Recently, the wizard of the campaign I'm DMing casted a web spell in the area a frost giant ocupped. But, intentionally, did not cover him totally, just about half body (playing online with tokens).
The giant failed his Dex ST and tried to break free with an ST roll. I gave him advantage in the roll and kaos erupted.
In adition, the rogue shooted him (sneak attack) trought 15 feet of web an failed because of a +2 cover AC bonus. That almost finished the session.
Did you make terrible mistakes? No. The DM is running the game and makes adjustments to things at times so that they might make the game more fun.
However, you did make two rulings that are not part of the rules.
I think those rulings might be based on how you imagine the web spell to look and perhaps because you didn't want your poor giant to become an easy target (Web can be very effective against them with their low dexterity). You were perhaps thinking of the web spell as a large number of flimsy strands which would be easy for a creature like a giant to break and which would get in the way of ranged attacks and thus provide cover. However, the web spell is magic and, rules as written, doesn't do anything more or less than what it says it does - the text for the web spell lists neither of those effects.
--- this is what the web spell says ---
"You conjure a mass of thick, sticky webbing at a point of your choice within range. The webs fill a 20-foot cube from that point for the duration. The webs are difficult terrain and lightly obscure their area."
"Each creature that starts its turn in the webs or that enters them during its turn must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the creature is restrained as long as it remains in the webs or until it breaks free.
A creature restrained by the webs can use its action to make a Strength check against your spell save DC. If it succeeds, it is no longer restrained."
----
The rules for web are: The webs lightly obscure the area and are difficult terrain for movement. A creature that fails its dex save to escape can use an action to make a strength check to break free.
----
In this case, you created two house rules, on the spur of the moment, since you did not let your players know in advance that the web spell in your game is not the same as the web spell elsewhere.
The house rules you added were:
1) Huge creatures that are not fully contained in the 20' cube area of the web effect, have advantage on the strength check to escape the webs.
2) The webs provide half cover against ranged attacks.
Here is the rule for half cover:
"Half Cover
A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend."
Since the webs aren't solid, it isn't clear that they would provide any cover or would block a ranged attack. Rules as written they do not do so. The bigger problem is that you didn't let the players know your house rules in advance so they could plan accordingly.
---------
Finally, the last comments have more to do with how another DM might decide to run it.
Personally, I probably wouldn't use either of these house rules.
Web is a magic spell so logic doesn't necessarily apply. However, giving a huge or gargantuan creature that wasn't fully engulfed by webs, advantage on the strength check to escape a web isn't unreasonable since the creatures are so large that the webs may barely cover them.
However, if the giant is barely covered by webs with a significant amount of the giant taller than the 20' of the web region - why would they get any cover from the webs? The two rulings do not seem consistent to me. A giant that is taller than the webbed area wouldn't get any cover benefit from it even if they were stuck in the web. (assuming that the webs could provide any cover at all).
Conclusion TL;DR:
In terms of rules as written, both of the rulings made here were not part of the rules. Webs do not provide cover and the effect of webs is not dependent on how large a creature is or how much of the creature is affected by the webs.
Having a house rule that huge or gargantuan creatures not fully in a web would have advantage on the strength check to escape isn't unreasonable but the DM should let the players know before the rule gets used. So in this case, the first time you play it, run it as written, then tell the players that it seems a bit unrealistic to you as DM and that in future, webs used against huge or gargantuan creatures will allow them advantage on the strength check to escape.
However, the house rule providing cover from webs doesn't really make much sense to me. It doesn't physically block objects and only makes vision lightly obscured. In addition, it doesn't seem consistent in this case with giving huge or gargantuan creatures advantage to escape due to reduced coverage from the webs since reduced coverage means that the creature can be seen without webs in the way.
So, I can see why the players would get upset with rulings like these, made during a session, that appear, at first glance, just intended to make the fight a bit harder for the players. Every fight doesn't need to be hard and players often really enjoy when a tactic works giving them an easy win instead of a grueling fight. If you want to make fights more challenging, it is better to have additional creatures or other events happen rather than adjusting the rules in the middle of play.
P.S. The rogue must have rolled really poorly on their to hit roll since they would have had advantage on the die roll because the giant was restrained which also automatically allows for sneak attack.
There is a couple rulings you did that was basically not part of the rules, which has mainly to do with the spell. The Web spell has no additional limitation based on size so wether the target caught in it is small or large size, it rolls only 1d20 when making the Srenght check. It also provides no cover whatsoever, but instead grant advantage against targets being restrained.
