The only other comparable spell is chromatic Orb, wich aldo deals 3d8 damage.
Guiding bolt is the best first Level single target damage dealing spell. AND it gives advantage to the next attack roll, no consumable needed.
The advantage of a straight line is not as good as it seems. In oben Cities or taverns the spell must be used carefully or you‘ll end up killing random citizens, and a straight line through multiple Enemies is really hard to draw if you want to throw a specific item, like the flask in your pocket.
In all honesty, the spell is pretty bad, but i like it because it‘s cool. But if i wouldnt play a transmuter, i would always Chose chromatic orb or magic missile as my first level damage spell an then cast hideous laughter, shield or sleep all the time anyway.
I'm not sure how a spell at or near the top of damage dealers for it's level can ever be considered "bad" (especially when the damage actually eclipses Guiding bolt when upcast...4d8 vs 5d6 (18 vs 17) at 2nd, 5d8 vs 6d6 (22 vs 21) at 3rd, 6d8 vs 7d6 (27 vs 24) at 4th...
Sure, it's a save or suck spell, but there will be plenty of chances to line up enemies (just like with line spells) to increase chances of damage, and not every encounter takes place in an area with non-combatants. Plus, Chromatic Orb requires a 50gp diamond...not too many DMs would allow that to be available at 1st level. It also has combat utility use...your fighter just disarmed the bandit captain? you can yeet that scimitar right into one of his minions for 3d8, plus destroy the weapon so it can't be picked back up.
It's a great spell, and shouldn't be judged as a poor one because it isn't the absolute best in every situation.
Catapult has a listed damage. I think it was really only intended to let people throw non-magical items that would overcome damage resistances, or throw items with side effects at greater range. I think it should be one or the other, not both. Items with a special effect like caltrops ought to do less damage to compensate for the extra damage they do to people stepping on them, and they shouldn't do damage themselves to things hit directly. Creative use of the thing is all right, but there are clearly balance issues with that, or there wouldn't be threads about it. The example with the Wererats is a nice example. It turned a bunch of non-magical items that wouldn't do any damage at all into a Shrapnel Grenade. I'd suggest that it can only throw one item at a time, and an extra large container shouldn't do any more damage than a normal size one. That's not really logical, but we are dealing with magic, and that doesn't have to be logical.
If it's only meant to do damage, then it's a pointless spell. There are other spells that can do 3d8 or better damage to a single target.
It seems to me the main use of this spell is for creative uses, and doing damage is a secondary backup effect so that you don't have to choose between using one of your prepared spells for effects or damage.
Name them? its a first level spell...I can't think of any ranged spells that do better than 3d8 (avg 13) except guiding bolt (4d6 avg 14) and chaos bolt (and that one only if it arcs) at first level, and even then this does better at higher levels because the greater damage die. It also has multiple chances to hit something if you line it up right, unlike similar spells that might use a ranged attack instead. plus, it potentially has 150 feet of range (60 feet] (i for the object + 90 feet of flight)
I don't believe it can hit multiple targets.
I didn't say it could hit multiple targets, I said it had multiple chances to hit a (used in the generic, "could be anybody" sense) target. If you miss with normal ranged attack spells, you are done...with this spell, if the first creature dodges you still can hit others behind them.
"On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving."
But it seems you are right. It does the max average damage on a hit against a single target of a l1 spell available to the same classes. Burning hands is not far behind, though, and can hit multiple targets. Magic Missile probably has a higher average damage overall, since it automatically hits.
Burning hands has limited range, MM is an iconic spell, and is designed to be more powerful overall (just like fireball and lightning bolt)
And Catapult can get you stuck unable to use it if your DM is strict. If there are no appropriate objects in the combat area, how many 1 pound rocks will your DM allow you to carry in your pockets?
As many as you can carry? If you have the spell, why would you not have a few things you could throw around on the fly? Its not like you say bows are bad because you might not have arrows...you prepare for what you can do.
I guess I just like creative spells. This one is especially fun because a player taking it is a challenge to the DM to provide dungeon dressing. A DM is nerfing the player if all their combats play out in empty rooms. I played a one-shot with this spell once, and my one use was to lob a burning log at an orc chieftain. This is a good opportunity for the DM to reward creativity with a bonus 1d4 of fire damage.
And you certainly can! No DM should feel they can't reward good thinking! I personally would allow the spell to activate acid vials and holy water and anything else. It's two consumables, why not stack the effects? I just don't think the spell should be considered bad (which was the opinion stated) when it is objectively a fairly strong spell.
I've always thought the distance the object flies was up to the caster, but now I'm not sure, "The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface." Does that mean it always flies 90 feet unless it hits a solid object?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
look, i realy like the spell, but in all honesty, it's not an optimal choice. Maybe bad was a little too harsh, but i wouldn't have taken it, if i wasn't a transmuter. But we can discuss, nonetheless.
First things first: Yes, if upcast chromatic Orb or catapult will outmatch guiding bolt. But if you upcast a single damaging spell your're far beyond optimal usage of resources. I do not consider upcast unless I get multiple damage multipliers from the same spellslot. If I want to cast a higher level damage spell, I use a higher level spell. At the end of the day, i rarely use damage dealing spells as wizard because i can do much more powerful and useful things on the battlefied with my spellslots. So i rarely consider upcasting damage spells, it's just a waste of resources.
Stones, rock, candelabras or any other object you want to throw, are lying around at random locations on the battlefield. And those items aren't always where I need them to be to be able to throw them through multiple enemies. So this is a best case scenario. In the best-case scenario, it's great that you can increase your hit chance tremendously. That is also "the advantage" of the spell. However, it is much easier and more common to get advantage on a spell attack, which effectively has the same effect and brings the bonus of not even a higher but also an overall critical hit chance. So i see Chromatical Orb as the far better choice here. The 50 GP worth spell component should be affordable after the first or second session, if your dm is so strict, that you don't get it with character creation if the spell is selected (wich i would totally recommend, btw.). But i didn't considered the components in my evaluation.
And then there's the scenario with the dropped scimitar. While this is of course a dream scenario, it is unfortunately also an extremely rare one. The fighter must be a Battle Master (so it only works from level 3) and have chosen the maneuver. Then the maneuver must be successful and you must either be after the fighter and before the opponent in initiative order, or hold your action and risk a level 1 Spellslot, on which you must concentrate on the side, which fizzles if the fighter does not manage the disarm. And that only for the chance of additional 3d8 Damage vs. a dex-Save, for an action that could be better done in most cases with a mage hand cantrip (in example if the droped item is a component pouch, a spellbook or the mcguffin). Unlike the scenarios I mentioned about not being able to draw a straight line through multiple enemies because I either don't have matching items in the right place or without risking hitting my allies or passersby, I've unfortunately never experienced this scenario. It depends on too many factors, some of which are not achievable, simply because no Battlemaster is part of the group.
EDIT for clarification: At my tables (the one i DM and the one i play) it ist allowed to throw alchemist's fire with the spell and see the hit target burn. That, btw. boosts the spell a little bit. But only a little, because the ammunition is rare and very expensive...
Catapult has a listed damage. I think it was really only intended to let people throw non-magical items that would overcome damage resistances, or throw items with side effects at greater range. I think it should be one or the other, not both. Items with a special effect like caltrops ought to do less damage to compensate for the extra damage they do to people stepping on them, and they shouldn't do damage themselves to things hit directly. Creative use of the thing is all right, but there are clearly balance issues with that, or there wouldn't be threads about it. The example with the Wererats is a nice example. It turned a bunch of non-magical items that wouldn't do any damage at all into a Shrapnel Grenade. I'd suggest that it can only throw one item at a time, and an extra large container shouldn't do any more damage than a normal size one. That's not really logical, but we are dealing with magic, and that doesn't have to be logical.
If it's only meant to do damage, then it's a pointless spell. There are other spells that can do 3d8 or better damage to a single target.
It seems to me the main use of this spell is for creative uses, and doing damage is a secondary backup effect so that you don't have to choose between using one of your prepared spells for effects or damage.
Name them? its a first level spell...I can't think of any ranged spells that do better than 3d8 (avg 13) except guiding bolt (4d6 avg 14) and chaos bolt (and that one only if it arcs) at first level, and even then this does better at higher levels because the greater damage die. It also has multiple chances to hit something if you line it up right, unlike similar spells that might use a ranged attack instead. plus, it potentially has 150 feet of range (60 feet] (i for the object + 90 feet of flight)
I don't believe it can hit multiple targets.
I didn't say it could hit multiple targets, I said it had multiple chances to hit a (used in the generic, "could be anybody" sense) target. If you miss with normal ranged attack spells, you are done...with this spell, if the first creature dodges you still can hit others behind them.
