I changed it so it adds the casters INT mod to the damage BUT if the bolts aren't magical then they attack isn't considered magical. Also the bolt is consumed with the spell.
Should I go ahead and make the bolts count as magical or leave it so they they aren't inherently magical?
I really like the spell! It feeds my love of weaponized telekinesis and does it in a very straight forward way. I would consider expanding it to sorcerers and warlocks and making the bonus your spellcasting ability modifier as sorcerers and warlocks also dabble in telekinesis as well. I don't think there would be a huge impact if the bolts were magical. If the caveat was not included, I would presume the damage was magical.
I have a lot of little questions that might guide your next version of this spell. Can I choose a bolt that's being held by an enemy? Can I choose one that's in a crossbow? What about arrows and darts? Why do they not work with this spell? Is the spell component bolt a different bolt than the one fired? If there are three bolts thrown, which one is consumed by the spell? Are they all consumed?
Again, I really like the spell and it fills a niche not many spells do!
"The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchett
Some good question, some that are actually making me rethink the wording of the spell. your questions in order: no, I changed the wording to deal with this. No, it would not be considered loose OR held by you if its loaded into a crossbow. I would say yes, but ultimately your DM should make that call. No the component would be the object/missile being launched. If 3 bolts are being launched then the caster must be holding 3 bolts of have 3 loose bolts within 5 feet to a combination of 3 bolts in qualifying locations. All are consumed as all are launched.
When I say they are consumed I mean that they are launched BUT they are not recoverable, hit or miss. The idea is that the sheet power of the magic being channeled through the bolt ultimately changes the nature of the bolt or destroys it rendering it unusable again either by means of spell or being shot by a crossbow.
I started this earlier before you made revisions, so if some of it is not current, that’s why:
I have a lot of the same or similar thoughts and questions as Astromancer, and some more they haven’t asked.
1) You wrote: “You cause a crossbow bolt that is held or that is loose and within 5 foot of you….”
My guess was that you meant one being held specifically by the caster. Did I get that right, or did you mean held by anybody? • If you meant held by anybody, what if they don’t wanna let go? Like, using Astromancer’s example of one being held by an enemy?
What if there are two bolts that meet the criteria? Can the caster choose which one gets used by the spell? • If one is special for some reason and the other one isn’t, can the caster specifically use/save the special one? (“Special” like: silvered/adamantine, magical, quest related, solid gold, someone’s memento/souvenir, etc.)
What do you mean by “loose?” I presumed you meant one that isn’t loaded into a weapon, or “in” something. Did I guess correctly? • What if it’s in a closed boltcase, or in a locked chest? • What if it’s in a creature because they were shot? • What if the creature is dead, since corpses are technically objects? • What if it’s in an open quiver/boltcase that an enemy is wearing? What if they try to stop it?
Why does it have to be within 5 feet? My guess is because you intend for them to interact with it in some way, but don’t want to make it too specific so people can flavor it however they wish. Am I correct? • What if the caster is a Bugbear with those really long arms? • What if they’re one of those new Plasmoids with the 10-foot pseudopod?
2) You wrote: “This spell does not make the bolt magical but does convey any additional bonus or properties the bolt has.”
What was your intent when you specified that the spell doesn’t make the bolt magical? If a creature shoots a normal bolt from a magic crossbow, it still counts as “a magical attack,” and/or “damage from a magical source.” The ammo doesn’t have to be magical, just the attack/source. All spells are obviously “magic sources.” So normally, if someone uses a piece of nonmagical ammunition as part of a spell (conjure barrage, conjure volley, cordon of arrows), the damage is still “damage from a magical source.”
What exactly did you mean by “convey[ing] any additional bonus or properties the bolt has?” I presume you meant stuff like: silvered/adamantine, +X, walloping, slaying. Yeah? • What about if it were poisoned? • What if it is already under another spell? (The first one I thought of was flame arrows, but spell specifies “a ranged weapon attack using a piece of ammunition drawn from the quiver,” so it’s not the greatest example, but I hope you catch my meanin.’) • What if the bolt only exists temporarily because of another spell like swift quiver? Could those be used?
3) You specified that the bolt used as the M component is consumed.
I am guessing you meant that the one used as the M component has to be the same one that is used in the attack. Am I right, or not so much? • If I guessed wrong, could someone use an ordinary, nonmagical bolt as the M component, but use a [Tooltip Not Found] coated in poison for the actual attack? • If I guessed right, why is/are the bolt(s) consumed at all? Why not follow the standard rules for recovering ammunition? • To echo Astromancer: “If there are three bolts thrown, which one is consumed by the spell? Are they all consumed?” • if the whole point is to “use up” rhe bolt, you could skip the M component entirely and just state that after the attack has been made, the bolt is destroyed. Simper that way. Right?
