Isn't "web" spell broken?

[Quild]

Hi,

I've been DM-ing my first game ever this week-end and faced some trouble with a player using the web spell.

The two players had to face a Fighter and before he could reach them, the Wizard used the "web (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/web.htm)" spell.

The Fighter failed the Reflex Save and lost a round.
He then made a DC 20 Strength Check (the character had 22 STR had this point, so a 14 on die was enough necessary). But it took a second round.
The Fighter then failed a 15+ Strenght Check in order to move 5 feet in direction of the caster. Third round lost.
The Fighter managed a 15-19 Strenght Check in order to move 5 feet in direction of the caster. He lost "total cover" and became exposed to one of the Wizard's wand containing Ray of Enfeeblement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/rayOfEnfeeblement.htm).
He was unable to move further on his fifth round, received another ray.
Unable to move on the sixth round, received another ray.
Due to the other character damaging him during this time, the Fighter died.

So my Fighter managed to move 5 feet in 6 rounds.
Soooo, we wonder what we missed.


One answer is that we missed the part about fire damaging the web. The Fighter had an axe with a fire enhancement... But even with that, how much round would it have taken for him to free himself completely from the web? Is he supposed to clean 5 feet of web each round, therefore taking 5 rounds to move from the web? (one for the square he's in, 4 for the four square in front of him)

If he hadn't the flaming axe, I guess he could have simply taken a torch (being in an arena, it would have been far-fetched for him to have one...) and... Put the whole web in fire or only square by square?

[AvatarVecna]

Web is an incredibly effective Battlefield control spell, although there are some important counters to keep in mind when designing encounters to challenge a caster that has it:

1) "These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears." They can't just plop down a mass of web just willy-nilly, it's terrain-dependent...so make sure they don't always have the terrain to do so. I'm not saying never have it, but when designing encounters, take into account where web could be used, and make sure that the encounter isn't laid out in such a way that a single web spell basically locks down the entire enemy force.

2) Any source of fire that hits a square of web burns it away in one round. Whether low-level spells, torches, or what have you, any source of fire will do.

3) Take a lesson from LotR: big strong fighters are not the best at hacking their way through webbing, but nimble little rogues do just fine. This spell targets Reflex save and forces a Str or Escape Artist check to get through; putting a low-Dex character with a poor Reflex save and no ranks in Escape Artist in your encounter basically makes them the primary target for a spell like Web. Having a little variety in the opponents your PCs face means that there won't be a single solution that just absolutely wrecks your entire encounter (unless the dice just end up hating you).

That all being said, Web's pretty useful, but things like what's mentioned above make it fairly balanced...at least as far as BFC spells go. Needless to say, BFC is a pretty powerful way to play if you know what you're doing; deciding who gets to go where, and when, is a big advantage in a fight.

[Grand Poobah]

Web is a great battlefield control spell as you've discovered. You've not missed anything regarding web bar fire burning it.

One thing to note though is the rules on stacking spells would prevent the fighter from being hit with multiple Strength penalties.

[Necroticplague]

One answer is that we missed the part about fire damaging the web. The Fighter had an axe with a fire enhancement... But even with that, how much round would it have taken for him to free himself completely from the web? Is he supposed to clean 5 feet of web each round, therefore taking 5 rounds to move from the web? (one for the square he's in, 4 for the four square in front of him)

No time at all, actually.


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.

That being said, even if he didn't have a flaming weapon, that wouldn't mean web is broken. It simple means that they were in a situation that played to the strengths of the spell (enemy was melee-only, didn't have ranks in Escape Artist, and wasn't titanically strong). That being said, if you were in an arena, it sounds like this part of Web would have been difficult to satisfy unless the fighter was in a corner:

Web creates a many-layered mass of strong, sticky strands. These strands trap those caught in them. The strands are similar to spider webs but far larger and tougher. These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears. Creatures caught within a web become entangled among the gluey fibers. Attacking a creature in a web won’t cause you to become entangled.

[Mr Adventurer]

One thing to note though is the rules on stacking spells would prevent the fighter from being hit with multiple Strength penalties.

Yep - though the spell would be applied again each time which could mean a higher result on the d6 for the Ray. But it wouldn't add up with the other applications of the spell.

[Quild]

1) "These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears." They can't just plop down a mass of web just willy-nilly, it's terrain-dependent...so make sure they don't always have the terrain to do so. I'm not saying never have it, but when designing encounters, take into account where web could be used, and make sure that the encounter isn't laid out in such a way that a single web spell basically locks down the entire enemy force.
I really shouldn't have listened my veteran player about what the spell does :smalltongue:

We readed several times the part about checks but missed the part about fire and... that. It was after some 8 hours of gaming though.
The arena was too big for the web to Anchor. But we had in mind the "Web" spell in Baldur's Gate.
Does it collapse in one round?


2) Any source of fire that hits a square of web burns it away in one round. Whether low-level spells, torches, or what have you, any source of fire will do.
Ok. The situation this week-end was slightly different than what I exposed in first post and when we realized the fire thing, I said that the web burnt in one round. One player (not the caster but one who was aware that we were missing that fire should burn the web) said it wasn't the rule, I said it was houseruled. Then the Fighter attacked him.
Glad to know it wasn't houseruled in the end.
Edit: Oops, missreading again! It was houseruled :D. You're speaking of a square!


No time at all, actually.
How should it played then? Suppose the web can be anchored, it's cast, the Fighter fails his Reflex save.
Does he lose a round being entangled or does the fact that he has a fire axe prevents that?
Can he charge an opponent through 4 cases of web slashing them regardless of his number of attacks per round? Can he simply move toward that opponent slashing them the same way?


One thing to note though is the rules on stacking spells would prevent the fighter from being hit with multiple Strength penalties.
Sounds logical considering you can't stack buffs... but... Damnit, I was very dubious about Touch of Idiocy or that being applied several times.
The non-stacking information seems to be in Saving Throws part in Players Handbook... ok.
But poisons do stack, right?

So:
- We missed that the web spell couldn't be anchored
- We missed that the web should have burnt in one round
- We missed the cover thing.
- We sort of got the "one round to burn it all" thing
- We missed the non stacking effets of spells

I've played only a half-dozen of games these last half-dozen years and never played before, but come one, they've been playing for years!


Anyway, the fight was very deceptive for me, but they were very scared of the Fighter getting free and therefore of the whole fight. The important thing is that it was thrilling enough for them.

[Pluto!]

Poisons do ability damage. Ability damage stacks.

Ray of Enfeeblement applies an ability penalty. Ability penalties don't stack with themselves or with other ability penalties of the same type.

So if your fighter takes a -4 Strength penalty from RoE, then the next rounf gets hit by another RoE for -2, a RoE for -6, a Waves of Exhaustion, a Strength poison for 1 and another Strength poison for 1 (bad day), this is how it shakes out:

All three RoE penalties apply, but they don't all stack - only the highest affects the fighter's strength score.

Then the Exhaustion's -6 strength penalty applies because both it and RoE are different, untyped sources.

Then the 1 point of strength damage from poison applies, stacking with everything because it's damage. Then the second point of strength damage applies, stacking with everything, including the initial poison, because damage always stacks.

Edit: And yeah, web is broken. Same as about half the Wizard spell list.

[Telonius]

Sounds logical considering you can't stack buffs... but... Damnit, I was very dubious about Touch of Idiocy or that being applied several times.
The non-stacking information seems to be in Saving Throws part in Players Handbook... ok.
But poisons do stack, right?



Touch of Idiocy and Ray of Enfeeblement both deal Penalties to ability scores. Multiple hits from either one don't stack; only the largest number would apply. Poisons usually deal Ability Damage, which stacks with itself. If you were going to use Ray of Stupidity (from Spell Compendium), that would deal Intelligence damage; multiple shots of it would stack.

[Segev]

Ranged weapons are a useful fallback for fighters.

But yes, wizards have decent fight-ending spells at low level. They also have a fairly limited number of them. The first balance point for casters is supposed to be the limited number of spell slots per day. At higher level, this stops being nearly as limiting as it's supposed to be, but at low level, the wizard paradigm is that he's SUPPOSED to win 1-2 fights fairly easily, then be cowering in a corner for the remaining 2-3 fights that day. Or, at least, reduced to plinking with a thrown dagger or a sling or a crossbow.