Ah, you are right. I don't think I paid close attention to that part of the spell. I guess if you could line up two or three targets, it might even have a higher expected damage than Magic Missile, since the chance of getting 1 hit gets closer and closer to 100%. And it can't be Shielded. A very good spell, actually.
And Catapult can get you stuck unable to use it if your DM is strict. If there are no appropriate objects in the combat area, how many 1 pound rocks will your DM allow you to carry in your pockets?
As many as you can carry? If you have the spell, why would you not have a few things you could throw around on the fly? Its not like you say bows are bad because you might not have arrows...you prepare for what you can do.
As many as you can carry with what limitation? Just encumbrance? As many as you have pockets? Only one per hand? As I DM I would rule you don't get to dig around in your backpack for a rock as a free action. I would probably say it's fine if you claim your jacket has 4 large pockets that can hold a one-pound rock. It's certainly up to DM interpretation, though. I like the creativity to come with a cost. In the right situation, you can do extra damage or even game changing things, like catapulting the MacGuffin before the BBEG can grab it and teleport away. But in a few situations, if you don't use creativity at all, it might be completely useless.
That is the balance I would use to respond to the criticism that it's not fair to do extra damage with a spell in ways the spell text doesn't explicitly allow.
I've always thought the distance the object flies was up to the caster, but now I'm not sure, "The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface." Does that mean it always flies 90 feet unless it hits a solid object?
In my game, caster picks a line, and anything in said path is a potential target up to 90ft away. If there is an immobile object in said path prior to 90ft, that's going to be the stopping spot if everything else makes its saving throw before that object location.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
An immovable object that provides total cover to the spaces behind it, sure. But if you’re stopping the effect the second it reaches a square containing half or 3/4 cover (like say a tree), then you’re probably over reacting, because partial cover blocking spells is more accurately represented by the bonus to Dex saves and ac that it provides targets beyond it.
Your perspective will inevitably differ from others, and I can accept that. RAW provides for the DM at the table to make the adjudication of what happens. After all, the rules don't control the game, the DM does.
EDIT: I've rethought my response to the last comment, as it was purely snarky and retaliatory. I've edited my response accordingly.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Your perspective will inevitably differ from others, and I can accept that. RAW provides for the DM at the table to make the adjudication of what happens. After all, the rules don't control the game, the DM does.
EDIT: I've rethought my response to the last comment, as it was purely snarky and retaliatory. I've edited my response accordingly.
RAW is really completely unimportant in D&D. Rules are a set of guidelines, but the DM can deviate at any time. I wish more people understood this.
The spell works just like it says it does. I'm not seeing a need to fiddle with the meanings that are already written.
In my game, I'd run it as follows:
An object, within 60ft of the caster, that weighs between 1 & 5 pounds. A single arrow or sling bullet doesn't fit the bill. Small vial of acid, too light. Many potions are listed without a weight, so without a pile of math to determine the volume and SG of a magical liquid - nope. Multiple objects that are launched at the same time without an exterior container, nope. Bag of 1,000 ball bearings with a vial of acid inside it, you bet! One bag is an object.
Not worn or carried. You can't grab the enemies sword and fling it at baddie #4. Cool concept, but no. Way too much. You can use whatever you have in your hand, sure. Willing party member tosses an object in the air that fits the bill, sure thing.
Anything (object or creature) between starting point and end point makes a DEX save. First to fail takes all of the consequence, object stops moving.
If object makes it the full 90ft without striking a solid object or a creature, no damage is applied to anything.
Damage is as listed in spell and is applied to object/creature impacted and the item used in the spell. Not weapon damage also, not 3d8 per item in the container. I mean if this were the case, why wouldn't every caster in the land cart around a wheelbarrow full of 4lb sandbags with Alchemists Fire vials inside and dominate. 3d8 damage per grain of sand plus fire damage! Wait until the monsters learn how to do this! This is a better use for daggers though....just sayin'.
If you use a consumable item and the container takes damage to rupture or break the container, the condition that the item grant/imposes should stand as if it were applied by the PC directly. Be that holy water, poison, caltrops, grease, whatever. This one just makes sense. After all, the target already failed a DEX save at this point, no need for further clickity-clack-rocks.
Yeah point #1 seems to get missed by people a lot. The item needs to weigh at LEAST a whole pound. Many of the 'creative' projectiles people are talking about using don't weight this much and aren't valid projectiles for this spell.
