Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
When using the Web spell it states that:
The webs fill a 20- foot cube [...].
The webs are flammable. Any 5-foot cube of webs exposed to fire burns away in 1 round
If Fire Bolt is cast on a creature caught in the middle of the webs, would that count as exposing them to fire?
Or would the webs ignite only if a fire spell is targeting them?
If the fire bolt hits the web rather than the creature, then the web would ignite.
The fire bolt spell description states "A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried." If a fire bolt also ignited objects adjacent to what it hits, the description would say so. Compare this to an area-of-effect fire spell such as fireball, which says "it ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."
Fire Bolt can ignite any flammable object which is not being worn or carried. Importantly, the fire bolt spell doesn't do splash damage, as the fireball spell can. So hitting the targeted creature with fire bolt shouldn't have any effect on the webs around the target creature. Hitting the web well away from the creature avoids this entirely, and a burning web can do damage to something caught in it.
The bigger question is if the closeness of the character to the web counts as that segment of web being worn or carried. A web stuck to a character's exposed forearm is closer to being worn or carried than, say, a cape might be, but the cape definitely cannot be ignited if it is worn by the target of the spell.
The intent of the rule seems pretty clearly to be to limit the overall damage that the spell can do:
These relate to the question because it sounds as though this scenario is intended to get both effects at once: hit the creature with fire bolt, dealing damage from the spell as normal, and then also causing a fire immediately around the target which will affect the target afterwards. The way the spell is written precludes that plan, and similar but higher-level spells (I'm thinking specifically of fireball) can produce this effect. That strongly suggests that the cantrip should not be able to produce that same outcome.
As always, it's up to the DM to adjudicate this kind of scenario and I think a fair argument can be made either way. The bigger concern would be if this becomes a common tactic for the party (whether of NPCs or PCs) to ensnare and burn groups of enemies with one modest-level spell and one cantrip.
Fire Bolt states
A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried.
Web states
The webs are difficult terrain and lightly obscure their area...The webs are flammable. Any 5-foot cube of webs exposed to fire burns away in 1 round.
If the DM rules that the spell hits the web by going through the web, then it would catch fire. If it isn't counted as hitting the web then no. The key is in the spell description for Fire Bolt it says "hit" not "targeted". Also, the Web spell says the web is flammable so it meets that prerequisite. This situation is DM dependent.
This accepted answer (see this answer for more detail). States clearly that the web is only light concealment.
From the Web spell, we know that
Any 5-foot cube of webs exposed to fire burns away in 1 round [...]
So we just need to determine how much of the webs are exposed to fire. Fire Bolt says:
You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range.
By this description, the mote of fire actually travels through the air from the caster's hand to the target. This means that every point along the line of effect from the caster to the target is exposed to fire, and therefore every 5-foot cube of the web that intersects Fire Bolt's line of effect is ignited as the mote of flame flies through it. This includes the caster's and target's own spaces, if either one is within the webs.
Note that the webs along this path are ignited regardless of whether the attack hits or misses. Either way, the webs have still been exposed to fire. If the attack misses, the DM might additionally decide that the mote of fire continues onward until it reaches its maximum range and burns out or until it hits an obstruction. If so, all the webs along the entire flight path will be ignited.
Firebolt’s description reads:
You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. [...] A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried.
If you targeted the creature, neither the web nor the creature would not catch on fire. As a creature is either wearing and/or carrying any flammable objects in its possession, they do not ignite on fire. The creature simply takes fire damage.
If however you specifically targeted the 5ft cube of web the creature was in, it would then catch on fire and do 2d4 damage to the creature, as per Web’s spell description:
The webs are flammable. Any 5 foot cube of webs exposed to fire burns away in 1 round, dealing 2d4 fire damage to any creature that starts its turn in the fire.
If you used the optional rule for Hitting Cover, found on page 272 of the DMG, and treated the web as cover, you could potentially ignite the web by targeting (and missing) the creature.
When a ranged attack misses a target that has cover, you can use this optional rule to determine whether the cover was struck by the attack. First, determine whether the attack roll would have hit the protected target without the cover. If the attack roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target but high enough to strike the target if there had been no cover, the object used for cover is struck.
I will point out that this is more of a homebrew use of this optional rule because, as stated previously, spells only do what they say they do, and web says nothing about providing cover.
Alternatively, the DM could simply rule that “because the web is such a huge target, it still lights on fire” or “because the firebolt had to pass through the web to hit the creature, it lights on fire”. Again though, this is a not a Rules as Written ruling.
