So with some money spent a level 2 spell becomes more than the damage-dealing equivalent of a spell pumped up past level 20. *headshake* 4d8 from spell + 9 vials of Acid (2d6= 18d6) = around 80 damage on average? Sure, let them players do it. But immediately let them know not to be surprised if this suddenly becomes a favored tactic of enemies.
I think if WotC are genuinely worried about this combination wrecking gameplay, they'll publish an errata. But it's been left an obviously ambiguous topic for a while now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
It's not ambiguous at all, honestly. Catapult does what it says it does. One object, weighing between one to five pounds, dealing 3d8 damage, plus an additional d8 and five pounds of launchable object for every level of the spell. Anything beyond that is the DM making a judgment call or laying down house rules. Generous, non-AL DMs might be encouraged to reward clever team play and combo work with Catapult, but they are not obliged to. The spell does what it says it does and nothing else.
It's not ambiguous at all, honestly. Catapult does what it says it does. One object, weighing between one to five pounds, dealing 3d8 damage, plus an additional d8 and five pounds of launchable object for every level of the spell. Anything beyond that is the DM making a judgment call or laying down house rules. Generous, non-AL DMs might be encouraged to reward clever team play and combo work with Catapult, but they are not obliged to. The spell does what it says it does and nothing else.
Mmm. As a DM, I'd allow the extra damage any day. But I wonder what an AL DM would rule, as the flask would most likely shatter? As an edit to my former statement, I believe WotC left the idea up to interpretation for a reason.
There are plenty of ways to use the spell creatively without changing anything about it. Its a low level alternative to telekinesis, for example. You can use it to snatch loose objects that are within 60 feet and have it fly too a point just above your hand whereupon it will fall into your grasp.
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!
So with some money spent a level 2 spell becomes more than the damage-dealing equivalent of a spell pumped up past level 20. *headshake* 4d8 from spell + 9 vials of Acid (2d6= 18d6) = around 80 damage on average? Sure, let them players do it. But immediately let them know not to be surprised if this suddenly becomes a favored tactic of enemies.
I think if WotC are genuinely worried about this combination wrecking gameplay, they'll publish an errata. But it's been left an obviously ambiguous topic for a while now.
If you think about it, it makes sense that it isn't breaking gameplay. With enough gp, you can always add that damage to a regular weapon through poisoning it. Keep in mind that catapulting alchemists fire on a regular basis for anything but a boss fight will eat up your reserves fairly quickly. IN a boss fight, even Joe Fighterman will be blowing all his one-time powerful items.
"Things do what they say they do and nothing else" is not a great defense here because technically the only way you deal damage with an Acid (vial) is with an improvised attack that has a specified range. That attack deals the damage.
Obviously most DMs are likely to allow alternate (reasonable) ways to damage things with acid, but by strict RAW acid vials can only be used in that one way. It is a bizarrely restrictive description for an edition that seems to embrace open-ended effects.
well the Catapult spell says that it works with object weighing 1 to 5 pounds at 1st lev and increases by 5 pounds per spell lev and Grappling Hook is 4 pounds so if the thing you want to grapple that is with in 90 feet it might work.
hell if you wanted to you can at 5th lev you can fire a bear Trap at someone's face .....witch is terrifying thing to do now that i think about it.
nets are also only 3 pounds and within the spells perimeters. now that i think of it it only states a weight (5 pounds) but never a size? so you could catapult a fully unfurled net.
It's worth noting that the net would also take the 3d8 damage from Catapult, which would almost assuredly destroy it. You would effectively be blasting a target with hunks of hemp, not nettapulting them.
But the 3d8 damage is bludgeoning. Nets and ropes are destroyed by 5 points of slashing damage, not bludgeoning. The net would be fine.
Dealing 5 points of slashing to a net frees someone while destroying it; that is not to say that is the only way to destroy a net. Generally, "Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object." When that fails, the following guidance is provided for small objects made of rope: AC 11, 3 or 10 HP, immunity to poison and psychic damage, and potentially resistance? to bludgeoning and vulnerability? to fire and slashing? "As always, use your best judgment."
Nets get tangled, torn, frayed, ripped, etc. from blunt force and other stressors all the time. The fact that you can't cut a restrained creature free with bludgeoning damage does not stand for the proposition that a net is immune to bludgeoning damage.
but that the thing the spell that do's the bludgeoning damage but if the thing you use the Catapult spell on also have a effect for the limitations of this spell is that the object that isn’t being worn or carried weighs 1 to 5 pounds can be fired at 1st lev witch increases by 5 pounds per spell lev.
so as long as the object is not worn or carried and at 1st lev 1-5 pounds you can lunch just about anything up to 90 feet as long as it fallows those two rules to the spell and if you have something attach you can pull something back to you or get a grabbing hook up on a will that at max 90 feet tall that is if the DM allows it to work
My artificer demolished the back of a cave with a liberal interpretation of this spell.
First turn of combat she ended up casting Reduce on a 120lb boulder outside the cave entrance, reducing it to 15 lbs. A few turns later she ended up using a third level Catapult on said boulder and dropped concentration on Reduce as soon as it was moving. I missed what I was aiming for (the target's dex save matched my DC) so the boulder went whizzing by him and did 26d8 bludgeoning damage to the back wall, collapsing a large portion of it (and consequently alerting everything in the cave that there was a fight going on.)
