D&D 5E Heat Metal Spell. Unfair to Heavy Armor Wearers?

[Ruin Explorer]

90 feet. They cast from 60' away, and move 30' away. So longbows and eldritch blast can reach, but already a majority of other range attacks are either out of range (most spells) or long range. And on round two they are 150' away and out of range.

This relies on a giant pile of assumptions. Firstly that the encounter is at at least 60', secondly that the caster doesn't get closed on significantly - so pretty much has to win initiative, thirdly that they're allowed to escape, and fourthly, that casting one spell to do damage to one target is the most useful thing that they can do.

The most common foe I've seen do these sorts of things is just an NPC humanoid caster. Red wizards, some of the factions in Waterdeep, some drow, some kua toa, some yuan-ti, just your ordinary pain in the butt humanoid spellcasters. Often in a surprise round ambush, popping up on rooftops, around corners, from behind cover in an alley, etc.. They're a dime a dozen in our games. It's why the counterspell spell becomes important for us.

So if I'm understanding correctly, your DM is going to great lengths to create this problem. Your DM is making up loads of NPCs with Heat Metal, even though you personally find it "overpowered" or "unfair" (and presumably have discussed this with him), then they're casting this "unfair" spell on the PCs, then they're having the caster run away, even though as I've demonstrated, it's a pretty bad idea tactically in any normal scenario (apparently you have more hit-and-run ambushes in a few sessions than I've seen across dozens of games, and couple of dozen different DMs in my entire 33 years of playing! Seriously I've seen maybe 10, ever - hundreds of ambushes, but hit and run? So few games can even make that work - and 5E isn't a good one unless the DM is cheating with fiat or has house rules).

Basically the problem here is a DM who is abusing a spell, not the spell.

The DM is intentionally using is in a way that is close to an exploit, close to an abuse, and he's constantly doing ambushes on the party somehow, even though in 5E, it's extremely hard to LEGALLY ambush the PCs reliably, it usually takes some very lucky rolls, or DM fiat, or none of the PCs having much Perception, I guess.

It's like this DM has found a corner-case abuse for this spell, and is going to absolutely run it into the ground.

I mean, if this was a player - you'd have words with them, wouldn't you? So I strongly suggest saying to the DM, maybe cut it out? Maybe stop so wildly many casters who use this identical tactic, even though they're from totally different cultural backgrounds and different mindsets, different training, and so on?

This is a DM problem, not a spell problem. I do think the spell should probably cut out at say, 150' to prevent this abuse, but that's literally all you'd need - and unfortunately you can't do that, because it's a DM doing it to you, not you doing it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've done a tiny bit of poking around but can't find a clear answer:
RAW notwithstanding, was the design intent to allow heat metal to function beyond 60 ft and/or out of eyesight?

I would expect so because of two factors:

1) It's a Concentration spell, and you can't cast another one whilst maintaining it. Many of the casters who can cast Heat Metal have superior alternatives to cast instead.

2) 5E monsters in general are absolutely not designed with bizarre hit-and-run corner-case scenarios in mind. They're designed with combats in mind. They expectation is that they stick around. Many of the ones who can cast this spell have a ton of other good spells, or other good abilities, or do significant damage, and they're throwing that all in the trash if they run. Mistwell keeps mentioning humanoid casters, but if those casters can cast level 3 spells, they have superior alternative uses for Concentration unless the DM designing them decides they don't - in which case it's on the DM as the designer. Hell, there are situations where, realistically, Bless will inflict more damage on the PCs than this will (albeit usually only if the caster is grouped with some pretty serious hitters).

I think it would be reasonable if this abuse/exploit is going on to limit to maybe 150' range, but that's the only change I could see being needed or beneficial.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I've done a tiny bit of poking around but can't find a clear answer:
RAW notwithstanding, was the design intent to allow heat metal to function beyond 60 ft and/or out of eyesight?