Don't hesitate to quickly look up a spell or condition when you're not sure or when someone else mention to you a rule you might miss. The game often has many rule interactions possible which you can't always know or remember.
i'm actually a little surprised to look up frost giant and see that it does not have advantage to STR generally. apparently 3rd level fighters who once read a (short) book about giants know more about being a giant than the giant and therefore gain advantage on strength saves (and checks).
just apologize to the group for being unclear and hurried, you'll do more pausing to quick search DBB (or a physical DM's screen can be nice) to keep the game on track. no big deal. back to the game!
...but, then use the light obscurement to help beat some perception checks to let the giant sneak a huge honkin' glug of healing potion. and call for help! ((edit: then grapple someone, shove them into the web, and light it on fire. but only if you think that sounds more like a motivated giant not wanting to go through the dex checks again rather than any hint of revenge against players or whatever.)) and maybe next time throw some stalagmites, walls, and trees in the arena to show you haven't abandoned cover altogether. honestly, mistakes aside, half the fun of running the game is using the suggestions players throw out during the game.
It's better to make a bad decision than to be afraid to make a decision. Either stick with the decision you made, or talk about it after the session. D&D is about having fun and in my experience, players don't judge the DM too harshly on an honest mistake. Your job is a hard one. Do your best and everything will be fine.
Granting the giant advantage on the Strength check wasn't unreasonable; the rules didn't specifically tell you do it, but granting advantage or disadvantage is something that's always at the DM's discretion.
Treating the area of a web as half cover is again not unreasonable, but given a giant's size you probably shouldn't have; it makes more sense for a small or tiny creature, maybe medium, but not large or bigger.
Were they terrible mistakes? No not all. Players don't really appreciate just how much information DMs are juggling at any given moment, especially if some players are new and need extra help with their characters (so that's even more information to keep track of). You're trying to handle all of that while also keeping the action moving forward, that means snap decisions and they're not always going to be perfect rules-as-written. But usually that's fine; it's better for the action to keep going than to grind to a halt while you consult the rules IMO.
The real question is; did the players still defeat the giant? If so then it shouldn't really matter, it's just something to smooth out in future.
A good way to handle it going forward is to let your players know what you're doing and why, so they can discuss something that doesn't make sense to them; if you had said "due to the webbing I think he might have half cover" then someone could have said "isn't the webbing on the ground? He'd be way taller than that" at which point you can agree, drop half cover and carry on.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That's why i referred to ruling made, the application of Cover or Advantage is within DM's ruling perview and so it's not terrible mistake to me, even when a general rules doesn't grant it itself. One thing to consider here is if the DM knew the general rules for Web and Cover or not when making such ruling. It's one thing for a DM to make such ruling conciously with justification, but some players that aren't explained anything could peceive it as a DM mistake or rule glitch.
giving the giant advantage on the dex save isn't part of the rules, but you, as DM can house rule it however you like. It kind of makes sense for its size. But have you ever stepped into thick mud and had your foot get stuck and had a very hard time pulling your foot out? And that's only, what? 10% of your body covered in mud?
Talk with your group about the decisions you've made. You can either say "sorry, that's how I decided to rule it in the moment, but I will not rule that way in the future" if, from the comments here you feel it wasn't the best decision. Or "sorry, that's how I decided to rule in the moment, and I will continue to rule that way in the future. If you would like to change your spell selections with this new information you can do so" if you feel your decision was right for how you want to run the game. You are the DM after all.
That's why i referred to ruling made, the application of Cover or Advantage is within DM's ruling perview and so it's not terrible mistake to me, even when a general rules doesn't grant it itself. One thing to consider here is if the DM knew the general rules for Web and Cover or not when making such ruling. It's one thing for a DM to make such ruling conciously with justification, but some players that aren't explained anything could peceive it as a DM mistake or rule glitch.
I agree that the rulings aren't terrible house rules. However, the OP added two features to the web spell that it doesn't have according to the rules. Advantage on the strength check to escape in certain circumstances and providing half cover. Neither of these are in the rules but if a DM wants to make those changes they aren't terrible though it is better to let the players know in advance.