So keep that structure in mind: if you have one fight / encounter per day, the wizard is going to be overpowered because he has the nova capacity to "just win" one fight of reasonable CR.

[Psyren]

How should it played then? Suppose the web can be anchored, it's cast, the Fighter fails his Reflex save.
Does he lose a round being entangled or does the fact that he has a fire axe prevents that?
Can he charge an opponent through 4 cases of web slashing them regardless of his number of attacks per round? Can he simply move toward that opponent slashing them the same way?

I would say he can't charge - the terrain must be clear before you start charging, and he isn't able to burn the webs away until he gets there. But just moving normally he should be able to roast the webs without stopping, if he has a flaming sword.

If he has a torch that would apparently take longer - say, he has to move and attack his way out of the mass.

Alchemist's Fire should be able to burn a larger area with one attack.

[Nibbens]

Anyway, the fight was very deceptive for me, but they were very scared of the Fighter getting free and therefore of the whole fight. The important thing is that it was thrilling enough for them.

This. You are completely correct. Even if your knowledge of the rules wasn't perfect, the fact remains that you were able to provide a thrilling experience for them. Now, you know the rules and how to circumvent/prevent/better mitigate them, so it sounds like a win-win to me. :)

I'd also like to point out that even if the fighter never hit them, the PCs burned a portion of their daily resources to shut down the fighter. Having the PCs and enemies trade numbers of damage back and forth doesn't mean the fight was successful. If the fight bored or annoyed your PCs or if they were able to tell that the fight was put there just to absorb more time during D&D time, then the encounter was unsuccessful. In your case, it sounds like they were excited the whole time - which is good. Damage isn't the only resource in a fight, and sometimes the point of a fight is to make the players hair stand on end. Just the threat of damage or pain etc, can sometimes be enough of a motivator to stop a fight in its tracks like your players did.

Regardless, your lack of rules knowledge didn't stop the fight from letting your PCs have a good time, and that's what's important. This was an extremely successful encounter, even if you don't feel like it was.

[Zaq]

Web is extremely powerful. I'm hesitant to call it broken outright, but it's definitely a top-tier BfC spell at the level you get it (and it can stay good for quite some time). And to be fair, a BSF (Big Stupid Fighter) is basically exactly the kind of target a Wizard uses Web on. Someone who relies on melee combat is going to be incredibly hampered by being unable to move as they choose, and that's the whole goal for a Wizard casting a BfC spell—to take one or more targets out of the fight for a few rounds. To remove Web's ability to do that is to remove its raison d'être. Remember, of course, that it's usually difficult to hit someone in a Web spell—they have total cover unless they've almost broken free, which means you can't attack them at all (you have no line of effect). It's challenging to Web someone and then shoot them dead before they get out.

As far as fire goes, the rules are clear for everything other than flaming swords. Fire burns through 5 square feet of web (though I hope that means a 5 ft square rather than 5 square feet, because one 5 ft square on the map is 25 square feet) in one round—that much is black and white. The ambiguous part is about flaming swords "slash[ing] them away as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs." What action does that take? I'm not aware of any rules saying what kind of action it takes to brush away cobwebs. That sentence might just be a fluffy lead-in to the hard rule about fire burning the webs in one round, or it might be a separate consideration. That's GM call territory. I don't think it makes sense for someone at ground zero of a Web spell being totally unaffected because they're holding a flaming sword, but they clearly need to have a much easier time escaping than the guy with a freezing sword.

[Segev]

I believe it would be DM call, but I could certainly argue that "a brand clearing cobwebs" is actually just part of a move action. Hold it out in front of you, move it side to side as you go. You're not stopping to do anything.

[Willie the Duck]

Note also that spell balance, by all accounts, does not appear to have been set up with the idea that balancing arena battles between PCs and NPCs in mind. One of the biggest limitations of the web spell is how many creatures are not affected by it. Anything incorporeal, anything big and strong, many situations for flyers (unless they are flying between two pillars you could use as anchor points), anything flaming)--a lot of creatures are just not going to be effected. Just like Entangle for druids is massively overpowered in a specific arena, but more difficult to deploy when the PCs want to use it, web is really strong in controlled circumstances, because much of its balancing factor has been removed.