On the topic of projectiles, as a DM you also need to step in and be okay saying No if your players start to try to ad hoc some item creation and start typing a bunch of different items together for a 'super' projectile for this spell. A vial of acid in a bag of ball baring duct taped to a jar of caltrops and padlocked to an alchemist fire that can be tossed and somehow applies all the normal benefits of each component part... isn't something they should probably even know how to make, or could craft successfully. Just tell them no. Toss a valid item that is on your sheet that weighs 1 to 5 lbs. And for aggregate objects like a bag of ball bearing... if the bag is open, then it isn't a valid projectile because it is numerous items, not one item. If it is securely fastened and tied closed then it is a single item and could be valid (if between 1 to 5lbs) but the bag only strikes one target. The spell doesn't describe anything at all like the object exploding mid air or whatever.
As for point #6, the projectile is still the projectile, so, if it does have special properties those would apply as normal if they're relevant. A magic +1 dagger says you add 1 to damage rolls made with it, so you'd still add that +1 here. But, only because it says to add that value specifically to damage rolls. Something like a Dagger of Venom can't poison someone struck in this way because it says it poisons them when "an attack using this weapon hits a creature" which catapult is not "an attack", though it would still add 1 to the damage because it is also a +1 dagger which specifically says it adds 1 to damage rolls made with it. Other objects get even weirder.
Alchemist fire says it ignites when exposed to air, and it says creatures hit by it take 1d4 fire damage at the start of their turns. It is also 1 lbs so is eligible projectile. However, note that it says when "hit" they take 1d4 per turn. Technically the flask used by catapult never "hits" instead it "strikes". I know that seems like a pedantic distinction but the word "hit" in 5e is a specific mechanical keyword that references an attack (with a successful attack roll). Catapult uses the word "strike" to avoid using this other, mechanically relevant, word. So, by RAW, the fire effect wouldn't trigger against the creature, though the flask would be destroyed and ignited. Is it reasonable to let it affect the struck target? Yeah, totally, and I for sure would... but not by RAW.
Now something like a bag of caltrops or ball bearing is another interesting case. The object catapulted takes the damage too, and, honestly, is likely to be entirely destroyed by this process. I know in your head the bag explodes and delivers the caltrops onto the floor around your target as-if you had just dumped them out... but, what really happens, by RAW, is the bag of caltrops smashes into the target and is destroyed, rendered useless, because the damage it takes destroys it. Even if the bag of caltrops isn't fully destroyed by this damage, it would instead remain just a bag of caltrops. Just, now on the ground in your target's square.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Now something like a bag of caltrops or ball bearing is another interesting case. The object catapulted takes the damage too, and, honestly, is likely to be entirely destroyed by this process. I know in your head the bag explodes and delivers the caltrops onto the floor around your target as-if you had just dumped them out... but, what really happens, by RAW, is the bag of caltrops smashes into the target and is destroyed, rendered useless, because the damage it takes destroys it. Even if the bag of caltrops isn't fully destroyed by this damage, it would instead remain just a bag of caltrops. Just, now on the ground in your target's square.
Some of this might be true by RAW, but strains realism so much that I can't see ruling this way. In no way would impacting a solid object at high speed destroy caltrops (the bag could certainly be damaged beyond usability). Broken caltrops seem just about as effective at being caltrops as unbroken caltrops. Unless you are saying the caltrops are vaporized, which is just implausible.
Besides, it's a cool and not overpowered use of the spell.
Now something like a bag of caltrops or ball bearing is another interesting case. The object catapulted takes the damage too, and, honestly, is likely to be entirely destroyed by this process. I know in your head the bag explodes and delivers the caltrops onto the floor around your target as-if you had just dumped them out... but, what really happens, by RAW, is the bag of caltrops smashes into the target and is destroyed, rendered useless, because the damage it takes destroys it. Even if the bag of caltrops isn't fully destroyed by this damage, it would instead remain just a bag of caltrops. Just, now on the ground in your target's square.
Some of this might be true by RAW, but strains realism so much that I can't see ruling this way. In no way would impacting a solid object at high speed destroy caltrops (the bag could certainly be damaged beyond usability). Broken caltrops seem just about as effective at being caltrops as unbroken caltrops. Unless you are saying the caltrops are vaporized, which is just implausible.
Besides, it's a cool and not overpowered use of the spell.
