So if I took this spell and Shadow Blade... Could I drop the sword and launch it with Catapult on the turn after I cast Shadow Blade, and then on subsequent turns, recall it to my hand with a bonus action, drop it again, and Catapult again? Given spell slot economy, it wouldn't be a sustainable strategy, but possible?
So if I took this spell and Shadow Blade... Could I drop the sword and launch it with Catapult on the turn after I cast Shadow Blade, and then on subsequent turns, recall it to my hand with a bonus action, drop it again, and Catapult again? Given spell slot economy, it wouldn't be a sustainable strategy, but possible?
Maybe. I think what this hinges on is that Catapult has a requirement that the object targeted weighs "between 1 and 5 pounds". Shadow Blade doesn't specify how much the blade weighs, so it's probably a matter for the DM to adjudicate, but given how it's described I think it would be perfectly reasonable for a DM to rule that it doesn't weigh anything at all and therefore can't technically be used with Catapult.
Keep in mind, also, that the Shadow Blade does have the Thrown property, so you don't need something like Catapult to make ranged attacks with it. While Catapult deals more damage than a regular Shadow Blade attack, it's only 1d8 more damage, which to me doesn't seem worth spending another spell slot on.
And the blade will not do the blade damage. If it is possible at all to launch the blade, it will do the Catapult spell damage.
Right, but the Catapult damage is more than the blade damage (3d8 vs 2d8). I just don’t think that’s enough more to make it worth spending another spell slot.
But if you did catapult on holy water, alchemists fire or a type of acid in a glass bottle, it would break on impact and deal the extra damage from that.
Debatable. One might argue that the force of launching is the same as the force of the impact (since it's magic, there really doesn't need to be any acceleration - which would mean precisely that). Which in turn would mean that any breakable object would break at launch - not impact. Rendering this approach useless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
But if you did catapult on holy water, alchemists fire or a type of acid in a glass bottle, it would break on impact and deal the extra damage from that.
Debatable. One might argue that the force of launching is the same as the force of the impact (since it's magic, there really doesn't need to be any acceleration - which would mean precisely that). Which in turn would mean that any breakable object would break at launch - not impact. Rendering this approach useless.
The spell says that it deals damage to the catapulted object when the object hits something, not when it's launched. Spells only do what they say they do.
The spell says that it deals damage to the catapulted object when the object hits something, not when it's launched. Spells only do what they say they do.
Oh but that solves everything then. Because it doesn't say that it deals extra damage if you toss alchemist fire or holy water .... now does it. And spells only do what they say they do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The spell says that it deals damage to the catapulted object when the object hits something, not when it's launched. Spells only do what they say they do.
Oh but that solves everything then. Because it doesn't say that it deals extra damage if you toss alchemist fire or holy water .... now does it. And spells only do what they say they do.
It doesn't need to say that, because the description of the item says that.
My point is that there's no reason to assume that the item thrown by a catapult spell would take damage just from being launched. There's nothing in the spell description or anywhere in the rules that says that that's a thing. Would that happen if you launched something with an actual catapult in real life? Maybe. But this isn't real life, and as it says in the very first chapter of the Dungeon Master's Guide:
Rules Aren’t Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world.
The spell says that it deals damage to the catapulted object when the object hits something, not when it's launched. Spells only do what they say they do.
Oh but that solves everything then. Because it doesn't say that it deals extra damage if you toss alchemist fire or holy water .... now does it. And spells only do what they say they do.
It doesn't need to say that, because the description of the item says that.
My point is that there's no reason to assume that the item thrown by a catapult spell would take damage just from being launched. There's nothing in the spell description or anywhere in the rules that says that that's a thing. Would that happen if you launched something with an actual catapult in real life? Maybe. But this isn't real life, and as it says in the very first chapter of the Dungeon Master's Guide:
Rules Aren’t Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world.
My point is that there's no reason to assume that the alchemist's fire thrown by a catapult spell would dodamage just from breaking. There's nothing in the item description or anywhere in the rules that says that that's a thing. Would that happen if you launched something with an actual catapult in real life? Maybe. But this isn't real life, and as it says in the very first chapter of the Dungeon Master's Guide:
Rules Aren’t Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world.
