If you have large creature and it is covered in the web spell and hit the web/creature with a fireball, does the creature receive damage for each square?
I've played it as yes before
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Just as fireball doesn't deal damage to creatures on a per square basis, neither will web caught on fire.
My DM was the one that OK'd it, but I wanted to do a little more research on it. What makes you say yes it does or no it doesn't?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
(1) I can't think of any other spell that would work this way. The source is the same web catching on fire. The target is the same body, regardless in the web of how much of it was stuck in the web. You are either taking flaming web damage or you are not.
(2) From PRD: All creatures within flaming webs take 2d4 points of fire damage from the flames. It says "webs", plural. There is no mention of a per square basis of taking damage from the same spell. This is abnormal enough to warrant a special entry if it were the case.
(3) Does a diminutive target (taking up 1/15th of a single space, for example) instead take (2d4)/15 damage?
The purpose of web isn't to do damage, it's to entangle. Web does 40% of a burning hands at a higher spell level. It's 2d4 per creature, regardless of size.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Captain_Hammer wrote: My DM was the one that OK'd it, but I wanted to do a little more research on it. What makes you say yes it does or no it doesn't? Nothing else in the game works that way.
Large creatures hit by splash weapons don't take damage per square that the effects covers.
Fireball doesn't deal xd6 per square that the creature is in.
Nothing in the game works that way that I can think of.
And if it did, it would be a big enough departure from the normal functioning of things that I would expect them to specify "per square of creature" or something to that effect.
The only thing I can think that probably works that way RAW is Etheric Shards, but I don't think it's RAI and it's vague enough that you can rule it either way.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote: The only thing I can think that probably works that way RAW is Etheric Shards, but I don't think it's RAI and it's vague enough that you can rule it either way. And that particular spell has a lot more to do with how many squares the creature moves through than the size of the creature.
That makes sense. It might be in my best interest to not tell my DM about this discussion. ;P
So it's clarified that a fireball does not create fire damage from each square the web is in at one time, but what if different web squares are lit from different sources or on different rounds?
A burning web is not a spell so comparing it to a spell and saying no spells work like that doesn't make sense. Burning web is about if your touching a square that has a web that's on fire. Each square should deal the damage as they are each individually on fire. Also note it takes one full round for a burning web to clear and then any other squares that have web will light on fire if they are adjacent and the fire will spread slowly round by round burning the web till it's all gone.
It's not just spells though. Splash weapons like alchemist fire also don't deal damage on a per square of creature basis. Nor Alchemist's bomb class feature. Or anything. It just doesn't work like that.
I will agree with you that if you light just one part of the web, and it catches fire it burns the creature if they're in that square. If the fire continues to spread on the next turn, and the creature is still in a burning square they will take more damage the next turn.
All of those are instant effects they go boom and that's that this is a persistent fire there is a difference
Compare it with other persistent things let's say large creature with 4 flaming spheres
Yes, but you would need four separate instances of flaming sphere.
But note also, wall of fire doesn't deal damage to a creature for being larger than medium and passing through it.
Though, if you made 4 walls of fire to go through the large size creatures squares it would take damage for all 4 walls.
Effects do not deal damage based on the size of the creature.
Nothing in the game works that way.
vhok wrote: All of those are instant effects they go boom and that's that this is a persistent fire there is a difference
Compare it with other persistent things let's say large creature with 4 flaming spheres
See:
Wall of Fire
Blade Barrier
Lingering spells
Acid Fog
Being thrown into a pit of lava
Trapped inside a burning building
Acid Pit
Red/Blue/etc dragon auras
Sirocco
etc.
All of these are persistent effects in one fashion or another.
All of these do damage per creature, not damage per creature per square. Some of these are spells, some of them are much more like the burning web example (pit of lava/burning building).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Captain_Hammer wrote: That makes sense. It might be in my best interest to not tell my DM about this discussion. ;P
So it's clarified that a fireball does not create fire damage from each square the web is in at one time, but what if different web squares are lit from different sources or on different rounds?
Is getting a bit of extra damage in a game worth not being honest with your friend?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
If a creature is affected differently if an attack cover an area, that vulnerability is listed in the creature characteristics.
Look the swarms: they take an extra 50% damage for area effects.
Note how the damage isn't related to the number of square affected, only to a binary question: the attack is an area effect or not.
BTW, if you want a "scientific" reason why a large creature don't take more damage: proportionally a larger creature has less exposed surface when we compare it to its mass.
Mass increase with the cube of the increase in size, skin surface with the square.
A naked man can run through 10' of burning coals and get only some serious burn, an ant will be burned to a crisp before it move a couple of inches.