However, although there isn't quite enough information, I have the impression that the OP made these changes on the fly, as the encounter was playing out, in an effort to keep the giant alive and remain a challenging opponent. That is completely the wrong motivation for rules changes. Making rules changes to benefit an NPC and make an encounter more challenging in the moment just leads to inconsistency in the game world rules and unhappy players since they get the feeling that the DM is trying to stack the deck against them by changing the rules in the middle of a fight. Would the DM have thought to give the players half cover if an NPC cast a web on them making them harder to hit inside the web?
Anyway, house rules are fine but they should not be introduced on the spur of the moment in the middle of a fight in a manner that is designed to benefit the NPC that is opposing the party.
------
e.g. As an example of a house rule I use in my home game, I became tired of critical hits that would do less damage than a regular hit. Rolling a 2 and a 3 on 2d8 isn't that unlikely while a single d8 can easily roll 6,7,8. So, a house rule I introduced was that the first weapon die is maximized on a crit (all other damage is rolled normally). In this case a d8 weapon does 8+d8 damage ensuring that it will do more damage than a regular hit. However, I did not first introduce this in a fight with a creature that scored a crit and then tell the players they take more damage - I discussed the change with the players, got their feedback and then started using it since it affects both crits by creatures and by the characters.
In my opinion, all house rules should be discussed before being implemented.
However, circumstance bonuses/cover and anything else that happens once but is not a general change are decided in the moment. The problem with the OP's two changes is that they aren't circumstance bonuses due to some local condition or unusual situation, they are house rule changes to the web spell made during play that both benefited the NPC.
Personally, I don't consider applying cover or advantage an houserule to anything published, more like making a ruling specific to the situation at hand.
Now if such ruling apply to Web for all and every ranged weapon attacks and creature larger than medium, it'd consider it an houserule indeed, but not for a one-time situation.
Now if such ruling apply to Web for all and every ranged weapon attacks and creature larger than medium, it'd consider it an houserule indeed, but not for a one-time situation.
the fact that web "falls flat" into a blanket layer 5ft thick (when the 20ft cube of web is not otherwise supported) and is lightly obscuring suggests to me that the stuff is fluffy, stiffly self supporting, and doesn't leave a lot of gaps. it is stated as difficult terrain with no sense of how dimensional that terrain might be. a walking beast would find it slow progress to move through, but so would a climbing or flying beast. as such, i'd happily accept a player with a clever defensive play in mind arguing to me that a missile fired through 20ft of difficult 3D terrain should be slowed (or deflected) in part. is that a house rule or an edge case interpretation? here's hoping the UA addressed that eventually.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
web conjure a mass of thick, sticky webbing, not the slim flmsy one. I imagine something like Shelob's Lair in LOTR movie. I could see a DM making a ruling that an arrow shot many feet through such area could decide to impose half cover or disadvantage as the ammunition may deflect after touching portions of the web and thus impact it.
Now the spell doesn't originally do so instead only obscure vision and the DM must be conscious of that like i said when making such ruling.
web conjure a mass of thick, sticky webbing, not the slim flmsy one. I imagine something like Shelob's Lair in LOTR movie. I could see a DM making a ruling that an arrow shot many feet through such area could decide to impose half cover or disadvantage as the ammunition may deflect after touching portions of the web and thus impact it.
Now the spell doesn't originally do so instead only obscure vision and the DM must be conscious of that like i said when making such ruling.
That is true. In the OP they intentionally only covered half the giant with the webs. Lower half? Right or Left half, if the web only covered half the squares they occupied? Not sure from the post. So if only the lower half was covered and the top half free (in a separate square/cube) would the thickness of the webs even matter?
Now if such ruling apply to Web for all and every ranged weapon attacks and creature larger than medium, it'd consider it an houserule indeed, but not for a one-time situation.
the fact that web "falls flat" into a blanket layer 5ft thick (when the 20ft cube of web is not otherwise supported) and is lightly obscuring suggests to me that the stuff is fluffy, stiffly self supporting, and doesn't leave a lot of gaps. it is stated as difficult terrain with no sense of how dimensional that terrain might be. a walking beast would find it slow progress to move through, but so would a climbing or flying beast. as such, i'd happily accept a player with a clever defensive play in mind arguing to me that a missile fired through 20ft of difficult 3D terrain should be slowed (or deflected) in part. is that a house rule or an edge case interpretation? here's hoping the UA addressed that eventually.
If you apply it once because you have a good reason to do so, it is an edge case interpretation or a judgement call based on the circumstances. If every time the spell is cast it has an effect that is not included in the rules then it is a house rule.