The spell says that it deals damage to the catapulted object when the object hits something, not when it's launched. Spells only do what they say they do.
Oh but that solves everything then. Because it doesn't say that it deals extra damage if you toss alchemist fire or holy water .... now does it. And spells only do what they say they do.
It doesn't need to say that, because the description of the item says that.
My point is that there's no reason to assume that the item thrown by a catapult spell would take damage just from being launched. There's nothing in the spell description or anywhere in the rules that says that that's a thing. Would that happen if you launched something with an actual catapult in real life? Maybe. But this isn't real life, and as it says in the very first chapter of the Dungeon Master's Guide:
Rules Aren’t Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world.
My point is that there's no reason to assume that the alchemist's fire thrown by a catapult spell would dodamage just from breaking. There's nothing in the item description or anywhere in the rules that says that that's a thing. Would that happen if you launched something with an actual catapult in real life? Maybe. But this isn't real life, and as it says in the very first chapter of the Dungeon Master's Guide:
Rules Aren’t Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world.
It's like mad libs.
Not really sure what point you're arguing here.
This:
My point is that there's no reason to assume that the alchemist's fire thrown by a catapult spell would dodamage just from breaking.
The spell says that it deals damage to the catapulted object when the object hits something, not when it's launched. Spells only do what they say they do.
Oh but that solves everything then. Because it doesn't say that it deals extra damage if you toss alchemist fire or holy water .... now does it. And spells only do what they say they do.
It doesn't need to say that, because the description of the item says that.
My point is that there's no reason to assume that the item thrown by a catapult spell would take damage just from being launched. There's nothing in the spell description or anywhere in the rules that says that that's a thing. Would that happen if you launched something with an actual catapult in real life? Maybe. But this isn't real life, and as it says in the very first chapter of the Dungeon Master's Guide:
Rules Aren’t Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world.
My point is that there's no reason to assume that the alchemist's fire thrown by a catapult spell would dodamage just from breaking. There's nothing in the item description or anywhere in the rules that says that that's a thing. Would that happen if you launched something with an actual catapult in real life? Maybe. But this isn't real life, and as it says in the very first chapter of the Dungeon Master's Guide:
Rules Aren’t Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world.
It's like mad libs.
Not really sure what point you're arguing here.
This:
My point is that there's no reason to assume that the alchemist's fire thrown by a catapult spell would dodamage just from breaking.
isn't a thing I said.
My point is that alchemist's fire technically shouldn't do damage with catapult because it's not in the item's description.
My point is that there's no reason to assume that the item thrown by a catapult spell would take damage just from being launched.
I'm not assuming anything. You are assuming you get extra damage for catapulting specific stuff over other stuff. It's 100% analogous to assuming you take extra damage from lightning bolt if you're in platemail. It's just something you made up.
So I made up something else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I love catapult; it's such a fun spell and it has many creative uses.
A restriction to keep in mind, in addition to the 5 lb limit, is that the item cannot be worn or carried. So to fling, say, your vial of acid, you have to retrieve it from your pack or pouch and then set it on the ground before you cast the spell. To retrieve an item from a pocket and drop it might be a free action, depending on your table, but to get a fragile item out of your backpack and set it carefully on the ground might take your whole action. If you have to spend two turns to get your vial of acid catapulted, sometimes it's better to just do catapult on one turn and throw the acid on the other.
I love catapult; it's such a fun spell and it has many creative uses.
A restriction to keep in mind, in addition to the 5 lb limit, is that the item cannot be worn or carried. So to fling, say, your vial of acid, you have to retrieve it from your pack or pouch and then set it on the ground before you cast the spell. To retrieve an item from a pocket and drop it might be a free action, depending on your table, but to get a fragile item out of your backpack and set it carefully on the ground might take your whole action. If you have to spend two turns to get your vial of acid catapulted, sometimes it's better to just do catapult on one turn and throw the acid on the other.
You could drop the vial as a free action, and catapult the vial before it hits the ground.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm just your everyday dungeon master. Ignore that jar full of souls. And those bones in the corner are just props, don't worry. I'm definitely NOT a lich. Definitely.
