Last night the party in my campaign was fighting a group of ghasts, two of which were engaged in melee combat with the party's cleric, who was up against a wall. The party's wizard cast web and I ruled that the web caught the cleric as well as the two ghasts, imagining that the web was anchored on the floor and on the wall. Of course, this allowed the ghasts to keep attacking the cleric from within the web.
I think I may have erred. Does the web spell allow the wizard to locate the web with great precision, and could the wizard have used two points of the floor to create a web over the ghasts while excluding the cleric, who technically was in a different square? I'm thinking maybe so, and my ruling was unduly harsh.
The typical answer is yes -- assuming the geography allows for it, the wizard can choose the placement of his 20-ft radius spread to include the ghasts and exclude the cleric.
Web forms a 20 foot radius sphere of webs and will "anchor" to firm solid objects in that area, otherwise the webs will collapse on themselves. If you can cast the spell such that it's area of effect catches the ghasts, but not the cleric, and is anchored on two opposite sides, then yes, you can web the ghasts but not the cleric. If the cleric is surrounded by the ghasts, it's going to be pretty much impossible to web the ghasts but not the cleric.
There are lots of things you could house rule though. One thing I've considered over the years is to allow for spellcraft checks to slightly adjust the shape of spells like web or fireball so that you might be able to use them more tactically.
But by RAW, it sounds like you may have played it right. We'd need to know the exact layout of the fight to be sure.
Does the web spell allow the wizard to locate the web with great precision, and could the wizard have used two points of the floor to create a web over the ghasts while excluding the cleric, who technically was in a different square?
Web: "Effect webs in a 20-ft.-radius spread"
If he placed the center of the effect 25 feet from the cleric, then the cleric would not be in the effect.
Depending on ghoul positioning, both of these would be valid:
Webbing Ghasts
I'm not sure that the floor and a wall are diametrically opposed, though. Web is tricky.
Thanks Grick! You rock. Your first map looks right. So the anchors would just be two points on the floor 20 feet above and 20 feet below the center of the web, which is 25 feet from the cleric?
Two points on the floor can't anchor a web. They have to be on "diametrically opposed points" of the web. There is some debate about what "diametrically opposed" means, but two points on the floor wouldn't satisfy any GM I know.
The roof, a wall, a statue... those would all be candidates.
Otherwise you'd have to use floor and wall or two walls. .
Better make that two walls. Floor and wall tend to be perpendicular to one another, rather than diametrically opposed.
Thanks all. This really helps a lot. The ceiling was less than 20 feet high, so I guess the center could have been in the same place but one of the anchors would have been on the floor 20 feet (4 5-foot squares) south of the center and the other anchor would have been on the ceiling 20 feet (4 5-foot squares) north of the center? Or are the two anchors directly above and below the center point, meaning the floor and ceiling in that center square?
Yes, the ghasts would have escaped quickly, but it probably would have given the cleric (who was hasted) a sufficient opportunity to escape.
"Diametrically opposed" means "two points are directly opposite each other on a circle or sphere. More formally, two points are diametrically opposed if they are on opposite ends of a diameter." (http://www.mathwords.com/d/diametrically_opposed.htm)
In this case, that would seem to mean the wizard could have used the ceiling and floor as anchors, perhaps either the floor and the ceiling directly above in the same square or a spot on the floor 20 feet diagonally in a straight line from a spot on the ceiling.
What happens when the space is not big enough for a 20 foot radius web? In this case, assume the ceiling in the room was 15 feet high. If the anchors were the floor and ceiling directly vertically across from each other, then the anchors would only be 15 feet across. Could that support a web that would extend 20 feet laterally in all directions?
Perhaps the only real option was to use anchors on the floor and ceiling 20 feet away from each other on a diagonal straight line? In that event you have anchors diametrically opposed 20 feet across, although the sphere is technically a bit squished on the top and bottom since the ceiling is only 15 feet?
Under that interpretation, corners or floor to wall would not work unless the two points were 20 feet apart. But that interpretation would make it pretty hard to use a web outside, where it may not be as easy to find anchors exactly 20 feet apart.
Perhaps most sensible is to say that the sphere of a web is smaller if the caster can't find diametrically opposed points 20 feet across. If the two spots on the corner are only 10 feet apart, then the web is only a 10 foot sphere...
Most GMs try to use their own judgment on how the 20 foot radius sphere of webs would latch onto things within the area of effect instead of sticking to the precise mathematical description of the spell.
A wall and a floor might even work, but would probably end up as a much smaller area of effect. As a GM if you cast web exactly in a corner where two walls intersect at 90 degrees, I'd give you a 20 foot radius web out from the corner from wall to wall. That's because it "makes sense" to me that it would work that way. Other GMs might vary their rulings.
As a GM if you cast web exactly in a corner where two walls intersect at 90 degrees, I'd give you a 20 foot radius web out from the corner from wall to wall. That's because it "makes sense" to me that it would work that way.
But in that example, where are the two anchor points? Just on the walls that are meeting in the corner? If the points are not a good distance from each other, then I don't know how you can have a web that extends out 20 feet. I can see giving a little slack on having the two anchors be exactly at opposite ends of the 20 foot sphere, but your example seems too lenient. Imagine a spider's web. A spider couldn't anchor at two points in a corner and have an effective web that extends out a significant distance from the corner...
|
Web is a 20 ft. sphere. There should be templates in the Core Rulebook that show the area a 20 ft.-radius spell covers.
This is an interesting point: "20 ft. sphere". Take Grick diagram and rotate it by 90° to show it as a vertical cut out of the web area. You see that it will have some problem anchoring itself in the ghast location to floor and ceiling if the room was higher than 10'.