In this case, if there was something special about this giant that would give it advantage on a strength check to escape web rather than the regular check allowed by the rules then that is a circumstance change. If every giant, or every huge or gargantuan creature are given advantage on strength checks when affected by web then it is a house rule.
House rules change how the game is played. How spells and effects or other mechanics work all the time.
Circumstantial adjustments the DM makes like granting 1/2 cover or giving advantage on checks based on the specific circumstance are a DM judgement call.
However, it is important to make a distinction between judgement calls based on circumstance and house rules. In this case, if web will always provide 1/2 cover and if huge or giant creatures will always have advantage on strength checks to escape web then those aren't judgement calls that will change every time web is cast or if the circumstances change, those are house rules that change the way the spell web functions in the game world.
The difference between the two is that the characters in the game would KNOW how the spells function, they will have cast web before and know that it obscures things even more than the light obscurement written in the rules in this game world so that instead it provides 1/2 cover to things behind it. Characters would also know that really big creatures have an easier time getting out of the web.
In the case of a DM giving a circumstance bonus like cover or advantage/disadvantage, the characters would NOT be able to tell in advance what the effects might be. The adjustment doesn't change the basic functions in the game world, it only affects this specific encounter for specific reasons. That is the difference between the DM applying a circumstantial effect vs a house rule. In the present case, there weren't any exceptional circumstances, just the web spell and a giant - so the DM changed how web works in this particular case. Either there was something special about this giant or this particular casting of web to justify that change - or the DM is creating a house rule.
Now if such ruling apply to Web for all and every ranged weapon attacks and creature larger than medium, it'd consider it an houserule indeed, but not for a one-time situation.
the fact that web "falls flat" into a blanket layer 5ft thick (when the 20ft cube of web is not otherwise supported) and is lightly obscuring suggests to me that the stuff is fluffy, stiffly self supporting, and doesn't leave a lot of gaps. it is stated as difficult terrain with no sense of how dimensional that terrain might be. a walking beast would find it slow progress to move through, but so would a climbing or flying beast. as such, i'd happily accept a player with a clever defensive play in mind arguing to me that a missile fired through 20ft of difficult 3D terrain should be slowed (or deflected) in part. is that a house rule or an edge case interpretation? here's hoping the UA addressed that eventually.
If you apply it once because you have a good reason to do so, it is an edge case interpretation or a judgement call based on the circumstances. If every time the spell is cast it has an effect that is not included in the rules then it is a house rule.
...
In the case of a DM giving a circumstance bonus like cover or advantage/disadvantage, the characters would NOT be able to tell in advance what the effects might be. The adjustment doesn't change the basic functions in the game world, it only affects this specific encounter for specific reasons. That is the difference between the DM applying a circumstantial effect vs a house rule. In the present case, there weren't any exceptional circumstances, just the web spell and a giant - so the DM changed how web works in this particular case. Either there was something special about this giant or this particular casting of web to justify that change - or the DM is creating a house rule.
or the spell description is incomplete. not that the description is insufficient or negligent, but that it's simply eschewing a page of exacting text to instead allow for every DM to insert some creativity if they like. as long as most everybody at the table is aware and accepting of the change.
so, i think you're right: one time is an interpretation, many times is dm fiat (house rules).
web conjure a mass of thick, sticky webbing, not the slim flmsy one. I imagine something like Shelob's Lair in LOTR movie. I could see a DM making a ruling that an arrow shot many feet through such area could decide to impose half cover or disadvantage as the ammunition may deflect after touching portions of the web and thus impact it.
Now the spell doesn't originally do so instead only obscure vision and the DM must be conscious of that like i said when making such ruling.
That is true. In the OP they intentionally only covered half the giant with the webs. Lower half? Right or Left half, if the web only covered half the squares they occupied? Not sure from the post. So if only the lower half was covered and the top half free (in a separate square/cube) would the thickness of the webs even matter?
A target can benefit from cover only when an attack originates on the opposite side of the cover which seems to have been the case in the DM ruling when saying "the rogue shooted him (sneak attack) trought 15 feet of web"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Recently, the wizard of the campaign I'm DMing casted a web spell in the area a frost giant ocupped. But, intentionally, did not cover him totally, just about half body (playing online with tokens).
The giant failed his Dex ST and tried to break free with an ST roll. I gave him advantage in the roll and kaos erupted.
In adition, the rogue shooted him (sneak attack) trought 15 feet of web an failed because of a +2 cover AC bonus. That almost finished the session.