See how many guesses and presumptions I had to make? (How many did I get wrong?) Preventing guesswork like that is why official spells and features use certain specific phrases for some things. They also specifically avoid them in other situations to prevent confusion. As examples:
The way conjure barrage, conjure volley, and cordon of arrows all preclude most of the questions that came up from the first statement I referred to is by specifying exactly how the the caster has to interact with the ammunition. That removes any ambiguity because the caster must be able to use the relevant ammo, so it cannot be locked up or belong to someone else. flame arrows and magic stone do the same thing, but the only interaction required is a touch. They preclude the rest of the questions that arose from the first statement I quoted, and all of the questions from the second statement by simply requiring “nonmagical ammunition,” and letting the fact that a “magic spell” is obviously a “magical source” speak for itself. They prevent all of the questions that arose from the third statement I quoted by not listing the ammunition (or weapon) as a Material component.
Other spells commonly use phrases like “choose a,” “that you can touch”/“within your reach,” and “that [isn’t/aren’t] being worn or carried [by a creature other than you].” WotC also uses the word “unsecured” instead of “loose” because it encompasses more. Any crossbow bolt that isn’t embedded in something or in either a crossbow or boltcase/quiver could be considered “loose.” But that loose bolt could still be “secured” in a locked box or because it’s mounted on a wall.
All of that info could be used in your spell in a variety of ways, depending on exactly what you want it to mean. One possible way would be something like this:
You can cause nearby crossbow bolts to fly on their own at creature within range. Choose an unsecured, nonmagical crossbow bolt within your reach that isn’t being worn or carried by a creature other than you, and make a ranged spell attack with it against a creature within 120 feet. On a hit, the target takes piercing damage equal to 1d8 plus your spellcasting ability modifier.*1,2 Hit or miss, after the attack has been resolved, the bolt is destroyed.
You can choose an additional bolt when you reach certain levels: 5th level (2 bolts), 11th level (3 bolts), and 17th level (4 bolts).*3 You can direct the bolts at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each bolt.
*👇
Spells that do not add a caster’s spellcasting ability modifier to a roll use the phrase “take(s) Xd# [whatever type] damage.” Spells that do add a modifier to their damage rolls are instead phrased as “take(s) [whatever type] damage equal to Xd# plus…,” or sometimes “take(s) an amount of [whatever] damage equal to….” It’s grammatically more correct that way.
I definitely recommend changing it to the "spellcasting ability modifier,” even if you decide to not add this spell to the spell lists other arcane casters (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock). Other non-Intelligence ‘casters can already get access to it through subclasses like the Arcana Domain Clerics (Arcane Initiate feature), and even base class features like Magical Secrets (Bard), and Pact Boon of the Tome (Warlock). Recent Indications are that by this time next month, every race with a trait that grants spells, like High Elves, will thereafter let players choose their spellcasting ability.
The most recent published sourcebook with cantrips was Tasha’s Cauldron, which contained 4 reprints, and 1 new cantrip. The reprints use the two traditional phrasing formats for scaling cantrips, the one for simple damage, and the one for everything else. You used the one for everything else, just like I would have until…. I recently realized that the level scaling paragraph for the current “bleeding edge” cantrip, mind sliver, is a hybrid of the two older formats. What I used above, is that hybrid.
Even if you don’t want to have to consider interactions with ranged weapons that don’t use ammo (dart, boomerang, net), or futuristic energy weapons (antimatter rifle, laser pistol, laser rifle), you could specify “physical ammunition” to include arrows, blowgun needles, sling bullets as well as other bullets for campaigns that include firearms, like Wildemount, and some Eberron games. (If you allow this spell to use ammo like bullets, renaissance, it would not cause funky interactions if you also decide to not require consumed components since firearms have a slightly modified entry for the Ammunition property: Ammunition (firearms).)
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/1262563-launch-bolt
I changed it so it adds the casters INT mod to the damage BUT if the bolts aren't magical then they attack isn't considered magical. Also the bolt is consumed with the spell.
Should I go ahead and make the bolts count as magical or leave it so they they aren't inherently magical?
Overall Thoughts?
I really like the spell! It feeds my love of weaponized telekinesis and does it in a very straight forward way. I would consider expanding it to sorcerers and warlocks and making the bonus your spellcasting ability modifier as sorcerers and warlocks also dabble in telekinesis as well. I don't think there would be a huge impact if the bolts were magical. If the caveat was not included, I would presume the damage was magical.
I have a lot of little questions that might guide your next version of this spell. Can I choose a bolt that's being held by an enemy? Can I choose one that's in a crossbow? What about arrows and darts? Why do they not work with this spell? Is the spell component bolt a different bolt than the one fired? If there are three bolts thrown, which one is consumed by the spell? Are they all consumed?
Again, I really like the spell and it fills a niche not many spells do!
