs are not like a brick wall, yet the way it is written 20 feet of web has most of the same in-game effects as a brick wall.

 

[Quidam]

total cover

it's not mist, it's palpable- hence the entangling effect and the checks required to move through it. yes, it blocks light. 20' of web provides total cover and that blocks LoE.

does the fact that a wall of stone blocks light make it too powerful?

 

[Steve Jung]

it's not mist, it's palpable- hence the entangling effect and the checks required to move through it. yes, it blocks light. 20' of web provides total cover and that blocks LoE.

does the fact that a wall of stone blocks light make it too powerful?

To play devil's advocate, tall grass and foliage provide concealment.

 

[Jack Simth]

Yes, concealment, which doesn't block line of effect: you can still target someone who has total concealment - or at least, you can cast a spell on their their square - if you know where they are. Total cover, on the other hand, is a different beast entierly; if they have total cover relative to you, you don't have line of effect, can can't cast a spell on their square (at least, not those that require Line of Effect - you could still cast Scry on them or something). However, web provides cover, which does block line of effect (when it reaches the total variety, at least) against something that doesn't remove the cover (e.g., Burning Hands). Check out the Combat Modifiers section of the SRD.

 

[Christian]

That's one of the reasons I asked. If light can make it through, then it's at least arguable that you should be able to target a line of effect spell to a space beyond the web that you know exists and just saw moments ago (unless people think magic is "thicker" than light).

However, if you cannot see any light through the web, then web can be used essentially as a darkness spell if cast to block the light sources in the room, which would be an added bonus to Web that I do not think was intended.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like Web should give concealment rather than cover. I know that is not the RAW, but it makes more sense to me. Webs are not like a brick wall, yet the way it is written 20 feet of web has most of the same in-game effects as a brick wall.

A web isn't totally solid, so light filters between the strands; but if there's 20' of web ahead of you, there's a strand somewhere between you and what you're looking it. It won't be totally dark because of light reflecting and refracting between the spaces, but you won't be able to (for example) see the light source itself, because there's no direct line of sight.

 

[Nail]

That last bit (Christian's) is key:

Light does not need line of sight to illuminate. Although light travels in straight lines, it also reflects off of objects, which create new straight paths, etc.

So no, Webbing a light source doesn't plunge the room into darkness, IMO.

 

[glass]

A web isn't totally solid, so light filters between the strands; but if there's 20' of web ahead of you, there's a strand somewhere between you and what you're looking it. It won't be totally dark because of light reflecting and refracting between the spaces, but you won't be able to (for example) see the light source itself, because there's no direct line of sight.

That would be my view as well.


glass.

 

[sdt]

Thought I would add an additional question while it's being discussed: If a torch is thrown into a section of the web, does the whole thing go up or just the square it lands in?

 

[farscapesg1]

Thought I would add an additional question while it's being discussed: If a torch is thrown into a section of the web, does the whole thing go up or just the square it lands in?

Considering the spell description specifically states that it takes a round to burn a 5 foot square with a torch, I would say it only affects that single square.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Considering the spell description specifically states that it takes a round to burn a 5 foot square with a torch, I would say it only affects that single square.

There's a bit of controversy on this. Specifically, the web spell states that any fire can set a 5' by 5' section alight, and that, in one round, it burns away.

The strands of a web spell are flammable. A magic flaming sword can slash them away as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs. Any fire can set the webs alight and burn away 5 square feet in 1 round. All creatures within flaming webs take 2d4 points of fire damage from the flames.

Many, though not all, people consider a burning 5' by 5' section of a web spell as "any fire," which means it would set the 5' by 5' sections on each side of it alight as well.

Note that the spell actually specifies "5 square feet;" I think they really mean "5 feet square."