Yes it is RAW. But, also... A bag of 20 Caltrops used to make a 5ft area 'trapped' only do so because you intentionally scatter them evenly over that space. A bag of then impacting violently against the body of a person doesn't really facilitate scattering then intentionally and evenly over a 5ft space. Some would be smashed/bent, some impacted and lodged in the wound, some stuck/caught in a clump with the shredded bag and others scattered wide and far. Making them all magically land in a neat 5ft space and be evenly spread with enough coverage to be effective... that is what strains realism.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Now something like a bag of caltrops or ball bearing is another interesting case. The object catapulted takes the damage too, and, honestly, is likely to be entirely destroyed by this process. I know in your head the bag explodes and delivers the caltrops onto the floor around your target as-if you had just dumped them out... but, what really happens, by RAW, is the bag of caltrops smashes into the target and is destroyed, rendered useless, because the damage it takes destroys it. Even if the bag of caltrops isn't fully destroyed by this damage, it would instead remain just a bag of caltrops. Just, now on the ground in your target's square.
Some of this might be true by RAW, but strains realism so much that I can't see ruling this way. In no way would impacting a solid object at high speed destroy caltrops (the bag could certainly be damaged beyond usability). Broken caltrops seem just about as effective at being caltrops as unbroken caltrops. Unless you are saying the caltrops are vaporized, which is just implausible.
Besides, it's a cool and not overpowered use of the spell.
Yes it is RAW. But, also... A bag of 20 Caltrops used to make a 5ft area 'trapped' only do so because you intentionally scatter them evenly over that space. A bag of then impacting violently against the body of a person doesn't really facilitate scattering then intentionally and evenly over a 5ft space. Some would be smashed/bent, some impacted and lodged in the wound, some stuck/caught in a clump with the shredded bag and others scattered wide and far. Making them all magically land in a neat 5ft space and be evenly spread with enough coverage to be effective... that is what strains realism.
Eh, fine. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a cool use. But if you want to rule that way, that's fine.
I would say if you think the caltrops will spread over a wider area, you should make that area subject to their effect with a lower DC.
The problem can be solved by immmersion and suspension of disbelief.
A player can expect a flask of oil or an alchemist‘s fire to crash if he throws it with catapult. As a dm i would therefor allow thos „combo“ to work.
A player cannot expect, that this spell create a shotgun from a bag of ballbearings or caltrops, nor can he expect that his weird contraption of oil, alchemist‘s fire, ballbearings and caltrops works as intended. If a player effectivley wants to create a Bomb he can certainly try… but with an appropriate tinkering check, ingredients AND Material costs and rhe risk of the bomb detonating in the pc‘s face if the check fails.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not sure how a spell at or near the top of damage dealers for it's level can ever be considered "bad" (especially when the damage actually eclipses Guiding bolt when upcast...4d8 vs 5d6 (18 vs 17) at 2nd, 5d8 vs 6d6 (22 vs 21) at 3rd, 6d8 vs 7d6 (27 vs 24) at 4th...
Sure, it's a save or suck spell, but there will be plenty of chances to line up enemies (just like with line spells) to increase chances of damage, and not every encounter takes place in an area with non-combatants. Plus, Chromatic Orb requires a 50gp diamond...not too many DMs would allow that to be available at 1st level. It also has combat utility use...your fighter just disarmed the bandit captain? you can yeet that scimitar right into one of his minions for 3d8, plus destroy the weapon so it can't be picked back up.
It's a great spell, and shouldn't be judged as a poor one because it isn't the absolute best in every situation.
I didn't say it could hit multiple targets, I said it had multiple chances to hit a (used in the generic, "could be anybody" sense) target. If you miss with normal ranged attack spells, you are done...with this spell, if the first creature dodges you still can hit others behind them.
Burning hands has limited range, MM is an iconic spell, and is designed to be more powerful overall (just like fireball and lightning bolt)
As many as you can carry? If you have the spell, why would you not have a few things you could throw around on the fly? Its not like you say bows are bad because you might not have arrows...you prepare for what you can do.
And you certainly can! No DM should feel they can't reward good thinking! I personally would allow the spell to activate acid vials and holy water and anything else. It's two consumables, why not stack the effects? I just don't think the spell should be considered bad (which was the opinion stated) when it is objectively a fairly strong spell.
