Heat Metal

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Tonight is a night for questions.

In regards to Heat Metal I want to make sure I'm understanding how other DM's rule and the RAW/RAI.

-I can cast it on metal armor more "metally" than studded leather and expect it to hurt the wearer and take a reasonable time to get off.

-If I cast it on someone wearing studded leather I should expect them to try to grapple me and cause the damage to me.

-I can cast it on a sword and damage the holder.

-Every battle axe I see is going to have a wooden handle.

-What else can I cast this on that I'm not thinking of? It seems there should be SOME use for this past cooking things in a metal pot out of combat.

-How about Caltrops? If a bad guy fails the Dex save he takes the Heat Metal damage also?



*****************************
Choose a manufactured metal object, such as a metal weapon or a suit of heavy or medium metal armor, that you can see within range. You cause the object to glow red-hot. Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast the spell. Until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action on each of your subsequent turns to cause this damage again.
If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes the damage from it, the creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or drop the object if it can. If it doesn’t drop the object, it has disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until the start of your next turn.

[JackPhoenix]

Remember the important part: Heat Metal only causes damage when you cast it or when you spend bonus action on your turn, and only to creatures. The "red-hot glowing" item is perfectly safe to handle otherwise, and you can't use it to set something on fire or cook food. With that in mind:

-I can cast it on metal armor more "metally" than studded leather and expect it to hurt the wearer and take a reasonable time to get off.

Yep. They also can't avoid the disadvantage.

-If I cast it on someone wearing studded leather I should expect them to try to grapple me and cause the damage to me.

They may try, but it doesn't work. You just don't have to use your BA to cause the damage when you're touching the metal. Technically, studded leather isn't valid target by the spell's description (not medium or heavy armor), but that's kinda nitpicky.... the spell doesn't impose minimal size requirement on the metal piece you're targetting. Arguably it could mean you can only target one stud instead of the whole armor.

-I can cast it on a sword and damage the holder.

Yep. He can also drop it or suffer disadvantage as long as he's holding it.

-Every battle axe I see is going to have a wooden handle.

Most likely. My dwarves use all-metal axes sometimes, though, so there would be some exceptions in my games.

-What else can I cast this on that I'm not thinking of? It seems there should be SOME use for this past cooking things in a metal pot out of combat.

Not much, I'm afraid. Given the rules mentioned above, the spell has no non-combat use.

-How about Caltrops? If a bad guy fails the Dex save he takes the Heat Metal damage also?

No. As above, item with HM only causes damage when the spell is cast and when you spend bonus action to cause it again. You can cast it up-front, and have 5% chance (1 out of 20 caltrops) the enemy step on the right one, and then it's up to the GM to decide if the caltrop is stuck... it's not a requirement for the movement penalty, in any case. Or, if the caltrop get stuck, you can cast HM on it, and it would act as any other metal item the target is in contact with.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Remember the important part: Heat Metal only causes damage when you cast it or when you spend bonus action on your turn, and only to creatures. The "red-hot glowing" item is perfectly safe to handle otherwise, and you can't use it to set something on fire or cook food. With that in mind:



Yep. They also can't avoid the disadvantage.



They may try, but it doesn't work. You just don't have to use your BA to cause the damage when you're touching the metal. Technically, studded leather isn't valid target by the spell's description (not medium or heavy armor), but that's kinda nitpicky.... the spell doesn't impose minimal size requirement on the metal piece you're targetting. Arguably it could mean you can only target one stud instead of the whole armor.



Yep. He can also drop it or suffer disadvantage as long as he's holding it.



Most likely. My dwarves use all-metal axes sometimes, though, so there would be some exceptions in my games.



Not much, I'm afraid. Given the rules mentioned above, the spell has no non-combat use.



No. As above, item with HM only causes damage when the spell is cast and when you spend bonus action to cause it again. You can cast it up-front, and have 5% chance (1 out of 20 caltrops) the enemy step on the right one, and then it's up to the GM to decide if the caltrop is stuck... it's not a requirement for the movement penalty, in any case. Or, if the caltrop get stuck, you can cast HM on it, and it would act as any other metal item the target is in contact with.

Jack, you are the exact person I needed to answer. Thank you sir. Good point about the caltops also. They are not a single item.