I may have missed the target, but the DM let me auto-succeed my next intimidation check!
He said he'd let me do it as long as I didn't abuse it maliciously, that it was obvious there were large enough things to do the combo on, and he asked me to clear it with him if I could do it against something like a castle gate or wall.
I think if WotC are genuinely worried about this combination wrecking gameplay, they'll publish an errata. But it's been left an obviously ambiguous topic for a while now.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
It's not ambiguous at all, honestly. Catapult does what it says it does. One object, weighing between one to five pounds, dealing 3d8 damage, plus an additional d8 and five pounds of launchable object for every level of the spell. Anything beyond that is the DM making a judgment call or laying down house rules. Generous, non-AL DMs might be encouraged to reward clever team play and combo work with Catapult, but they are not obliged to. The spell does what it says it does and nothing else.
Please do not contact or message me.
This spell is very fun and pretty powerful.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Mmm. As a DM, I'd allow the extra damage any day. But I wonder what an AL DM would rule, as the flask would most likely shatter? As an edit to my former statement, I believe WotC left the idea up to interpretation for a reason.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
i would deffinatly allow extra damage, creative players should be rewarded, plus its realistic.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
There are plenty of ways to use the spell creatively without changing anything about it. Its a low level alternative to telekinesis, for example. You can use it to snatch loose objects that are within 60 feet and have it fly too a point just above your hand whereupon it will fall into your grasp.
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!
If you think about it, it makes sense that it isn't breaking gameplay. With enough gp, you can always add that damage to a regular weapon through poisoning it. Keep in mind that catapulting alchemists fire on a regular basis for anything but a boss fight will eat up your reserves fairly quickly. IN a boss fight, even Joe Fighterman will be blowing all his one-time powerful items.
Proud poster on the Create a World thread
"Things do what they say they do and nothing else" is not a great defense here because technically the only way you deal damage with an Acid (vial) is with an improvised attack that has a specified range. That attack deals the damage.
Obviously most DMs are likely to allow alternate (reasonable) ways to damage things with acid, but by strict RAW acid vials can only be used in that one way. It is a bizarrely restrictive description for an edition that seems to embrace open-ended effects.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
well the Catapult spell says that it works with object weighing 1 to 5 pounds at 1st lev and increases by 5 pounds per spell lev and Grappling Hook is 4 pounds so if the thing you want to grapple that is with in 90 feet it might work.
hell if you wanted to you can at 5th lev you can fire a bear Trap at someone's face .....witch is terrifying thing to do now that i think about it.
But the 3d8 damage is bludgeoning. Nets and ropes are destroyed by 5 points of slashing damage, not bludgeoning. The net would be fine.
Dealing 5 points of slashing to a net frees someone while destroying it; that is not to say that is the only way to destroy a net. Generally, "Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object." When that fails, the following guidance is provided for small objects made of rope: AC 11, 3 or 10 HP, immunity to poison and psychic damage, and potentially resistance? to bludgeoning and vulnerability? to fire and slashing? "As always, use your best judgment."
Nets get tangled, torn, frayed, ripped, etc. from blunt force and other stressors all the time. The fact that you can't cut a restrained creature free with bludgeoning damage does not stand for the proposition that a net is immune to bludgeoning damage.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
To me the acid thing isn't a big deal.
If your player wants to load his pack with 20 vials of acid.....
He would be rerolling a new character when he fell on his back.
I'm a bit disappointed no one tried to do something with catapult and sovereign glue.
It's only creative the first time it used in any game ever. After that it just becomes copying a previous tactic and not creative.
perhaps the force that hurls the object surrounds it like a small bubble, so it can only do bludgeoning damage.
but that the thing the spell that do's the bludgeoning damage but if the thing you use the Catapult spell on also have a effect for the limitations of this spell is that the object that isn’t being worn or carried weighs 1 to 5 pounds can be fired at 1st lev witch increases by 5 pounds per spell lev.
so as long as the object is not worn or carried and at 1st lev 1-5 pounds you can lunch just about anything up to 90 feet as long as it fallows those two rules to the spell and if you have something attach you can pull something back to you or get a grabbing hook up on a will that at max 90 feet tall that is if the DM allows it to work
.
Is there a reason why you dug up this old post?
The projectile takes equal damage as the target, so the net would be destroyed by the spell.
My artificer demolished the back of a cave with a liberal interpretation of this spell.
First turn of combat she ended up casting Reduce on a 120lb boulder outside the cave entrance, reducing it to 15 lbs. A few turns later she ended up using a third level Catapult on said boulder and dropped concentration on Reduce as soon as it was moving. I missed what I was aiming for (the target's dex save matched my DC) so the boulder went whizzing by him and did 26d8 bludgeoning damage to the back wall, collapsing a large portion of it (and consequently alerting everything in the cave that there was a fight going on.)
I may have missed the target, but the DM let me auto-succeed my next intimidation check!
He said he'd let me do it as long as I didn't abuse it maliciously, that it was obvious there were large enough things to do the combo on, and he asked me to clear it with him if I could do it against something like a castle gate or wall.