I've always thought the distance the object flies was up to the caster, but now I'm not sure, "The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface." Does that mean it always flies 90 feet unless it hits a solid object?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
look, i realy like the spell, but in all honesty, it's not an optimal choice. Maybe bad was a little too harsh, but i wouldn't have taken it, if i wasn't a transmuter. But we can discuss, nonetheless.
First things first: Yes, if upcast chromatic Orb or catapult will outmatch guiding bolt. But if you upcast a single damaging spell your're far beyond optimal usage of resources. I do not consider upcast unless I get multiple damage multipliers from the same spellslot. If I want to cast a higher level damage spell, I use a higher level spell. At the end of the day, i rarely use damage dealing spells as wizard because i can do much more powerful and useful things on the battlefied with my spellslots. So i rarely consider upcasting damage spells, it's just a waste of resources.
Stones, rock, candelabras or any other object you want to throw, are lying around at random locations on the battlefield. And those items aren't always where I need them to be to be able to throw them through multiple enemies. So this is a best case scenario. In the best-case scenario, it's great that you can increase your hit chance tremendously. That is also "the advantage" of the spell. However, it is much easier and more common to get advantage on a spell attack, which effectively has the same effect and brings the bonus of not even a higher but also an overall critical hit chance. So i see Chromatical Orb as the far better choice here. The 50 GP worth spell component should be affordable after the first or second session, if your dm is so strict, that you don't get it with character creation if the spell is selected (wich i would totally recommend, btw.). But i didn't considered the components in my evaluation.
And then there's the scenario with the dropped scimitar. While this is of course a dream scenario, it is unfortunately also an extremely rare one. The fighter must be a Battle Master (so it only works from level 3) and have chosen the maneuver. Then the maneuver must be successful and you must either be after the fighter and before the opponent in initiative order, or hold your action and risk a level 1 Spellslot, on which you must concentrate on the side, which fizzles if the fighter does not manage the disarm. And that only for the chance of additional 3d8 Damage vs. a dex-Save, for an action that could be better done in most cases with a mage hand cantrip (in example if the droped item is a component pouch, a spellbook or the mcguffin). Unlike the scenarios I mentioned about not being able to draw a straight line through multiple enemies because I either don't have matching items in the right place or without risking hitting my allies or passersby, I've unfortunately never experienced this scenario. It depends on too many factors, some of which are not achievable, simply because no Battlemaster is part of the group.
EDIT for clarification: At my tables (the one i DM and the one i play) it ist allowed to throw alchemist's fire with the spell and see the hit target burn. That, btw. boosts the spell a little bit. But only a little, because the ammunition is rare and very expensive...
Ah, you are right. I don't think I paid close attention to that part of the spell. I guess if you could line up two or three targets, it might even have a higher expected damage than Magic Missile, since the chance of getting 1 hit gets closer and closer to 100%. And it can't be Shielded. A very good spell, actually.
As many as you can carry with what limitation? Just encumbrance? As many as you have pockets? Only one per hand? As I DM I would rule you don't get to dig around in your backpack for a rock as a free action. I would probably say it's fine if you claim your jacket has 4 large pockets that can hold a one-pound rock. It's certainly up to DM interpretation, though. I like the creativity to come with a cost. In the right situation, you can do extra damage or even game changing things, like catapulting the MacGuffin before the BBEG can grab it and teleport away. But in a few situations, if you don't use creativity at all, it might be completely useless.
That is the balance I would use to respond to the criticism that it's not fair to do extra damage with a spell in ways the spell text doesn't explicitly allow.
In my game, caster picks a line, and anything in said path is a potential target up to 90ft away. If there is an immobile object in said path prior to 90ft, that's going to be the stopping spot if everything else makes its saving throw before that object location.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
An immovable object that provides total cover to the spaces behind it, sure. But if you’re stopping the effect the second it reaches a square containing half or 3/4 cover (like say a tree), then you’re probably over reacting, because partial cover blocking spells is more accurately represented by the bonus to Dex saves and ac that it provides targets beyond it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Your perspective will inevitably differ from others, and I can accept that. RAW provides for the DM at the table to make the adjudication of what happens. After all, the rules don't control the game, the DM does.
EDIT: I've rethought my response to the last comment, as it was purely snarky and retaliatory. I've edited my response accordingly.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
RAW is really completely unimportant in D&D. Rules are a set of guidelines, but the DM can deviate at any time. I wish more people understood this.