Did I make terrible mistakes??
Did you make terrible mistakes? No. The DM is running the game and makes adjustments to things at times so that they might make the game more fun.
However, you did make two rulings that are not part of the rules.
I think those rulings might be based on how you imagine the web spell to look and perhaps because you didn't want your poor giant to become an easy target (Web can be very effective against them with their low dexterity). You were perhaps thinking of the web spell as a large number of flimsy strands which would be easy for a creature like a giant to break and which would get in the way of ranged attacks and thus provide cover. However, the web spell is magic and, rules as written, doesn't do anything more or less than what it says it does - the text for the web spell lists neither of those effects.
--- this is what the web spell says ---
"You conjure a mass of thick, sticky webbing at a point of your choice within range. The webs fill a 20-foot cube from that point for the duration. The webs are difficult terrain and lightly obscure their area."
"Each creature that starts its turn in the webs or that enters them during its turn must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the creature is restrained as long as it remains in the webs or until it breaks free.
A creature restrained by the webs can use its action to make a Strength check against your spell save DC. If it succeeds, it is no longer restrained."
----
The rules for web are: The webs lightly obscure the area and are difficult terrain for movement. A creature that fails its dex save to escape can use an action to make a strength check to break free.
----
In this case, you created two house rules, on the spur of the moment, since you did not let your players know in advance that the web spell in your game is not the same as the web spell elsewhere.
The house rules you added were:
1) Huge creatures that are not fully contained in the 20' cube area of the web effect, have advantage on the strength check to escape the webs.
2) The webs provide half cover against ranged attacks.
Here is the rule for half cover:
"Half Cover
A target with half cover has a +2
bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend."
Since the webs aren't solid, it isn't clear that they would provide any cover or would block a ranged attack. Rules as written they do not do so. The bigger problem is that you didn't let the players know your house rules in advance so they could plan accordingly.
---------
Finally, the last comments have more to do with how another DM might decide to run it.
Personally, I probably wouldn't use either of these house rules.
Web is a magic spell so logic doesn't necessarily apply. However, giving a huge or gargantuan creature that wasn't fully engulfed by webs, advantage on the strength check to escape a web isn't unreasonable since the creatures are so large that the webs may barely cover them.
However, if the giant is barely covered by webs with a significant amount of the giant taller than the 20' of the web region - why would they get any cover from the webs? The two rulings do not seem consistent to me. A giant that is taller than the webbed area wouldn't get any cover benefit from it even if they were stuck in the web. (assuming that the webs could provide any cover at all).
Conclusion TL;DR:
In terms of rules as written, both of the rulings made here were not part of the rules. Webs do not provide cover and the effect of webs is not dependent on how large a creature is or how much of the creature is affected by the webs.
Having a house rule that huge or gargantuan creatures not fully in a web would have advantage on the strength check to escape isn't unreasonable but the DM should let the players know before the rule gets used. So in this case, the first time you play it, run it as written, then tell the players that it seems a bit unrealistic to you as DM and that in future, webs used against huge or gargantuan creatures will allow them advantage on the strength check to escape.
However, the house rule providing cover from webs doesn't really make much sense to me. It doesn't physically block objects and only makes vision lightly obscured. In addition, it doesn't seem consistent in this case with giving huge or gargantuan creatures advantage to escape due to reduced coverage from the webs since reduced coverage means that the creature can be seen without webs in the way.
So, I can see why the players would get upset with rulings like these, made during a session, that appear, at first glance, just intended to make the fight a bit harder for the players. Every fight doesn't need to be hard and players often really enjoy when a tactic works giving them an easy win instead of a grueling fight. If you want to make fights more challenging, it is better to have additional creatures or other events happen rather than adjusting the rules in the middle of play.
P.S. The rogue must have rolled really poorly on their to hit roll since they would have had advantage on the die roll because the giant was restrained which also automatically allows for sneak attack.
There is a couple rulings you did that was basically not part of the rules, which has mainly to do with the spell. The Web spell has no additional limitation based on size so wether the target caught in it is small or large size, it rolls only 1d20 when making the Srenght check. It also provides no cover whatsoever, but instead grant advantage against targets being restrained.