Claxon wrote: Just as fireball doesn't deal damage to creatures on a per square basis, neither will web caught on fire. +1
Captain_Hammer wrote: What makes you say yes it does or no it doesn't? The description of Web in the Core Rulebook.
Web wrote: All creatures within flaming webs take 2d4 points of fire damage from the flames. It says it right there: 2d4/creature, not 2d4/space. The latter would have been a reasonable way to have said it, but it doesn't say that.
Captain_Hammer wrote: My DM was the one that OK'd it, but I wanted to do a little more research on it. Your GM is well-within his rights to change the rules as he sees fit. His OK it totally according to Hoyle.
Captain_Hammer wrote: That makes sense. It might be in my best interest to not tell my DM about this discussion. ;P Be careful, oh Captain, my Captain. The sword cuts both ways! He might just be waiting for one of you to start taking levels in Mammoth Rider or cast Enlarge Person on yourselves!
Or if your GM catches up with your shenanigans, you might find yourself at the mercy of a GM scorned. Hell hath no mercy like a woman scorned? Well, your GM runs Hell, and the Abyss, and Pandemonium, and Tarterus, and...
Captain_Hammer wrote: So it's clarified that a fireball does not create fire damage from each square the web is in at one time, but what if different web squares are lit from different sources or on different rounds? Sure, different damage from different sources totally stack. Your victim gets caught in your Web. He tries to rub lamp oil all over himself to make himself slippery to help him escape, then boom! goes the Fireball. He takes 2d4 from the Web, 5d6+ from the Fireball, and 1d6 from the Oil.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Captain_Hammer wrote: So it's clarified that a fireball does not create fire damage from each square the web is in at one time, but what if different web squares are lit from different sources or on different rounds? Sure, different damage from different sources totally stack. Your victim gets caught in your Web. He tries to rub lamp oil all over himself to make himself slippery to help him escape, then boom! goes the Fireball. He takes 2d4 from the Web, 5d6+ from the Fireball, and 1d6 from the Oil.
I don't think that was the question. I think the original question is (rephrased): "Can you set the web on fire multiple times, thus getting multiple damage rolls?"
To that, I'd say no. There's "on fire" and there's "not on fire" as far as a web is concerned. There isn't a gradation of "on fire once," "on fire twice for double damage," "on fire three times for triple damage". Burning the web a round later with a torch wouldn't do 4d4 points of damage if it was already on fire.
I'm not even sure about stacking damage from being on fire from different sources (not the twice-burned web). It could be argued that "being on fire" is a single source of damage and therefore the higher of the two in your example (2d4 or 1d6) applies. But that's another discussion...
*EDIT: I could see a case being made for taking 2d4 from the web being on fire and 1d6 from the creature being on fire.
quibblemuch wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Captain_Hammer wrote: So it's clarified that a fireball does not create fire damage from each square the web is in at one time, but what if different web squares are lit from different sources or on different rounds? Sure, different damage from different sources totally stack. Your victim gets caught in your Web. He tries to rub lamp oil all over himself to make himself slippery to help him escape, then boom! goes the Fireball. He takes 2d4 from the Web, 5d6+ from the Fireball, and 1d6 from the Oil.
I don't think that was the question. I think the original question is (rephrased): "Can you set the web on fire multiple times, thus getting multiple damage rolls?"
To that, I'd say no. There's "on fire" and there's "not on fire" as far as a web is concerned. There isn't a gradation of "on fire once," "on fire twice for double damage," "on fire three times for triple damage". Burning the web a round later with a torch wouldn't do 4d4 points of damage if it was already on fire.
I'm not even sure about stacking damage from being on fire from different sources (not the twice-burned web). It could be argued that "being on fire" is a single source of damage and therefore the higher of the two in your example (2d4 or 1d6) applies. But that's another discussion...
*EDIT: I could see a case being made for taking 2d4 from the web being on fire and 1d6 from the creature being on fire. Yeah, after you've burned up a Web, you can't burn up the same Web again.
I guess if you cast 2 overlapping Web Spells, then you would take 2d4 from each Web as they burned up in the same square.
However, if you burn up square 1 in round 1, square 2 in round 2, square 3 in round 3, and so on, the creature would take damage for each of those burning squares independently.
Now, why it would take separate damage if those squares burned on different round compared to the same round is what we call 'Pathfinder physics'. ;)
_Ozy_ wrote: However, if you burn up square 1 in round 1, square 2 in round 2, square 3 in round 3, and so on, the creature would take damage for each of those burning squares independently.
Now, why it would take separate damage if those squares burned on different round compared to the same round is what we call 'Pathfinder physics'. ;)
I suppose so. But I'm pretty sure that if you touch off a Web anywhere, the whole thing burns up. But if you managed pull off the effect of burning only 1 square of a Web in 1 round, then another in another, then, yeah, sure, I guess.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: However, if you burn up square 1 in round 1, square 2 in round 2, square 3 in round 3, and so on, the creature would take damage for each of those burning squares independently.