[Eldariel]

Web is possibly the strongest level 2 control spell (up there with Glitterdust), useful even on a successful save, huge area and with a strong status effect that can be used one-sidedly in an appropriately equipped party (ranged weapons, blind AOE effects, etc.). While it's restricted in requiring anchor points, it becomes usable basically anywhere in some very common environments (indoors, forests), is still usable elsewhere, and can punch far above its weight. Only things that teleport, and things that lack a material body (a very small subset of enemies) are largely unaffected, and even they largely end up having to deal with the concealment aspects of the spell. By the sound of it, this case didn't really feature the spell used to its full potential; it really shines vs. numerous enemies with the party designed to put a hurt on the stuck enemies.

Entangle is a great comparison; huge area, strong status, long cast range, does something even on a successful save and hits a number of enemies. Plants can be procured where they don't naturally exist but it's much harder to Entangle flying enemies than it is to find a location to Web them (though forests and dungeons generally serve Entangle well too).

[nedz]

Web is something which most characters should have a counter too. Unless the fighter was in a hurry he should have moved backwards, away from the party, and then gone around it. Alternatively he should have just got out his tinderbox and torched it - it's only 1d6 fire damage - eventually he would have got out.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Web isn't broken. It was just used well and the target responded foolishly. That and you messed up some of the rules.

Even ignoring the fact he could've easily cut himself free with his flaming weapon, he could've and should've moved away from the caster until he was free and capable of moving normally. The web would've provided cover until he got free unless the enemy moved around to the other side; something that the terrain would've impeded at least somewhat under circumstances where web can legally be placed.

Glitterdust is worse. Look up what being blinded does to a character.

[Psyren]

Web isn't broken. It was just used well and the target responded foolishly. That and you messed up some of the rules.

In Quild's defense, the player messed up here too - apparently, they were fighting in an open arena with nowhere to anchor the web, so the spell should have been a failure/waste.

[Kelb_Panthera]

In Quild's defense, the player messed up here too - apparently, they were fighting in an open arena with nowhere to anchor the web, so the spell should have been a failure/waste.

Is that not covered by "messed up some of the rules?"

[Psyren]

Is that not covered by "messed up some of the rules?"

It is, but your "you" sounded like you were aiming it at the DM exclusively, not the player. The player messed up by not reading the spell and thinking he could do something that was actually illegal, and the DM messed up by not catching it, so there is fault on both sides, but ultimately it's the player that should be the guru here - if the DM can't trust that you know what you're doing when you play a caster and has to audit every spell, that is just going to create a lot more headache than the game needs.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It is, but your "you" sounded like you were aiming it at the DM exclusively, not the player. The player messed up by not reading the spell and thinking he could do something that was actually illegal, and the DM messed up by not catching it, so there is fault on both sides, but ultimately it's the player that should be the guru here - if the DM can't trust that you know what you're doing when you play a caster and has to audit every spell, that is just going to create a lot more headache than the game needs.

I intended the global 'you' to include his whole group

I do agree with you in principle but 'guru?' That's a bit much. You're absolutely right if you extend that to say that each player should -know- what his character can do, though. Otherwise we're in agreement here.

Unless you want to split this hair a little finer. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

I do agree with you in principle but 'guru?' That's a bit much.

"First line of defense," then.

What I was mostly taking issue with was the "it was used well" assertion - it clearly wasn't used well, it just so happens that both sides didn't realize that it shouldn't have worked.

(Or maybe the player knew and kept it quiet, which is even worse.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

"First line of defense," then.

What I was mostly taking issue with was the "it was used well" assertion - it clearly wasn't used well, it just so happens that both sides didn't realize that it shouldn't have worked.

(Or maybe the player knew and kept it quiet, which is even worse.)

It was used illegally but, given the results, it was certainly used well.

(I prefer not to attribute to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance in most cases.)

[ericgrau]

Hi,

I've been DM-ing my first game ever this week-end and faced some trouble with a player using the web spell.

The two players had to face a Fighter and before he could reach them, the Wizard used the "web (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/web.htm)" spell.

