Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Fireball with a cone of 30 ft would be translated into a spherical form causing an Aven origin character to crash
Then what do you do about the human Wizard who chose the small size, two origin feats, and Find Familiar? There are medium size familiars a small creature can mount. You can't ban that or enforce a level restriction without singling out the player. Consider all of the other racial options that are comparably powerful as a flying speed. Climbing, and extra movement speed is available for a Tabaxi, which can drag a grappled enemy up 30 feet (half of their 60ft movement from their trait) and drop them. A flying species is limited to 15 feet. They can keep their distance either by moving out of range or climbing a structure/wall in the environment. There are species with teleportation traits that get around issues even flying can't solve. A plasmoid can fit through a hole at least 1 inch in diameter.
Dragon
Nets and the catapult spells with a net is great against flying creatures. Thornwhip spell, hold person, web, hypnotic pattern, sleep etc are all great spells to have a flying creature fall. Ultimately, let them have fun flying about
Catapulting a net is not going to work (unless your DM says otherwise, of course). The catapult spell just does damage. Allowing it to effectively impose the restrained condition is big change to the spell.
The idea comes directly from an offical D&D Podcaster who checked it with the game designers. Sounds pretty legitimate to me.
Podcasters don’t make rules. And even if they actually “checked it” that doesn’t matter; what matters is what’s written in the book. Spells only do what they say, and the one in question only does 3d8 damage. It doesn’t matter what the object is, it could be a rock or a 1- pound sack of feathers, it only does damage, and the same damage.
I will grant that’s an interesting idea, and fairly creative way to use the spell. But its not RAW, and would require a DM ruling, as I said the first time.
I agree with Xalthu, a podcaster is just hearsay. I would trust an individuals interpretation before ever believing in a podcasters words.
The spell states that you can hurl an object. If that's a net that can then entrap a flying creature AND do 3d8 damage, that becomes a powerful spell. I agree it comes down to the DM's ruling, like every single other rule in the game, but there's no reason other than a mean spirited DM for it not to work.
AND...the Podcasters in question, are also writers for Wizards of the Coast and are consulted on rules. That fills me with more confidence that some others opinions.....but that's just me.
I would likely allow net or damage, but not both. If the net's hitting hard enough to do damage, then it's too compressed to entangle.
And that's a table ruling. By the rules, catapult just does damage. The nature of the object is irrelevant.
I suspect that the podcasters in question, who you seem unwilling to name so people can check your assertions, are overstating their relationship with Wotc. AFAIK, they do most of their writing in-house, particularly the rules work. I would not, from what you've claimed they said, consider them a reliable source on how the rules operate.
If you used Telekinesis to toss the net, i'd allow it, but not a Catapult spell. It tosses an object, and if the person fails a save, it inflicts damage and the spell ends - nothing more.
Once upon a time, there used to be a position at WoTC that could speak on rules with authority, but when Jeremy Crawford left, that ability was never granted to another (technically they basically took that ability away from him a bit before he left). The only sources now are the books, and the nearly-completely-ignored-by-WoTC Sage Advice. Doesn't matter what someone who may or may not work as a writer says on some podcast.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Walloping Ammo. DC 13 Constitution save or become prone. They're a cheap, common magic item, and the low DC means they'll likely save against the occasional strike. But if you need to establish a No Fly Zone without hard stopping them, a hand full of archers all taking pots shots will statistically be a significant threat. If they choose to engage them, they'll want to stick closer to the ground, just in case they take a fall. It also encourages them invest in defensive spells and resources if they want to prioritize flight.
Sky anchor weapon, Steam Harpoon and anchoring shots are also worth looking into as the threat becomes being reeled in instead of just falling.
'Unwilling to name' - Funny! Yes, I was hiding their names to deliberately stop everyone from fact checking....as part of my evil plan......on a D&D Forum......to help people with suggestions.....which people can choose to ignore completely. Yes, that was my plan all along!!!!
The Dungeon Dudes. Check them out!
Dungeon Dudes! That's your source? Ok, rule #1 going forward, ignore everything the Dungeon Dudes say, they are almost always... WRONG.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
You cited them twice as an authority without naming them. I admit I don't know them from any other podcaster, but their own web site says nothing about them writing for WotC. Ghostfire, Kobold, Hit Point, and their own stuff, but not WotC.
There's nothing wrong with taking ideas from them, but hyping them up as somehow more authoritative than the actual rules does not make you more convincing.
Ooooookkkkkkaaaaayyyyy. As I said before - I'll take the advice of well know D&D Podcasters over a no name poster on a forum, any day, but you can argue how more knowledgeable and important you are if you like. Someone might be actually be listening. Who knows.
Regardless, it was a suggestion how to use a spell that can be used or ignored. You do whatever makes you happy but trying to discredit people who advise and work with (note That I NEVER mentioned writing for WoTC in any of my posts) Wizards of the Coast, just to prove a meaningless point, is disingenuous at best.
The Dungeon Dudes have 537,000 subscribers, they have worked with WoTC for a third party setting called Dungeons of Drakkenheim. They have also engaged directly with Wizards of the Coast leadership and staff through official channels like the D&D Community Advisory Group to provide independent feedback and discuss third-party publishing ecosystems.
So before we begin to belittle others opinions, especially those based off people who are far more knowledgeable and reputable that yourself, perhaps do some research.
Ultimately, all decisions around any D&D table are open to debate, if this one doesn't sit well with you, then don't use it. Why does it need a page of you belittling and condescension towards another D&D enthusiast? A bit sad really.