Now, why it would take separate damage if those squares burned on different round compared to the same round is what we call 'Pathfinder physics'. ;)
I suppose so. But I'm pretty sure that if you touch off a Web anywhere, the whole thing burns up. But if you managed pull off the effect of burning only 1 square of a Web in 1 round, then another in another, then, yeah, sure, I guess. There is no reason to believe that the entire web ignites from a single square. Why do you think this is true?
_Ozy_ wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: However, if you burn up square 1 in round 1, square 2 in round 2, square 3 in round 3, and so on, the creature would take damage for each of those burning squares independently.
Now, why it would take separate damage if those squares burned on different round compared to the same round is what we call 'Pathfinder physics'. ;)
I suppose so. But I'm pretty sure that if you touch off a Web anywhere, the whole thing burns up. But if you managed pull off the effect of burning only 1 square of a Web in 1 round, then another in another, then, yeah, sure, I guess. There is no reason to believe that the entire web ignites from a single square. Why do you think this is true? Old 1 ed. AD&D and D&D Basic rule. It hasn't bbeen ported over. Actually now web say: "Any fire can set the webs alight and burn away one 5-foot square in 1 round."
My interpretation is that the fire expand in any direction by 5' every round, if nothing impede that.
Diego Rossi wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: However, if you burn up square 1 in round 1, square 2 in round 2, square 3 in round 3, and so on, the creature would take damage for each of those burning squares independently.
Now, why it would take separate damage if those squares burned on different round compared to the same round is what we call 'Pathfinder physics'. ;)
I suppose so. But I'm pretty sure that if you touch off a Web anywhere, the whole thing burns up. But if you managed pull off the effect of burning only 1 square of a Web in 1 round, then another in another, then, yeah, sure, I guess. There is no reason to believe that the entire web ignites from a single square. Why do you think this is true? Old 1 ed. AD&D and D&D Basic rule. It hasn't bbeen ported over. Actually now web say: "Any fire can set the webs alight and burn away one 5-foot square in 1 round."
My interpretation is that the fire expand in any direction by 5' every round, if nothing impede that. Yup, Diego, I was thinking 1st ed.
Web wrote: The strands of a web spell are flammable. A flaming weapon can slash them away as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs. Any fire can set the webs alight and burn away one 5-foot square in 1 round. All creatures within flaming webs take 2d4 points of fire damage from the flames. The damage from a burning Web really is Damage per square. One fire source does damage 1 square. I dont' get the sense that the Web then Catches Fire. "Catch Fire" is a specific game-term-thing, and I don't see that in Web. It looks like you need a separate fire attack for each 5' square, and each square inflicts 2d4 damage.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Diego Rossi wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: However, if you burn up square 1 in round 1, square 2 in round 2, square 3 in round 3, and so on, the creature would take damage for each of those burning squares independently.
Now, why it would take separate damage if those squares burned on different round compared to the same round is what we call 'Pathfinder physics'. ;)
I suppose so. But I'm pretty sure that if you touch off a Web anywhere, the whole thing burns up. But if you managed pull off the effect of burning only 1 square of a Web in 1 round, then another in another, then, yeah, sure, I guess. There is no reason to believe that the entire web ignites from a single square. Why do you think this is true? Old 1 ed. AD&D and D&D Basic rule. It hasn't bbeen ported over. Actually now web say: "Any fire can set the webs alight and burn away one 5-foot square in 1 round."
My interpretation is that the fire expand in any direction by 5' every round, if nothing impede that.
The proper wording for that would be burn away one 5-foot square 'each' round, to imply that it continues to burn.
There is no wording that suggests the fire spreads from square to square. Also, how would you handle diagonals?
As moving along the diagonals if you move only by a 5' square every turn. You start from the new position and move by 5' in all directions.
And "Any fire can set the webs alight" say that the web is set alight, not that you burn a single square and then the fire smother out.
Think about it. That means that fire burns 50% faster along diagonal directions than in the 4 cardinal directions. Map it out round by round if you have to and you will see that you would form an expanding square burn front instead of the more correct 'circular' patterns. Does this make sense to you?
Yes, any fire sets the webs alight in the squares where there is fire. There isn't necessarily only a single square if, for example, you hit a section of the webs with a fireball or other area of effect spell. The webs in those squares will be set alight, and burn out in one round.
Once again, there is no mention of the fire spreading throughout the webs anywhere in the spell.
Burning away one 5-ft square in one round is not the same as spreading to adjacent squares over time. I see how it can be read that way, but it only directly says what happens in one round. I think that is also the intent.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