Yeah point #1 seems to get missed by people a lot. The item needs to weigh at LEAST a whole pound. Many of the 'creative' projectiles people are talking about using don't weight this much and aren't valid projectiles for this spell.
On the topic of projectiles, as a DM you also need to step in and be okay saying No if your players start to try to ad hoc some item creation and start typing a bunch of different items together for a 'super' projectile for this spell. A vial of acid in a bag of ball baring duct taped to a jar of caltrops and padlocked to an alchemist fire that can be tossed and somehow applies all the normal benefits of each component part... isn't something they should probably even know how to make, or could craft successfully. Just tell them no. Toss a valid item that is on your sheet that weighs 1 to 5 lbs. And for aggregate objects like a bag of ball bearing... if the bag is open, then it isn't a valid projectile because it is numerous items, not one item. If it is securely fastened and tied closed then it is a single item and could be valid (if between 1 to 5lbs) but the bag only strikes one target. The spell doesn't describe anything at all like the object exploding mid air or whatever.
As for point #6, the projectile is still the projectile, so, if it does have special properties those would apply as normal if they're relevant. A magic +1 dagger says you add 1 to damage rolls made with it, so you'd still add that +1 here. But, only because it says to add that value specifically to damage rolls. Something like a Dagger of Venom can't poison someone struck in this way because it says it poisons them when "an attack using this weapon hits a creature" which catapult is not "an attack", though it would still add 1 to the damage because it is also a +1 dagger which specifically says it adds 1 to damage rolls made with it. Other objects get even weirder.
Alchemist fire says it ignites when exposed to air, and it says creatures hit by it take 1d4 fire damage at the start of their turns. It is also 1 lbs so is eligible projectile. However, note that it says when "hit" they take 1d4 per turn. Technically the flask used by catapult never "hits" instead it "strikes". I know that seems like a pedantic distinction but the word "hit" in 5e is a specific mechanical keyword that references an attack (with a successful attack roll). Catapult uses the word "strike" to avoid using this other, mechanically relevant, word. So, by RAW, the fire effect wouldn't trigger against the creature, though the flask would be destroyed and ignited. Is it reasonable to let it affect the struck target? Yeah, totally, and I for sure would... but not by RAW.
Now something like a bag of caltrops or ball bearing is another interesting case. The object catapulted takes the damage too, and, honestly, is likely to be entirely destroyed by this process. I know in your head the bag explodes and delivers the caltrops onto the floor around your target as-if you had just dumped them out... but, what really happens, by RAW, is the bag of caltrops smashes into the target and is destroyed, rendered useless, because the damage it takes destroys it. Even if the bag of caltrops isn't fully destroyed by this damage, it would instead remain just a bag of caltrops. Just, now on the ground in your target's square.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Some of this might be true by RAW, but strains realism so much that I can't see ruling this way. In no way would impacting a solid object at high speed destroy caltrops (the bag could certainly be damaged beyond usability). Broken caltrops seem just about as effective at being caltrops as unbroken caltrops. Unless you are saying the caltrops are vaporized, which is just implausible.
Besides, it's a cool and not overpowered use of the spell.
I will one day kill a goblin with a lembas bread.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Yes it is RAW. But, also... A bag of 20 Caltrops used to make a 5ft area 'trapped' only do so because you intentionally scatter them evenly over that space. A bag of then impacting violently against the body of a person doesn't really facilitate scattering then intentionally and evenly over a 5ft space. Some would be smashed/bent, some impacted and lodged in the wound, some stuck/caught in a clump with the shredded bag and others scattered wide and far. Making them all magically land in a neat 5ft space and be evenly spread with enough coverage to be effective... that is what strains realism.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Eh, fine. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a cool use. But if you want to rule that way, that's fine.
I would say if you think the caltrops will spread over a wider area, you should make that area subject to their effect with a lower DC.
The problem can be solved by immmersion and suspension of disbelief.
A player can expect a flask of oil or an alchemist‘s fire to crash if he throws it with catapult. As a dm i would therefor allow thos „combo“ to work.
A player cannot expect, that this spell create a shotgun from a bag of ballbearings or caltrops, nor can he expect that his weird contraption of oil, alchemist‘s fire, ballbearings and caltrops works as intended.
If a player effectivley wants to create a Bomb he can certainly try… but with an appropriate tinkering check, ingredients AND Material costs and rhe risk of the bomb detonating in the pc‘s face if the check fails.