I don't see anything to suggest that it wasn't. The design intent regarding concentration seems (to me) like it was designed with the idea that you could continue to concentrate while farther away than original casting distance, but that keeping concentration up was supposed to be part of the game challenge. Banishment is a good other example -- in a normal combat, you effectively sequester a high-value enemy until after you've mopped up their allies, but they will by trying to make you lose control of that sequestration (and you and your allies will be facing them without whatever else you could be concentrating on). Outside of combat (say, against a single outsider whom you ambush) it becomes a rather effective SoD spell (well, save-or-goodbye) in an edition which otherwise has tended to do away with SoD. As Ruin Explorer says, the game isn't really designed around these corner cases where concentration is not a challenge.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.

From the spellcasting rules. And, really, it's not even that DMs would play it like it's being mentioned here, but it shows how crazy the effect it gives is without a save and it being rather easy to maintain for the whole minute if you plan ahead. The counterplay is jumping on water to take half damage, rip the armor off, or have dispel magic prepared (or attack the caster if he's still anywhere to be seen), it ignores AC, saving throws, size, hp, legendary resistances, etc, which is pretty unique at such low level.

 

[Reynard]

I don't see anything to suggest that it wasn't. The design intent regarding concentration seems (to me) like it was designed with the idea that you could continue to concentrate while farther away than original casting distance, but that keeping concentration up was supposed to be part of the game challenge. Banishment is a good other example -- in a normal combat, you effectively sequester a high-value enemy until after you've mopped up their allies, but they will by trying to make you lose control of that sequestration (and you and your allies will be facing them without whatever else you could be concentrating on). Outside of combat (say, against a single outsider whom you ambush) it becomes a rather effective SoD spell (well, save-or-goodbye) in an edition which otherwise has tended to do away with SoD. As Ruin Explorer says, the game isn't really designed around these corner cases where concentration is not a challenge.

Since you have to actually use a (bonus) action to inflict the damage, I might in my own games rule you have to maintain line of sight in order to do that (maybe specifically if out of the original 60 foot range). It at least solves the "cook'n'book" aspect.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

From the spellcasting rules. And, really, it's not even that DMs would play it like it's being mentioned here, but it shows how crazy the effect it gives is without a save and it being rather easy to maintain for the whole minute if you plan ahead. The counterplay is jumping on water to take half damage, rip the armor off, or have dispel magic prepared (or attack the caster if he's still anywhere to be seen), it ignores AC, saving throws, size, hp, legendary resistances, etc, which is pretty unique at such low level.

The other factor you're not accounting for is "self-deletion".

A caster would normally still be in the encounter, casting non-Concentration spells, doing damage, potentially creating a ton of other problems for the PCs.

So just seeing it as "limited counterplay" is misunderstanding the situation, imho. Because whoever casts it and runs is doing NOTHING else for the rest of the encounter. They're just a 2d8/round Fire damage DoT on one enemy.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I checked how many monsters have this spell by default, and it seems to be just six: Arcanaloth, Babau, Lizardfolk Shaman, Magma Mephit, Quaggoth Thonot, and The Lord of Blades. Although it doesn't matter much since any Druid can just prepare it if needed.

 

[Reynard]

Although it doesn't matter much since any Druid can just prepare it if needed.

Chances are if you have irritated that many druids that much, you deserve to cook in your armor.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

The other factor you're not accounting for is "self-deletion".

A caster would normally still be in the encounter, casting non-Concentration spells, doing damage, potentially creating a ton of other problems for the PCs.

So just seeing it as "limited counterplay" is misunderstanding the situation, imho. Because whoever casts it and runs is doing NOTHING else for the rest of the encounter. They're just a 2d8/round Fire damage DoT on one enemy.

Disadvantage on all attacks on an enemy warrior, plus 90ish damage over 10 rounds, is great value for a 2nd level spell, especially as you level up and the threat a low level spellcaster poses goes down. A CR 2 Druid has 11 AC and 27 hp, they're better off running and getting all that then sticking around and getting murked by any player who looks their way. That'll definitely kill a low level player unless they have a healer just throwing everything at them.

 

[Helldritch]

@Willie the Duck
On the subject of studded leather. The studs or spikes are made of metal. This is the only way to make the studds to hold on the hard boiled leather. So heat metal would work as the armor has metal components to it. So has ring mail.
I recommend you the old second edition arms and equipment guide or the Palladium Compendium of ancient arms and armors. The latter has a nice treaty on hard boiled leather if I recall correctly. A shame I lost it...