If I recall correctly the old AD&D version has a rectangular shape. It was easiest to see where it could anchor itself. Managing the 3d spread of a sphere can be tricky.
|
|
Ah, I see. the argument is that you only need 2 point to anchor the whole mass of the web, making some kind of self sustaining latticework that only need 2 anchoring points.
I was more seeing it as filaments linking several opposite points, so the section of the web without a good anchoring point would collapse.
|
|
As a GM if you cast web exactly in a corner where two walls intersect at 90 degrees, I'd give you a 20 foot radius web out from the corner from wall to wall. That's because it "makes sense" to me that it would work that way.But in that example, where are the two anchor points? Just on the walls that are meeting in the corner? If the points are not a good distance from each other, then I don't know how you can have a web that extends out 20 feet. I can see giving a little slack on having the two anchors be exactly at opposite ends of the 20 foot sphere, but your example seems too lenient. Imagine a spider's web. A spider couldn't anchor at two points in a corner and have an effective web that extends out a significant distance from the corner...
Well, using the latticework example: take a spherical wicker basket as an example of the volume of the web. You could easily cut away its top or bottom to fit it in a smaller space and still keep its structural integrity. So, as long as you have good anchoring points you should cover the whole volume.
But in that example, where are the two anchor points?
Here's how I see it:
Web vertical cutout (Ignore the 15' tall guy, he's just showing that this isn't top-down)
The point in the "W" is the origin point of the spell
The point in the "A" is the anchor
If you draw a circle that touches both of those anchor points, they will be on opposite ends of the circle, along a diameter.
The example on the left, I think works. The one on the right, I'm not sure.
Right, ArgentumLupus, to be diametically opposed the anchors actually need to be 40 feet apart, because the diameter of the web sphere is 40 feet.
Grick, I actually think the example on the right is accurate, but not the one on the left. On the picture on the right, the anchors are on opposite sides of the sphere. But on the picture on the left, the anchors are just along the edge of the sphere.
I agree that this requires a fair amount of GM judgment and some leniency is appropriate, but it does seem like it is appropriate to give consideration to the fact that you need anchors close to 40 feet across from each other to create a web sphere with a diameter of 40 feet.
You haven't mentioned the critical issue here: did the cleric get eaten by the ghasts?
Well, ultimately no. This was the last encounter of the night, we were all tired, and a number of mistakes were made all around. It was a tense, cinematic, and fun encounter, but a mess in terms of application of the rules. The barbarian charged in and saved the day by cleaving the two ghasts. Some hand waving was involved.
As a GM if you cast web exactly in a corner where two walls intersect at 90 degrees, I'd give you a 20 foot radius web out from the corner from wall to wall. That's because it "makes sense" to me that it would work that way.But in that example, where are the two anchor points? Just on the walls that are meeting in the corner? If the points are not a good distance from each other, then I don't know how you can have a web that extends out 20 feet. I can see giving a little slack on having the two anchors be exactly at opposite ends of the 20 foot sphere, but your example seems too lenient. Imagine a spider's web. A spider couldn't anchor at two points in a corner and have an effective web that extends out a significant distance from the corner...
Voomer. Imagine a 20 foot radius sphere full of sticky webbing. Just a sphere of webbing. That means a 40 foot diameter sphere of webbing. Get that image in your head. Forget about floors, ceilings, walls, whatever. Just get an image in your head of a 20 foot radius sphere of sticky webbing all jumbled up with threads going all over the place. Sort of like you magnified some cotton candy.
Now, imagine that the 40 foot diameter sphere is suddenly bisected by two planes intersecting at right angles right at the center of the sphere such that it cuts the sphere into four equal parts. Now imagine that the sticky webbing that intersects the planes sticks to the planes.
Now imagine the webbing starts to contract on itself until it reaches it's limit. The 20 foot sphere would no longer be a sphere. Viewed from above it would now look like a square, with the webbing stretching from points 20 feet down each plane to the next plane 20 feet out from the center. But the area inside of that would still be full of sticky, random webbing.
Now get rid of all but one section. That's how I view a corner filled with webbing.
Or, if that fails, go to an old run down building and look in the corners where the walls meet the floor or ceiling. It won't be long before you find spiderwebs in those corners. Because corners are actually a great place to build webs.
Grick, I actually think the example on the right is accurate, but not the one on the left. On the picture on the right, the anchors are on opposite sides of the sphere. But on the picture on the left, the anchors are just along the edge of the sphere.
How so? The origin point is in the corner. It doesn't spread into the wall and ground.
"These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points"
The points that it's anchored are solid (wall and ground) and diametrically opposed.
You've convinced me of the logic of permitting the type of web on Grick's left diagram, 5 posts up, which I think is what you describe more or less. Even though it isn't what the spell describes in terms of anchoring, the anchoring from one wall to another would be sufficient to support all of the webbing filling in the space into the corner and there would be no reason to disallow such a web. And those anchors would also probably support a web protruding somewhat further into the room (as per Grick's right diagram).
I think all I meant, Grick is that the web should extend on both sides of the anchoring line, per RAW. But you and Adamantine Dragon have convinced me there is no reason to forbid the web you suggest, if the wizard wants to do so.
|
Otherwise you'd have to use floor and wall or two walls. .Better make that two walls. Floor and wall tend to be perpendicular to one another, rather than diametrically opposed.
If you put it high enough on the wall you could go for a 45 degree angle through the center of the web, providing you with diametrically opposed locations that are not on an orthogonal grid.
After all, despite the fact that we play on an orthogonal grid, the characters don't exist in one.
Like many things in the rules, I don't think you can examine it too closely.
Just have fun with it. Guesstimate the size and AoE. let the players get away with what they try as long as it's somewhat reasonable. Don't overthink it.
I'm sold. This is discussion has been very helpful. Thanks to all.