Don't hesitate to quickly look up a spell or condition when you're not sure or when someone else mention to you a rule you might miss. The game often has many rule interactions possible which you can't always know or remember.
i'm actually a little surprised to look up frost giant and see that it does not have advantage to STR generally. apparently 3rd level fighters who once read a (short) book about giants know more about being a giant than the giant and therefore gain advantage on strength saves (and checks).
just apologize to the group for being unclear and hurried, you'll do more pausing to quick search DBB (or a physical DM's screen can be nice) to keep the game on track. no big deal. back to the game!
...but, then use the light obscurement to help beat some perception checks to let the giant sneak a huge honkin' glug of healing potion. and call for help! ((edit: then grapple someone, shove them into the web, and light it on fire. but only if you think that sounds more like a motivated giant not wanting to go through the dex checks again rather than any hint of revenge against players or whatever.)) and maybe next time throw some stalagmites, walls, and trees in the arena to show you haven't abandoned cover altogether. honestly, mistakes aside, half the fun of running the game is using the suggestions players throw out during the game.
you're doing fine! keep the story alive!
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
It's better to make a bad decision than to be afraid to make a decision. Either stick with the decision you made, or talk about it after the session. D&D is about having fun and in my experience, players don't judge the DM too harshly on an honest mistake. Your job is a hard one. Do your best and everything will be fine.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Granting the giant advantage on the Strength check wasn't unreasonable; the rules didn't specifically tell you do it, but granting advantage or disadvantage is something that's always at the DM's discretion.
Treating the area of a web as half cover is again not unreasonable, but given a giant's size you probably shouldn't have; it makes more sense for a small or tiny creature, maybe medium, but not large or bigger.
Were they terrible mistakes? No not all. Players don't really appreciate just how much information DMs are juggling at any given moment, especially if some players are new and need extra help with their characters (so that's even more information to keep track of). You're trying to handle all of that while also keeping the action moving forward, that means snap decisions and they're not always going to be perfect rules-as-written. But usually that's fine; it's better for the action to keep going than to grind to a halt while you consult the rules IMO.
The real question is; did the players still defeat the giant? If so then it shouldn't really matter, it's just something to smooth out in future.
A good way to handle it going forward is to let your players know what you're doing and why, so they can discuss something that doesn't make sense to them; if you had said "due to the webbing I think he might have half cover" then someone could have said "isn't the webbing on the ground? He'd be way taller than that" at which point you can agree, drop half cover and carry on.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That's why i referred to ruling made, the application of Cover or Advantage is within DM's ruling perview and so it's not terrible mistake to me, even when a general rules doesn't grant it itself. One thing to consider here is if the DM knew the general rules for Web and Cover or not when making such ruling. It's one thing for a DM to make such ruling conciously with justification, but some players that aren't explained anything could peceive it as a DM mistake or rule glitch.
giving the giant advantage on the dex save isn't part of the rules, but you, as DM can house rule it however you like. It kind of makes sense for its size. But have you ever stepped into thick mud and had your foot get stuck and had a very hard time pulling your foot out? And that's only, what? 10% of your body covered in mud?
Talk with your group about the decisions you've made. You can either say "sorry, that's how I decided to rule it in the moment, but I will not rule that way in the future" if, from the comments here you feel it wasn't the best decision. Or "sorry, that's how I decided to rule in the moment, and I will continue to rule that way in the future. If you would like to change your spell selections with this new information you can do so" if you feel your decision was right for how you want to run the game. You are the DM after all.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I agree that the rulings aren't terrible house rules. However, the OP added two features to the web spell that it doesn't have according to the rules. Advantage on the strength check to escape in certain circumstances and providing half cover. Neither of these are in the rules but if a DM wants to make those changes they aren't terrible though it is better to let the players know in advance.
However, although there isn't quite enough information, I have the impression that the OP made these changes on the fly, as the encounter was playing out, in an effort to keep the giant alive and remain a challenging opponent. That is completely the wrong motivation for rules changes. Making rules changes to benefit an NPC and make an encounter more challenging in the moment just leads to inconsistency in the game world rules and unhappy players since they get the feeling that the DM is trying to stack the deck against them by changing the rules in the middle of a fight. Would the DM have thought to give the players half cover if an NPC cast a web on them making them harder to hit inside the web?
Anyway, house rules are fine but they should not be introduced on the spur of the moment in the middle of a fight in a manner that is designed to benefit the NPC that is opposing the party.