[micahaphone]

Also, for your concern of being grappled by someone whose armor is a frying pan, remember that they'll have disadvantage on all their grapple checks

[MoiMagnus]

That's also a niche spell very efficient against animated armors and other constructs, since they can't easily get rid of the part you're heating.

This is even acknowledged by the developers since the text of Helmed Horror explicitly refer this spell as a common immunity choice:

Spell Immunity. The helmed horror is immune to three spells chosen by its creator. Typical immunities include fireball, heat metal, and lightning bolt.

[stoutstien]

That's also a niche spell very efficient against animated armors and other constructs, since they can't easily get rid of the part you're heating.

This is even acknowledged by the developers in since the text of Helmed Horror explicitly refer this spell as a common immunity choice:

Which is funny because a common ruling is that heat metal second clause wouldn't effect them. They aren't holding or wearing them selves. I don't agree but I could see it.

[Talsin]

If you can see the type of shield an opponent is wielding, that could also be a useful target that may hamper them more than having to drop their weapon since it requires at least a round to doff, and also costs them 2AC should they decide to do so.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I need a spreadsheet for which weapons have metal handles lol.

At least Chain Devils are immune to fire damage so we don't need to debate if their chains are manufactured or organically grown

[JackPhoenix]

That's also a niche spell very efficient against animated armors and other constructs, since they can't easily get rid of the part you're heating.

This is even acknowledged by the developers since the text of Helmed Horror explicitly refer this spell as a common immunity choice:

A construct isn't a valid target (It's a creature, not an object) and the object itself isn't damaged, only creatures in contact with it. Helmed Horror is vulnerable because its AC come from worn armor and shield, Animated Armor isn't, because it's AC is natural armor.

[douglasbushong]

-I can cast it on metal armor more "metally" than studded leather and expect it to hurt the wearer and take a reasonable time to get off.

"Reasonable" time is not specific. Here is the table for the time to don/doff armor:

Donning and Doffing Armor
Category______Don_________Doff
Light Armor____1 minute____1 minute
Medium Armor__5 minutes___1 minute
Heavy Armor___10 minutes__5 minutes
Shield________1 action_____1 action

So if they are wearing any metal armor, even light metal armor, they cook for the full minute. There is no saving throw against the damage. So you can cast it on them and then run away, if you like. Hence, cook and book!

[FrancisBean]

I can cast it on a sword and damage the holder.

Even here there will be question marks. A lot of plain military-issue swords had wooden grips. Some fancier ones had wire wraps, others (especially hand-and-a-half or two-handed) had tooled leather grips. Some even had velvet wraps over wood. The point is, you can't really look to historical authenticity for answers here. I'd figure a standard ruling and stick with it.

(I'm a bladesmith in my day job. I don't do a lot of swords, but I have the historical books handy.)

[micahaphone]

Even here there will be question marks. A lot of plain military-issue swords had wooden grips. Some fancier ones had wire wraps, others (especially hand-and-a-half or two-handed) had tooled leather grips. Some even had velvet wraps over wood. The point is, you can't really look to historical authenticity for answers here. I'd figure a standard ruling and stick with it.

(I'm a bladesmith in my day job. I don't do a lot of swords, but I have the historical books handy.)

but a sword is a full tang, right? That's why historically, germans would carry around "knives" that were sword sized, because the law prohibited swords? I don't know how much a wooden or leather hand grip would protect you from the rest of the sword glowing red hot.

[JackPhoenix]

but a sword is a full tang, right? That's why historically, germans would carry around "knives" that were sword sized, because the law prohibited swords? I don't know how much a wooden or leather hand grip would protect you from the rest of the sword glowing red hot.

Well, you would wear some kind of gambeson or other paddings under metal armor too.... the armor description from PHB also mentions them..., but you still take damage from HM on medium or heavy armor, so you don't necessarily need to be in direct skin-to-metal contact for HM to work.

[FrancisBean]

but a sword is a full tang, right? That's why historically, germans would carry around "knives" that were sword sized, because the law prohibited swords? I don't know how much a wooden or leather hand grip would protect you from the rest of the sword glowing red hot.

I avoid the phrase "full tang" most of the time, because I've run into people who think it means "scale tang" and people who think it means "thru-tang." Occupational hazard; it doesn't matter who's right, it matters whether I can communicate with my clients.