Tooltips | Snippet Code | How to Homebrew on D&D Beyond | Subclass Guide | Feature Roadmap
Astromancer's Homebrew Assembly
"The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchett
The change I made I slight: https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/1263564-launch-bolt
Some good question, some that are actually making me rethink the wording of the spell. your questions in order: no, I changed the wording to deal with this. No, it would not be considered loose OR held by you if its loaded into a crossbow. I would say yes, but ultimately your DM should make that call. No the component would be the object/missile being launched. If 3 bolts are being launched then the caster must be holding 3 bolts of have 3 loose bolts within 5 feet to a combination of 3 bolts in qualifying locations. All are consumed as all are launched.
When I say they are consumed I mean that they are launched BUT they are not recoverable, hit or miss. The idea is that the sheet power of the magic being channeled through the bolt ultimately changes the nature of the bolt or destroys it rendering it unusable again either by means of spell or being shot by a crossbow.
I started this earlier before you made revisions, so if some of it is not current, that’s why:
I have a lot of the same or similar thoughts and questions as Astromancer, and some more they haven’t asked.
1) You wrote: “You cause a crossbow bolt that is held or that is loose and within 5 foot of you….”
• If you meant held by anybody, what if they don’t wanna let go? Like, using Astromancer’s example of one being held by an enemy?
• If one is special for some reason and the other one isn’t, can the caster specifically use/save the special one? (“Special” like: silvered/adamantine, magical, quest related, solid gold, someone’s memento/souvenir, etc.)
• What if it’s in a closed boltcase, or in a locked chest?
• What if it’s in a creature because they were shot?
• What if the creature is dead, since corpses are technically objects?
• What if it’s in an open quiver/boltcase that an enemy is wearing? What if they try to stop it?
• What if the caster is a Bugbear with those really long arms?
• What if they’re one of those new Plasmoids with the 10-foot pseudopod?
2) You wrote: “This spell does not make the bolt magical but does convey any additional bonus or properties the bolt has.”
• What about if it were poisoned?
• What if it is already under another spell? (The first one I thought of was flame arrows, but spell specifies “a ranged weapon attack using a piece of ammunition drawn from the quiver,” so it’s not the greatest example, but I hope you catch my meanin.’)
• What if the bolt only exists temporarily because of another spell like swift quiver? Could those be used?
3) You specified that the bolt used as the M component is consumed.
• If I guessed wrong, could someone use an ordinary, nonmagical bolt as the M component, but use a [Tooltip Not Found] coated in poison for the actual attack?
• If I guessed right, why is/are the bolt(s) consumed at all? Why not follow the standard rules for recovering ammunition?
• To echo Astromancer: “If there are three bolts thrown, which one is consumed by the spell? Are they all consumed?”
• if the whole point is to “use up” rhe bolt, you could skip the M component entirely and just state that after the attack has been made, the bolt is destroyed. Simper that way. Right?
See how many guesses and presumptions I had to make? (How many did I get wrong?) Preventing guesswork like that is why official spells and features use certain specific phrases for some things. They also specifically avoid them in other situations to prevent confusion. As examples:
The way conjure barrage, conjure volley, and cordon of arrows all preclude most of the questions that came up from the first statement I referred to is by specifying exactly how the the caster has to interact with the ammunition. That removes any ambiguity because the caster must be able to use the relevant ammo, so it cannot be locked up or belong to someone else. flame arrows and magic stone do the same thing, but the only interaction required is a touch. They preclude the rest of the questions that arose from the first statement I quoted, and all of the questions from the second statement by simply requiring “nonmagical ammunition,” and letting the fact that a “magic spell” is obviously a “magical source” speak for itself. They prevent all of the questions that arose from the third statement I quoted by not listing the ammunition (or weapon) as a Material component.
Other spells commonly use phrases like “choose a,” “that you can touch”/“within your reach,” and “that [isn’t/aren’t] being worn or carried [by a creature other than you].” WotC also uses the word “unsecured” instead of “loose” because it encompasses more. Any crossbow bolt that isn’t embedded in something or in either a crossbow or boltcase/quiver could be considered “loose.” But that loose bolt could still be “secured” in a locked box or because it’s mounted on a wall.
All of that info could be used in your spell in a variety of ways, depending on exactly what you want it to mean. One possible way would be something like this:
*👇
Why only crossbow bolts?
Most spells that interact with ammunition, even the ones that include a specific type of ammunition in their name specify that they work with multiple ammo types, and some also include thrown weapons: conjure barrage, conjure volley, cordon of arrows, flame arrows, hail of thorns, lightning arrow, swift quiver…. Even magic stone turns plain rocks into something that can be thrown instead of only used as sling ammo. So why the restriction?
Even if you don’t want to have to consider interactions with ranged weapons that don’t use ammo (dart, boomerang, net), or futuristic energy weapons (antimatter rifle, laser pistol, laser rifle), you could specify “physical ammunition” to include arrows, blowgun needles, sling bullets as well as other bullets for campaigns that include firearms, like Wildemount, and some Eberron games. (If you allow this spell to use ammo like bullets, renaissance, it would not cause funky interactions if you also decide to not require consumed components since firearms have a slightly modified entry for the Ammunition property: Ammunition (firearms).)
Edits: typos, broken tooltips
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting