On uses of Catapult

[Phhase]

I was looking at threads and an idea jumped out at me. Could one use the spell Catapult to get around a Net's otherwise anemic range? I would totally use one then. Heck, make a hollow metal tube and artificer spell-store Catapult in it and hey presto, you got a mortar. Thoughts?

[JackPhoenix]

You can launch the net on someone with Catapult, but as you're not using the net to make an attack, it won't restrain the target. And it will likely get destroyed from the 3d8 damage it'll take.

[Chad.e.clark]

Yeah, RAW I have a strong feeling that nets be used to make an attack to restrain, much like a bag of caltrops or ball bearings would have to Used as an item.

However, non-RAW game, go for it, rule of cool!

[Lupine]

As a DM, I generally let my players do things with spells even if the spell would not normally be able to do anything. My conditions for a player to do so is as follows:
1) the spell now does no damage. I grant exceptions to this if it makes sense thematically.
2) the spell must not mirror a spell of higher level. No exceptions, even if the effect is weaker.
3) the desired effect must thematically make sense for the spell.

About using a net with catapult, I’d say that it makes sense thematically. And doing no damage could still be worth it. Step one and three are ok.

The problem with this is with step two. d&d isn’t terribly consistent here. Snare and ensnaring strike are level one, but web is level two. I’d... probably rule in favor, but I would be happy with that.

[Chronos]

Web also targets a fairly large area, and makes it difficult for anyone to get through even after the spell is cast, and can be set on fire for damage. A catapulted net isn't really stepping on Web's toes at all.

[Damon_Tor]

I was looking at threads and an idea jumped out at me. Could one use the spell Catapult to get around a Net's otherwise anemic range? I would totally use one then. Heck, make a hollow metal tube and artificer spell-store Catapult in it and hey presto, you got a mortar. Thoughts?

The text for the net says a creature hit by the net is restrained. It doesn't specify under what conditions the hit must occur, and there's no reason to believe this property is null and void when the net isn't being used as a weapon. The catapult spell says the target object strikes a creature or object. Is a strike a hit? The Plain English principle says yes, the two words are synonyms. The language is close enough: I allow it, and the other guys who have dmed for me have allowed at as well. I don't know of any DM who wouldn't allow it: such a ruling implies a startling antipathy toward creative thought and an insistance on rules as explicit permissions in exclusion to other choices, a worldview in direct opposition to D&D and tabletop gaming as a whole.

[JackPhoenix]

The text for the net says a creature hit by the net is restrained. It doesn't specify under what conditions the hit must occur, and there's no reason to believe this property is null and void when the net isn't being used as a weapon. The catapult spell says the target object strikes a creature or object. Is a strike a hit? The Plain English principle says yes, the two words are synonyms. The language is close enough: I allow it, and the other guys who have dmed for me have allowed at as well. I don't know of any DM who wouldn't allow it: such a ruling implies a startling antipathy toward creative thought and an insistance on rules as explicit permissions in exclusion to other choices, a worldview in direct opposition to D&D and tabletop gaming as a whole.

RAW, hit can only occur if you make an attack roll and overcome the target's AC. Failing save isn't a hit. Somewhat related is the fact that the restraining falls under the "special" trait of net weapon. If you don't use the net as a weapon, or use it as an improvised weapon (to make a melee attack), that trait doesn't apply.

Realistically, catching actively resisting target in a net isn't easy. You can't just throw the net packed into a ball and think it'll work, or just vaguely throw it in the target's direction.

(IMO, net shouldn't have been on a weapon table in the first place, as it doesn't cause any damage, but being general piece of adventuring equipment, and vice versa for acid, alchemist's fire and holy water, considering how they are used. It would solve problems like net always having a disadvantage on attack if you don't invest barely related feats, and attacking with alchemical items not being an attack action for some reason)

[Joe the Rat]

By RAW, unlikely.

Personally I would allow it with the no-damage stipulation - in essence the weights are Catapulted, the net is along for the ride.

[Man_Over_Game]

As a DM, I generally let my players do things with spells even if the spell would not normally be able to do anything. My conditions for a player to do so is as follows:
1) the spell now does no damage. I grant exceptions to this if it makes sense thematically.
2) the spell must not mirror a spell of higher level. No exceptions, even if the effect is weaker.
3) the desired effect must thematically make sense for the spell.

About using a net with catapult, I’d say that it makes sense thematically. And doing no damage could still be worth it. Step one and three are ok.

The problem with this is with step two. d&d isn’t terribly consistent here. Snare and ensnaring strike are level one, but web is level two. I’d... probably rule in favor, but I would be happy with that.

One thing that might rule in-favor of it is that a Net is an expensive material cost, as it's both worth a decent amount of money AND it'd be bulky to spam. Additionally, it'd be much weaker than Web, considering:


Catapult + Net would have a static DC, vs Web which scales to your level.
Web afflicts multiple targets.
Web can provide an environmental effect beforehand.
Web can provide damage when set on fire.


I do something similar to you, although it's not limited to spells:

Power = Expense + Circumstance.

If it can be done regularly, it must be weak. It should only surpass an existing ability that provides the same effect when your version is either more expensive or requires rarer circumstances.

Creativity should never be so effective that it becomes boring.

For example, Barbarian wants to throw a boulder to do something akin to Catapult. Catapult is a level 1 spell, and doesn't require that much in terms of resources or investment, although finding a boulder to throw may be somewhat difficult. I request him to roll DC 15 until he fails or rolls successes up to his proficiency to throw the boulder, dealing 1d6 damage for each success (I like requiring more DCs over higher DCs, maths just work out better).


It's good to see DMs use the handbook as a toolkit over a rulebook.

[Segev]

In the name of shenanigans, let us consider Heat Metal. Get something that can take Catapult’s damage, and spend a bonus action to inflict the Heat Metal damage as the item is impacting the target.

Does a Flaming Sphere fall in Catapult’s limits?

[JackPhoenix]

Does a Flaming Sphere fall in Catapult’s limits?

Spell effect, not an object.

[Man_Over_Game]

In the name of shenanigans, let us consider Heat Metal. Get something that can take Catapult’s damage, and spend a bonus action to inflict the Heat Metal damage as the item is impacting the target.

Does a Flaming Sphere fall in Catapult’s limits?

Does Flaming Sphere weigh about 5 lbs?

What you're describing sounds cool in concept, but it'd be pretty limited in practice.

It'd cost you:

1 Action on turn 0 for Heat Metal.

Concentration starting on turn 0 for Heat Metal.

1 Action on turn 1 for Catapult.

1 Bonus Action on turn 1 for Heat Metal.

level 1 + level 2 spell slots.


Sure, it's 5d8 damage in one turn, but it'd really be about 11.25 over two turns of effort.

Not to mention that those two spells aren't shared in the same spell lists.

It's a cool idea, and I'd might impose some kind of benefit for the Heat Metal (it explodes the item, or the target suffers Disadvantage to avoid the heat, etc), but it's not an overly powerful combo.

I'd be more worried about the Bard that packs metal crossbow bolts.

[Damon_Tor]

Not to mention that those two spells aren't shared in the same spell lists.

The Artificer has them both.

[Segev]

Sure, it's 5d8 damage in one turn, but it'd really be about 11.25 over two turns of effort.

Not to mention that those two spells aren't shared in the same spell lists.

It's a cool idea, and I'd might impose some kind of benefit for the Heat Metal (it explodes the item, or the target suffers Disadvantage to avoid the heat, etc), but it's not an overly powerful combo.

I'd be more worried about the Bard that packs metal crossbow bolts.

If you use a metal object that can withstand the catapult damage, it's an extra 2d8 fire damage each round you use catapult on it. So it becomes a level 1 spell slot and one action to prime, and then you're buffing every level 2 catapult you cast (for a bonus action).

No, not great, but it is possible.


...metal crossbow bolts on the grounds that you can heat them while they're embedded in someone? That IS mean.



Incidentally, one use for catapult my players in my Tomb of Annihilation game have discussed but not yet implemented is to take the caltrops they've collected from various dungeons where baitiri like to spread them around, and stuff them in a bag, and then use catapult on the bag. Sure, the bag bursts open from the 5d8 damage, but the caltrops spread around 1-4 five-foot squares, too, right at the impact site.

[Wildarm]

By RAW, unlikely.

Personally I would allow it with the no-damage stipulation - in essence the weights are Catapulted, the net is along for the ride.

Probably need to make a steel net or something with higher HP. With catapult, the thrown item takes damage as well, possibly enough to shred the net. The item does specify slashing damage in it's description. Even with resistance to other damage types, I still think the net could break with enough bludgeoning damage.

I forget if they have made an equivalent tanglefoot bag in 5e. I think it may be in the artificer UA somewhere. Another option for creative players and a permissive DM.

[Waazraath]

I don't know of any DM who wouldn't allow it: such a ruling implies a startling antipathy toward creative thought and an insistance on rules as explicit permissions in exclusion to other choices, a worldview in direct opposition to D&D and tabletop gaming as a whole.

This seems needlessly hostile towards folks who rule the other way. The dilemma is pretty damn obvious: rewarding 'creative thought' by allowing this kind of stuff has both 1) the tendency to imbalace the game (presuming catapult RAW is balanced, adding extra damage or status effects without significant costs could make it overpowered) and 2) it disadvantages players who are more literally minded and just follow the rules of the game, without trying to find loopholes in the rules (often though not always empowering powergamers contrary to casual gamers).

