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

[GMforPowergamers]

Ok. We have 4 martial warriors: fighter, barbarian, rogue and monk, although the latter 2 are debatable.

I would argue only Fighter and Rogue fit that.

My problem with adding another warrior class is that it overlaps with fighter all too often.

That is what I want... 2 options, fighter as is for the people that need a simple class and fighter more like 4e (just renamed)

What I would do would be upgrading the fighter to battlemasters and then incorporate the warlord and all the classes you suggested.

I would split the fighter in 3.... the 3 subclasses from 2014 PHB each becoming a class... keep the simple champion as fighter, build a half caster magus/bladsinger/duskblade/swordmage instead of eldritch knight and make a warlord/swordsage/4efighter out of battlemaster.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would argue only Fighter and Rogue fit that.

That is what I want... 2 options, fighter as is for the people that need a simple class and fighter more like 4e (just renamed)

I would split the fighter in 3.... the 3 subclasses from 2014 PHB each becoming a class... keep the simple champion as fighter, build a half caster magus/bladsinger/duskblade/swordmage instead of eldritch knight and make a warlord/swordsage/4efighter out of battlemaster.

All ok with me. But I think the fighter deserves to be the warlord/duskblade one. We want the fighter to have nice things and not relegated to the simple dumb one.
For me that would be the warrior.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

All ok with me. But I think the fighter deserves to be the warlord/duskblade one. We want the fighter to have nice things and not relegated to the simple dumb one.
For me that would be the warrior.

I don't care what they call it, as long as I can play a complex fun and powerful weapon user... at the end of 3.5 we had warblades, in 4e warlord ranger and fighter all covered this... in 5e we have.... refluffed spell casters (bladsinger, sword or valor bards, war priests (or any that get the second attack), and hexblade)

 

[Bill Zebub]

How would you all rule it if somebody wanted to use Misty Step/Thunder Step/Dimension Door to teleport out of their armor? Is bringing along your gear optional?

I could see how one might argue that mentally, and instantly, distinguishing between armor and the rest of your gear is…improbable. But Rule of Cool.

Maybe the best answer is yes, but you have to leave behind ALL your gear.

 

[Bill Zebub]

"I cast heat metal... ON MYSELF!!"

Sounds like a good trick for Battleragers.

Combine with ring of fire resistance.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

How would you all rule it if somebody wanted to use Misty Step/Thunder Step/Dimension Door to teleport out of their armor? Is bringing along your gear optional?

I could see how one might argue that mentally, and instantly, distinguishing between armor and the rest of your gear is…improbable. But Rule of Cool.

Maybe the best answer is yes, but you have to leave behind ALL your gear.

I would let them teleport naked but with there weapon/implement in hand and leave everything else behind.

 

[Reynard]

So what happens if you cast heat metal on a ring, necklace or other jewelry (magic or otherwise)? The spell gives weapons and armor as examples, but is it understood that only weapons or armor would cause the damage -- or would any "manufactured metal object"?

 

[Willie the Duck]

@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...

You are missing my point. Nowhere in the 5e ruleset does it describe studded leather as having metal studs. If I had a player (particularly someone new to gaming with this edition) who wanted to* get 'studded leather' that included non-metallic studs, I would be hard pressed to call this any kind of bad faith arguing that this would be a reasonable thing. Ring mail also doesn't mention metal, but I'd be hard pressed to believe that the player making this argument wasn't looking for loopholes ('what did you think the rings would be made of?') compared to someone not assuming that spikes (in a world full of scary spiked things with hide as tough as armor) would be metal.
*ahead of time, perhaps after defeating a spiked enemy and needing to find an armorer who does special commissions.

Regarding historical reality, while it is possible that there may have been an example or two of cuir bouilli armor that included metal studs*, it's been generally understood that studded leather (and ringmail) are misinterpretations of artwork depicting brigandine and normal chainmail, respectively. And that's part of my reasoning for above: who am I to dismiss someone else's mental image of a mostly-fictive armor?
*of unclear benefit, as they would just telegraph a mace blow through the leather and make sword blades slide off right onto now-perforated leather.

EXACTLY.

Do you see what I'm saying now? This is only a problem if the DM wants to be a totally massive, as you put it "dick".

They need to set up an ambush on the PCs, arrange the scenario so their guy can get away (something they have 100% power over, as this is D&D, they can make up whatever scenario, however far-fetched, that allows it), and then cheese the hell out of it. The solution is: don't do that!

That is a solution to the problem, to be sure (and why I don't really see too many issues with this spell in-play). It is still rather annoying that, of all the many ways that this spell could have been written, it is written in such a way that almost anyone will read it and immediately notice this 'dick move.'

Just out of curiosity, I checked Wall of Thorns, which used to do more damage to lesser armored characters in previous editions. In 5E it does not: the damage is the same regardless of what the person is wearing. In addition, Heat Metal is MUCH more effective than the 3rd edition version, which not only did less damage overall for a shorter period, but also had its damage explicitly mitigated by cold damage. I wonder what the motivation was to book these two spells (probably two among many).

Simplicity and making the spell fit into the formula of concentration for 10 rounds that combat spells now fall into. The 3e one took place over 7 rounds (with 2-6 doing damage) and required you to take into account which round of effect you were on.

Honestly, that part of the spell I don't mind -- even if I'm a non-casual and doing this level of tracking and calculations is trivial, I get the appeal of 'this spell is up until concentration fails (or after 10 rounds which seriously you probably don't need to think about).'