The Fighter failed the Reflex Save and lost a round.
He then made a DC 20 Strength Check (the character had 22 STR had this point, so a 14 on die was enough necessary). But it took a second round.
The Fighter then failed a 15+ Strenght Check in order to move 5 feet in direction of the caster. Third round lost.
The Fighter managed a 15-19 Strenght Check in order to move 5 feet in direction of the caster. He lost "total cover" and became exposed to one of the Wizard's wand containing Ray of Enfeeblement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/rayOfEnfeeblement.htm).
He was unable to move further on his fifth round, received another ray.
Unable to move on the sixth round, received another ray.
Due to the other character damaging him during this time, the Fighter died.

So my Fighter managed to move 5 feet in 6 rounds.
Soooo, we wonder what we missed.


One answer is that we missed the part about fire damaging the web. The Fighter had an axe with a fire enhancement... But even with that, how much round would it have taken for him to free himself completely from the web? Is he supposed to clean 5 feet of web each round, therefore taking 5 rounds to move from the web? (one for the square he's in, 4 for the four square in front of him)

If he hadn't the flaming axe, I guess he could have simply taken a torch (being in an arena, it would have been far-fetched for him to have one...) and... Put the whole web in fire or only square by square?
Fighter's fault for not carrying a sling, or composite longbow if he has the money. Web is only 1 of 537 magical and non-magical reasons. Web then gives +4 AC to party but also to the fighter. Everyone level 3 and above who has ever fought anything should automatically know to have something ranged, or else the DM is coddling the players too much with dumb monsters without any tactics. Then when the players don't play dumb and use something like this against a monster, the DM has never seen the solution before and has no idea what to do.

If it were an unintelligent monster then he could use his strength to greater effect to escape, and he probably has more HP to last that long too.

Also whenever you have Xv1 there is going to be a lot of action advantage and luck involved. When it's XvX if one guy gets unlucky there are 3 others. Xv1 one bad save and it's over, or he passes all the saves due to his higher level. Or a specific tactic works great or fails horribly. Conversely you get a lot of threads where a lone melee baddy 1 shots a PC and then bam he needs a new character. Xv1 is a bit binary. Which isn't necessarily bad, but you better expect sudden swings of major luck both in favor and against the PCs.

True it is a great spell and these circumstances are especially good for web, but the fight shouldn't be completely over.

[Psyren]

It was used illegally but, given the results, it was certainly used well.

You and I have different definitions of "well" then, and we'll leave it at that.

[Illven]

No time at all, actually.

Jokes on you. That passage only describes magic flaming swords as slashing them away as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs.

It says nothing about Magic flaming axes doing so!

I am well aware that almost no DM would rule that way.

:smalltongue:

[Quild]

(Or maybe the player knew and kept it quiet, which is even worse.)

He didn't. We were looking together how to get rid of that web when we founded the flaming thing.
When we saw it, the other player pretended that he was aware of it, but I prefer to think that he likes to pretend knowing things and did not realize the stupidity of what he was saying.

The player who casted the spell had been my DM for the games I had as a player and has played several casters. But speaking about the incident yesterday, I realized that he played a lot with players not really reading descriptions of things.
As a user of melee characters, I've taught him a lot of things about melee. I thought he was better on casters!

Again, the both liked a lot my scenario, so... It's all good to me. I'm relieved that I won't have problems with web and debuffs next time.

[Willie the Duck]

Entangle is a great comparison; huge area, strong status, long cast range, does something even on a successful save and hits a number of enemies. Plants can be procured where they don't naturally exist but it's much harder to Entangle flying enemies than it is to find a location to Web them (though forests and dungeons generally serve Entangle well too).

It certainly turned out that way (and I still think the low level 'riding dog companion has a saddlebag full of vegetation' is a well outside the RAI). I think, however, that the game was designed with the assumption that finding plantful situations would be rare outside of wilderness encounters. Glitterdust I think was the same problem as 3.0 darkness (AoE blindness is hugely powerful for low level spells) and somehow didn't get fixed in the 3.5 conversion. Web, I think they just didn't realize how powerful battlefield control was going to be (or playtested it against other PCs, who all have tinderboxes).