An extra problem with the first point is that this kind of 'creative thinking' is often applied to spells (more mechanics, so more things to tinker with) and disrupts the caster / martial balance (while the design is the other way around, as far as I can see: clearly defined tools for spellcasters, and 'describe what you do'-actions for martials, at least as an option).

I can see why people would allow it, but there are good reasons not to.

[Man_Over_Game]

This seems needlessly hostile towards folks who rule the other way. The dilemma is pretty damn obvious: rewarding 'creative thought' by allowing this kind of stuff has both 1) the tendency to imbalace the game (presuming catapult RAW is balanced, adding extra damage or status effects without significant costs could make it overpowered) and 2) it disadvantages players who are more literally minded and just follow the rules of the game, without trying to find loopholes in the rules (often though not always empowering powergamers contrary to casual gamers).

An extra problem with the first point is that this kind of 'creative thinking' is often applied to spells (more mechanics, so more things to tinker with) and disrupts the caster / martial balance (while the design is the other way around, as far as I can see: clearly defined tools for spellcasters, and 'describe what you do'-actions for martials, at least as an option).

I can see why people would allow it, but there are good reasons not to.

Creativity should never be so effective that your players add another method of being boring. Creativity should go hand-in-hand with circumstance.

Circumstantially, shooting a flaming metal ball at someone, using magic, should be good. In most other circumstances, it should be bad.


I definitely like your last bit. We always try to find ways of making magic more interesting, despite it being the one element of the game that doesn't need to be more interesting. But the alternative means cutting down on creativity for the sake of "fairness".

Kind of a complicated situation, I think.

[Eldariel]

I definitely like your last bit. We always try to find ways of making magic more interesting, despite it being the one element of the game that doesn't need to be more interesting.

Many spells come with built-in provisos; it's not so much that people want to abuse Catapult as Catapult itself as a spell suggesting certain kinds of uses ("a spell that launches items? Well, it probably matters what we launch, no?"). Further, it's worth noting that Catapult isn't that good a spell if you just do it for damage; Magic Missile does uncounterable, automatic damage of a type that's basically never resisted and clocks in at 3d4+3 (average 10.5). It can also multitarget, etc. Catapult, meanwhile, can hit a creature and an object (extremely rarely relevant except when the object itself does something, which is what people are getting at here) and does marginally better average damage on success (3d8 averages 13.5) but at the cost of having a save for 0 damage (so basically always Magic Missile will still average more damage unless the target has like -5 Dexterity and no proficiency).

However, Catapult is more interesting. You immediately begin to think about all the things you could throw. Ask me to play a guy who spends all his turns attacking and I probably will just quit the game (I've done that for more than one lifetime already), but playing a guy whose abilities depend on the tools available, are versatile and varied and I'm interested. Sure, it lacks the straight-up efficiency of the cookie cutter options but when it comes down to spells like Minor Illusion, Catapult, Silent Image, Polymorph, Suggestion, etc. they allow you to do different things at different times and thus they're way more interesting than "I attack again." (which is 99% the most efficient martial option). Of martial characters, Thief is about the only one that can play out similarly; you can find some use for your "Use Item" pretty much always if you're creative.

[Segev]

It came up in my game a few weeks ago, and I know I've mentioned it here (but forget if it was in this thread), as a question of whether a non-magical rock hurled by catapult counted as magical bludgeoning damage for purposes of overcoming resistance (to, obviously, non-magical bludgeoning damage). There was a tweet by Crawford that somebody posted which answers in the affirmative, by virtue of pointing out that a spell slot was expended to generate the damage. I'm mostly okay with that ruling (and it matches what I ruled for that one use of it when it came up in game), but...

...perhaps removing that and making the kind of damage - magical, bludgeoning, fire, whatever - be dependent wholly on WHAT you're throwing with catapult might be more interesting. It's a moderate downgrade in power when ye randome bricke is now nonmagical bludgeoning damage rather than a spell's usual magical [whatever] damage, but it might balance things if you're concerned that letting it hurl interesting things and do stuff other than just damage (or do different kinds of damage) is making it too powerful.

[stoutstien]

I think it's often overlooked that the object that you were lounging with catapult can be at the 60 feet away from you and you can choose the path from that point.
It's one of my favorite spells for bypassing cover and making pseudo landlines.

[col_impact]

Cowardice is misleading. Take the time you have before Apocalypse to prepare. Delta four niner end of world prepare. Operation Valkyrie. 4rgz♤#$-=!

[Segev]

Cowardice is misleading. Take the time you have before Apocalypse to prepare. Delta four niner end of world prepare. Operation Valkyrie. 4rgz♤#$-=!

Am I missing a joke, or is this random spam?

[Eldariel]

Am I missing a joke, or is this random spam?

Clearly something a bot would post. Given they are a well-established poster, this leads to me think it's potentially a compromised account.

[Damon_Tor]

This seems needlessly hostile towards folks who rule the other way.

You're right, and I apologize.