------
e.g. As an example of a house rule I use in my home game, I became tired of critical hits that would do less damage than a regular hit. Rolling a 2 and a 3 on 2d8 isn't that unlikely while a single d8 can easily roll 6,7,8. So, a house rule I introduced was that the first weapon die is maximized on a crit (all other damage is rolled normally). In this case a d8 weapon does 8+d8 damage ensuring that it will do more damage than a regular hit. However, I did not first introduce this in a fight with a creature that scored a crit and then tell the players they take more damage - I discussed the change with the players, got their feedback and then started using it since it affects both crits by creatures and by the characters.
In my opinion, all house rules should be discussed before being implemented.
However, circumstance bonuses/cover and anything else that happens once but is not a general change are decided in the moment. The problem with the OP's two changes is that they aren't circumstance bonuses due to some local condition or unusual situation, they are house rule changes to the web spell made during play that both benefited the NPC.
Personally, I don't consider applying cover or advantage an houserule to anything published, more like making a ruling specific to the situation at hand.
Now if such ruling apply to Web for all and every ranged weapon attacks and creature larger than medium, it'd consider it an houserule indeed, but not for a one-time situation.
the fact that web "falls flat" into a blanket layer 5ft thick (when the 20ft cube of web is not otherwise supported) and is lightly obscuring suggests to me that the stuff is fluffy, stiffly self supporting, and doesn't leave a lot of gaps. it is stated as difficult terrain with no sense of how dimensional that terrain might be. a walking beast would find it slow progress to move through, but so would a climbing or flying beast. as such, i'd happily accept a player with a clever defensive play in mind arguing to me that a missile fired through 20ft of difficult 3D terrain should be slowed (or deflected) in part. is that a house rule or an edge case interpretation? here's hoping the UA addressed that eventually.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
web conjure a mass of thick, sticky webbing, not the slim flmsy one. I imagine something like Shelob's Lair in LOTR movie. I could see a DM making a ruling that an arrow shot many feet through such area could decide to impose half cover or disadvantage as the ammunition may deflect after touching portions of the web and thus impact it.
Now the spell doesn't originally do so instead only obscure vision and the DM must be conscious of that like i said when making such ruling.
That is true. In the OP they intentionally only covered half the giant with the webs. Lower half? Right or Left half, if the web only covered half the squares they occupied? Not sure from the post. So if only the lower half was covered and the top half free (in a separate square/cube) would the thickness of the webs even matter?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
If you apply it once because you have a good reason to do so, it is an edge case interpretation or a judgement call based on the circumstances. If every time the spell is cast it has an effect that is not included in the rules then it is a house rule.
In this case, if there was something special about this giant that would give it advantage on a strength check to escape web rather than the regular check allowed by the rules then that is a circumstance change. If every giant, or every huge or gargantuan creature are given advantage on strength checks when affected by web then it is a house rule.
House rules change how the game is played. How spells and effects or other mechanics work all the time.
Circumstantial adjustments the DM makes like granting 1/2 cover or giving advantage on checks based on the specific circumstance are a DM judgement call.
However, it is important to make a distinction between judgement calls based on circumstance and house rules. In this case, if web will always provide 1/2 cover and if huge or giant creatures will always have advantage on strength checks to escape web then those aren't judgement calls that will change every time web is cast or if the circumstances change, those are house rules that change the way the spell web functions in the game world.
The difference between the two is that the characters in the game would KNOW how the spells function, they will have cast web before and know that it obscures things even more than the light obscurement written in the rules in this game world so that instead it provides 1/2 cover to things behind it. Characters would also know that really big creatures have an easier time getting out of the web.
In the case of a DM giving a circumstance bonus like cover or advantage/disadvantage, the characters would NOT be able to tell in advance what the effects might be. The adjustment doesn't change the basic functions in the game world, it only affects this specific encounter for specific reasons. That is the difference between the DM applying a circumstantial effect vs a house rule. In the present case, there weren't any exceptional circumstances, just the web spell and a giant - so the DM changed how web works in this particular case. Either there was something special about this giant or this particular casting of web to justify that change - or the DM is creating a house rule.
or the spell description is incomplete. not that the description is insufficient or negligent, but that it's simply eschewing a page of exacting text to instead allow for every DM to insert some creativity if they like. as long as most everybody at the table is aware and accepting of the change.
so, i think you're right: one time is an interpretation, many times is dm fiat (house rules).
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
A target can benefit from cover only when an attack originates on the opposite side of the cover which seems to have been the case in the DM ruling when saying "the rogue shooted him (sneak attack) trought 15 feet of web"