Yes, I like beholders. Yes, I curated an exquisite personality for commoner #2864. Yes, my catchphrase is "are you sure?"
Love this
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
So if I took this spell and Shadow Blade... Could I drop the sword and launch it with Catapult on the turn after I cast Shadow Blade, and then on subsequent turns, recall it to my hand with a bonus action, drop it again, and Catapult again? Given spell slot economy, it wouldn't be a sustainable strategy, but possible?
Maybe. I think what this hinges on is that Catapult has a requirement that the object targeted weighs "between 1 and 5 pounds". Shadow Blade doesn't specify how much the blade weighs, so it's probably a matter for the DM to adjudicate, but given how it's described I think it would be perfectly reasonable for a DM to rule that it doesn't weigh anything at all and therefore can't technically be used with Catapult.
Keep in mind, also, that the Shadow Blade does have the Thrown property, so you don't need something like Catapult to make ranged attacks with it. While Catapult deals more damage than a regular Shadow Blade attack, it's only 1d8 more damage, which to me doesn't seem worth spending another spell slot on.
pronouns: he/she/they
And the blade will not do the blade damage. If it is possible at all to launch the blade, it will do the Catapult spell damage.
"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
Right, but the Catapult damage is more than the blade damage (3d8 vs 2d8). I just don’t think that’s enough more to make it worth spending another spell slot.
pronouns: he/she/they
Debatable. One might argue that the force of launching is the same as the force of the impact (since it's magic, there really doesn't need to be any acceleration - which would mean precisely that). Which in turn would mean that any breakable object would break at launch - not impact. Rendering this approach useless.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The spell says that it deals damage to the catapulted object when the object hits something, not when it's launched. Spells only do what they say they do.
pronouns: he/she/they
Oh but that solves everything then. Because it doesn't say that it deals extra damage if you toss alchemist fire or holy water .... now does it. And spells only do what they say they do.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
It doesn't need to say that, because the description of the item says that.
My point is that there's no reason to assume that the item thrown by a catapult spell would take damage just from being launched. There's nothing in the spell description or anywhere in the rules that says that that's a thing. Would that happen if you launched something with an actual catapult in real life? Maybe. But this isn't real life, and as it says in the very first chapter of the Dungeon Master's Guide:
pronouns: he/she/they
My point is that there's no reason to assume that the alchemist's fire thrown by a catapult spell would do damage just from breaking. There's nothing in the item description or anywhere in the rules that says that that's a thing. Would that happen if you launched something with an actual catapult in real life? Maybe. But this isn't real life, and as it says in the very first chapter of the Dungeon Master's Guide:
It's like mad libs.
Not really sure what point you're arguing here.
This:
isn't a thing I said.
pronouns: he/she/they
My point is that alchemist's fire technically shouldn't do damage with catapult because it's not in the item's description.
I'm not assuming anything. You are assuming you get extra damage for catapulting specific stuff over other stuff. It's 100% analogous to assuming you take extra damage from lightning bolt if you're in platemail. It's just something you made up.
So I made up something else.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I love catapult; it's such a fun spell and it has many creative uses.
A restriction to keep in mind, in addition to the 5 lb limit, is that the item cannot be worn or carried. So to fling, say, your vial of acid, you have to retrieve it from your pack or pouch and then set it on the ground before you cast the spell. To retrieve an item from a pocket and drop it might be a free action, depending on your table, but to get a fragile item out of your backpack and set it carefully on the ground might take your whole action. If you have to spend two turns to get your vial of acid catapulted, sometimes it's better to just do catapult on one turn and throw the acid on the other.
You could drop the vial as a free action, and catapult the vial before it hits the ground.
I'm just your everyday dungeon master. Ignore that jar full of souls. And those bones in the corner are just props, don't worry. I'm definitely NOT a lich. Definitely.
Yes, I like beholders. Yes, I curated an exquisite personality for commoner #2864. Yes, my catchphrase is "are you sure?"
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . .-.-.-
The drop kick equivalent for catapult earning you the extra points.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.