The artificer used a 5 lbs object for his catapult spell. The object has a rope tied to it and on the other end is a living creature. The spell is targeting the 5lbs object, not the creature. The object is not worn nor carried. Will this work? Or how about a 2 lb object and sitting on top of it is a 3 lbs creature. will catapult work on it?
Yeah, this is outside the rules we have available to us. It's also not clear what you're trying to do; use an object that is tied down or sat on to cause damage to an enemy, or use Catapult to (safely?) move a creature from one place to another? If it's the first one, then probably its fine as long as the rope is long enough or the sitting creature lets the object fly out from under it. If you're trying to move a creature, that is not what this spell does unless you're DM allows it. There are many spells for moving creatures, I would suggest using one of those.
The artificer used a 5 lbs object for his catapult spell. The object has a rope tied to it and on the other end is a living creature. The spell is targeting the 5lbs object, not the creature. The object is not worn nor carried. Will this work? Or how about a 2 lb object and sitting on top of it is a 3 lbs creature. will catapult work on it?
2: Yes, 100%. You can cast catapult on a half pound rock with an ant on it, and the spell should just work. I can't imagine any GM ruling against this. Where GM fiat might well come up is what happens to the ant - the spell might render the rock slick, so the ant is left behind, or the ant might be carried with the rock.
1: Depends on your GM, but every GM I've ever had, including me, would count everything weighing down the target object against the target's weight.
Yeah, this is outside the rules we have available to us. It's also not clear what you're trying to do; use an object that is tied down or sat on to cause damage to an enemy, or use Catapult to (safely?) move a creature from one place to another? If it's the first one, then probably its fine as long as the rope is long enough or the sitting creature lets the object fly out from under it. If you're trying to move a creature, that is not what this spell does unless you're DM allows it. There are many spells for moving creatures, I would suggest using one of those.
The spell says the catapulted object takes the damage in addition to anything it hits, so if a creature on top of the object is catapulted with it, does that creature also take damage of the object strikes something?
RAW, I’d say possibly not, but we’re in DM fiat territory anyway when we talk about creatures hitching a ride on the object, so I could see either way
I think the 5 lb. limit on the spell is supposed to represent how some objects could simply be too heavy to move with this spell. So while you COULD target the rock tied to the rope, it wouldn't pull the person on the other end of the rope. It would either pull the rope taut and get stuck, or it would break the rope and continue on its merry way.
I suppose a better way of phrasing the spell is, "You cannot move more than 5 lbs. with this spell."
The spell says the catapulted object takes the damage in addition to anything it hits, so if a creature on top of the object is catapulted with it, does that creature also take damage of the object strikes something?
RAW, I’d say possibly not, but we’re in DM fiat territory anyway when we talk about creatures hitching a ride on the object, so I could see either way
I would say yes, both the object and the creature sitting on it take the damage, because the spell is propelling both of them since they fit within the 5 lb weight limit of the spell.
I think the 5 lb. limit on the spell is supposed to represent how some objects could simply be too heavy to move with this spell. So while you COULD target the rock tied to the rope, it wouldn't pull the person on the other end of the rope. It would either pull the rope taut and get stuck, or it would break the rope and continue on its merry way.
The weight of the rope would also have to be handled by the spell, not just the object attached to the end of the rope.
Personally, if you tried to catapult a rock with a creature on it, I would say the creature falls of due to sudden movement of object it was sitting on. Imagine a person sitting on the tailgate of a pick up truck and the driver all of a sudden floors it. The person would tumble off the back. Unless you secured the creature, which would then cause damage to creature if the object hit something.
as for the rope, I agree you would have to take account for the weight of the rope. If you were trying to use it as an improvised grappling hook or something I think I would allow it as long as the weight limit was not exceeded.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The artificer used a 5 lbs object for his catapult spell. The object has a rope tied to it and on the other end is a living creature. The spell is targeting the 5lbs object, not the creature. The object is not worn nor carried. Will this work?
Or how about a 2 lb object and sitting on top of it is a 3 lbs creature. will catapult work on it?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: ask your DM, it isn't up to us.
Yeah, this is outside the rules we have available to us. It's also not clear what you're trying to do; use an object that is tied down or sat on to cause damage to an enemy, or use Catapult to (safely?) move a creature from one place to another? If it's the first one, then probably its fine as long as the rope is long enough or the sitting creature lets the object fly out from under it. If you're trying to move a creature, that is not what this spell does unless you're DM allows it. There are many spells for moving creatures, I would suggest using one of those.
2: Yes, 100%. You can cast catapult on a half pound rock with an ant on it, and the spell should just work. I can't imagine any GM ruling against this. Where GM fiat might well come up is what happens to the ant - the spell might render the rock slick, so the ant is left behind, or the ant might be carried with the rock.
1: Depends on your GM, but every GM I've ever had, including me, would count everything weighing down the target object against the target's weight.
Thanks for the answer!
catapulting a hornets nest filled with hornets.
The spell says the catapulted object takes the damage in addition to anything it hits, so if a creature on top of the object is catapulted with it, does that creature also take damage of the object strikes something?
RAW, I’d say possibly not, but we’re in DM fiat territory anyway when we talk about creatures hitching a ride on the object, so I could see either way
I think the 5 lb. limit on the spell is supposed to represent how some objects could simply be too heavy to move with this spell. So while you COULD target the rock tied to the rope, it wouldn't pull the person on the other end of the rope. It would either pull the rope taut and get stuck, or it would break the rope and continue on its merry way.
I suppose a better way of phrasing the spell is, "You cannot move more than 5 lbs. with this spell."
I would say yes, both the object and the creature sitting on it take the damage, because the spell is propelling both of them since they fit within the 5 lb weight limit of the spell.
The weight of the rope would also have to be handled by the spell, not just the object attached to the end of the rope.
Personally, if you tried to catapult a rock with a creature on it, I would say the creature falls of due to sudden movement of object it was sitting on. Imagine a person sitting on the tailgate of a pick up truck and the driver all of a sudden floors it. The person would tumble off the back.
Unless you secured the creature, which would then cause damage to creature if the object hit something.
as for the rope, I agree you would have to take account for the weight of the rope. If you were trying to use it as an improvised grappling hook or something I think I would allow it as long as the weight limit was not exceeded.