Most swords were some variation on thru-tang, so a rat-tail tang would be completely encapsulated by a wooden handle. If it were just the plain wood or tooled leather covering, it'd make for pretty good insulation. A full wire wrapped grip, on the other hand, could lead to some ... discomfort.

Really, though, an ultra-realistic application of Heat Metal would have all sorts of other consequences. E.g., most metal armor is cinched into place with leather straps, which have metal buckles. Once the armor and buckles are glowing, the straps would burn through and things would start falling off and need Mending. Our hypothetical wooden sword grip would probably protect you for the duration, but the hot tang would burn the hole bigger and the handle would get loose. Not to mention, a glowing sword blade has lost the heat treatment, and would also bend easily if you kept swinging it while hot. And let's not even talk about your nice big Texas-grade belt buckle glowing cherry red right at your, um, yeah.

[Damon_Tor]

and you can't use it to set something on fire or cook food.

I don't think that's clear.

If there were a spell that just said "an object you can see on range becomes red hot for the duration" and nothing else, it would be reasonable to think "I could use this to cook". Because that's what heat does to food, it cooks it.

In my opinion, a spell written like this should be read in two parts: one says what the spell is supposed to do on a narrative level, the other tells you how that interacts with the combat system. Mechanics made so the spell can function in combat should be read to him imply the spell cannot have narrative effects in another context.

The spell says it makes the metal glow red hot: I would be inclined to treat it as if it did exactly that, in and out of combat.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't think that's clear.

If there were a spell that just said "an object you can see on range becomes red hot for the duration" and nothing else, it would be reasonable to think "I could use this to cook". Because that's what heat does to food, it cooks it.

In my opinion, a spell written like this should be read in two parts: one says what the spell is supposed to do on a narrative level, the other tells you how that interacts with the combat system. Mechanics made so the spell can function in combat should be read to him imply the spell cannot have narrative effects in another context.

The spell says it makes the metal glow red hot: I would be inclined to treat it as if it did exactly that, in and out of combat.

It glows red hot. Yeah, great, but that's just a description of a color. You can accomplish the same visual effect without actually changing the object's temperature. Heat Metal seems to be doing just that, because it doesn't act as actual red-hot piece of metal actually would. It doesn't set things on fire, it doesn't burn someone if the caster doesn't use his bonus action, it doesn't damage the object itself. If you've had magical armor that can be put on in one turn lying around, the caster could make the armor "glow red hot", causing damage to any creature touching it when the spell is cast (none in this case), then someone puts the armor on, and runs around wearing it for the rest of a minute without any ill effects if the caster doesn't use his BA to cause the damage again.

[Blood of Gaea]

It's a pretty great 2nd level debuff that doesn't need a saving throw, but it's pretty niche in that it's really only an amazing spell against armored enemies. If you face a bunch of those I'd highly recommend it, if you wouldn't, I'd skip it.

Basically, it's like a lot of other amazing for it's level but situational in use spells, like upcast Hold Person or Hypnotic Pattern.

[Damon_Tor]

It glows red hot. Yeah, great, but that's just a description of a color. You can accomplish the same visual effect without actually changing the object's temperature.

You seem to be omitting a word in your head. If the spell said the object begins to glow 'red', sure, that's just color. But it says it glows 'red-hot.' That's color and temperature. The word 'hot' is right there.

Heat Metal seems to be doing just that, because it doesn't act as actual red-hot piece of metal actually would.

Maybe it should.

The description of the spell details how the metal object interacts with creatures' hitpoints. It's explicit and inherently gamey (as anything that interacts with hitpoints has to be) but that doesn't have to imply a limitation on the narrative uses of the spell. The spell says the metal glows red-hot, and I believe it means it when it says that, and thus it's reasonable for a player to expect to be able to use that red-hot piece of metal as if were indeed a red-hot piece of metal. I interpret the bonus action requirement for the damage to be dealt consistently as a sort of "this spell requires somewhat more concentration than normal" like a spell that would have had a "sustain" action in prior editions.

Of course red hot metal is far too hot to cook with anyway.

[JackPhoenix]

You seem to be omitting a word in your head. If the spell said the object begins to glow 'red', sure, that's just color. But it says it glows 'red-hot.' That's color and temperature. The word 'hot' is right there.

No, it's a specific shade of red color. The exact color is linked to temperature, but you can create a glow of the same color without having to reach that temperature through various means.