D&D 5E Heat Metal and whether constructs are both creatures and objects?

[NotAYakk]

"Creatures" in D&D have the ability to resist magic that objects do not. Constructs have this feature as well. So they aren't objects; the animating force gives them this ability.

I'd be tempted to allow a saving throw each turn to shrug off the effect. Like a con save on cast and each turn. On success the hest metal fails.

The damage from heat metal occurs at initial casting, and when the bonus action occurs. This, to me, represents continuous damage, not from an instant of contact. As an example, heat metal on a sword doesn't grant it fire damage.

But a point of fire damage on an attack seems reasonable, and full damage if grappling is involved.

 

[Edwidget]

1. The spell really does not specify size. You can take that to mean any size, or you can use the examples to judge the intent. Most things "Tower" size are many objects put together. Up to you, but regardless the spell doesn't damage the thing it is cast on. Destroying objects is more a job for a spell like Shatter, which is surprisingly good if you look at how low object HP are in the DMG.

2. Creatures are not objects. Corpses are though, assuming they aren't undead. The key distinction is "inanimate."

3. Nope. Creatures are not a valid target. Even if they were, the spell just doesn't do that. If it did it would say so. The spell assumes the metal is in contact for a longer period of time than just a weapon attack. It does great ongoing damage because it costs your bonus action every round -and- requires the item to stay in contact with the victim. Getting even more damage for no additional cost just buffs an already great spell.

4. Nope. There are other spells for that. Look at Elemental Weapon, a 3rd level spell that adds 1d4 of an element of your choice. Heat Metal is already very good for a 2nd level spell. Adding (partly) the effect of a 3rd level spell doesn't seem necessary. I did cast it on an arrowhead and then broke it off in an enemy once. When it failed its save and was forced to "drop" the item, the DM ruled it did some damage to itself digging the arrowhead out.

Spells generally do exactly what they say on the tin, not more or less. Nothing stops you from changing the rules to suit your table though.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Spells generally do exactly what they say on the tin,

and in this case, the do what they say to the tin.

 

[Quickleaf]

RAW, creatures and objects are never the same.

However, at least with the players I run, there's a common sense intuition and expectation about how spells work.

Fireball states that the initial 8d6 explosion of fire damage is dealt to creatures, and that flammable objects are only set on fire. But we routinely allow physical magic spells that stipulate "creature" targets like this to target objects like a wagon, a ship, or a wooden gate.

There's a compelling narrative / internal logic / common sense intuition reason to diverge from RAW in that case.

And IME there's a similarly compelling reason to diverge from RAW when it comes to ruling that heat metal can, in fact, heat metal whether that's worn armor or an iron golem. Of course, YMMV.

 

[Edwidget]

RAW, creatures and objects are never the same.

However, at least with the players I run, there's a common sense intuition and expectation about how spells work.

Fireball states that the initial 8d6 explosion of fire damage is dealt to creatures, and that flammable objects are only set on fire. But we routinely allow physical magic spells that stipulate "creature" targets like this to target objects like a wagon, a ship, or a wooden gate.

There's a compelling narrative / internal logic / common sense intuition reason to diverge from RAW in that case.

And IME there's a similarly compelling reason to diverge from RAW when it comes to ruling that heat metal can, in fact, heat metal whether that's worn armor or an iron golem. Of course, YMMV.

Yep. It's all about what works for your table. When you play with the same people regularly, the game can morph into something unrecognizable to others. As long as the people who are actually involved are good with it, who else matters? If you hit a new table though, you should at least understand the RAW.