What bugs me most (about this spell individually) is the lack of save/to-hit, the breadth of things at which you have disadvantage, and the general sense that it is a high-power spell balanced by it often being inapplicable from a PC side (many enemies not wearing metal armor), but several PCs concepts where the applicability is always going to be the case). The cold-damage mitigation point is an issue with each spell being a new paragraph in isolation which only interacts with other rules when specifically mentioned. I think any fix I could devise would be a lot of complexity-in-search-of-a-purpose most of the time, but I could imagine a basic set of elemental damage interaction rules to be applied 'as appropriate' would work pretty well. I'm trying to recall any systems which do that, however, and am drawing a blank.

 

[Oofta]

So what happens if you cast heat metal on a ring, necklace or other jewelry (magic or otherwise)? The spell gives weapons and armor as examples, but is it understood that only weapons or armor would cause the damage -- or would any "manufactured metal object"?

It would work the same, but a ring or necklace only takes an action (at most) to remove, not a minute or two for armor.

 

[Willie the Duck]

So what happens if you cast heat metal on a ring, necklace or other jewelry (magic or otherwise)? The spell gives weapons and armor as examples, but is it understood that only weapons or armor would cause the damage -- or would any "manufactured metal object"?

Hmmm. The spell is pretty clear that it is any manufactured metal object, with weapons and armor in a 'such as' clause. I then proceeds to use the term 'object' repeatedly, so I think it does a pretty good job of making the intent clear. It runs into trouble, I suppose, where there might be an object that isn't really worn or held --maybe a metal icon that is decidedly a distinct separate object (so inarguably targetable) that you have tied to the top of your quarterstaff or something. That speaks to me as a sufficiently obscure enough situation that it would fall under 'DM makes call' rulings.

Edit: re-reading the spell, it states, "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." -- indicating that you must 'drop' something you are wearing. Somewhat confusing wording, but also hard to see how it could be abused. So just an odd novelty of the writing.

 

[Reynard]

Hmmm. The spell is pretty clear that it is any manufactured metal object, with weapons and armor in a 'such as' clause. I then proceeds to use the term 'object' repeatedly, so I think it does a pretty good job of making the intent clear. It runs into trouble, I suppose, where there might be an object that isn't really worn or held --maybe a metal icon that is decidedly a distinct separate object (so inarguably targetable) that you have tied to the top of your quarterstaff or something. That speaks to me as a sufficiently obscure enough situation that it would fall under 'DM makes call' rulings.

Edit: re-reading the spell, it states, "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." -- indicating that you must 'drop' something you are wearing. Somewhat confusing wording, but also hard to see how it could be abused. So just an odd novelty of the writing.

It would be nice if it suggested whether or not the object is damaged by the heat. Like, if I cast it on a gold crown, would it melt all over that smug king's face? Hypothetically, I mean...

 

[Willie the Duck]

It would be nice if it suggested whether or not the object is damaged by the heat. Like, if I cast it on a gold crown, would it melt all over that smug king's face? Hypothetically, I mean...

I don't disagree, but also am not surprised. Even significantly more realism-focused games like GURPS or even D&D 3e* don't go so far as declare actual heat of the fire spells or include melting point charts for objects. In D&D's case, this would mean that they were coming down solidly on exactly how realistic/cinematic/epic the gameplay actually is, which they seem to want to leave as open as possible.
*which, if not a low-res reality simulator, at least started covering things like how much AC and HP square feat of stone had, and the like

 

[Reynard]

I don't disagree, but also am not surprised. Even significantly more realism-focused games like GURPS or even D&D 3e* don't go so far as declare actual heat of the fire spells or include melting point charts for objects. In D&D's case, this would mean that they were coming down solidly on exactly how realistic/cinematic/epic the gameplay actually is, which they seem to want to leave as open as possible.
*which, if not a low-res reality simulator, at least started covering things like how much AC and HP square feat of stone had, and the like

They don't need a temperature, just a statement like "the object is un/damaged by the spell."

 

[Baron Opal II]

It would be nice if it suggested whether or not the object is damaged by the heat. Like, if I cast it on a gold crown, would it melt all over that smug king's face? Hypothetically, I mean...

Oooh...! I like that!

Huh, how hot does it get? I think the metal target only gets "red hot" which could be roughly 1000-1200 F. Gold melts at yellow heat, roughly 1900-2000 F. So, no, "strictly" speaking. But that's what upcasting is for, right?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Oooh...! I like that!

Huh, how hot does it get? I think the metal target only gets "red hot" which could be roughly 1000-1200 F. Gold melts at yellow heat, roughly 1900-2000 F. So, no, "strictly" speaking. But that's what upcasting is for, right?

Ha. "When cast at higher levels, temperature increases by 200 degrees (F) for each level above 2nd."

Cast at 8th level, then use Bigby's Hand to forge weld the pieces of plate armor together.

 

[Quartz]

There is no range restriction to maintain concentration

Do you have a cite for that? The spell's range is 60' so surely if either the caster or the victim moves outside 60' it ceases to have effect? Sure the caster can maintain concentration in case the victim moves back inside 60'.

 

[Reynard]

Do you have a cite for that? The spell's range is 60' so surely if either the caster or the victim moves outside 60' it ceases to have effect? Sure the caster can maintain concentration in case the victim moves back inside 60'.

Per the SRD: "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren’t limited by its range, unless the spell’s description says otherwise."

 

[Oofta]

Do you have a cite for that? The spell's range is 60' so surely if either the caster or the victim moves outside 60' it ceases to have effect? Sure the caster can maintain concentration in case the victim moves back inside 60'.

Sage Advice:

If you’re concentrating on a spell, do you need to maintain line of sight with the spell’s target or the spell’s effect?​

You don’t need to be within line of sight or within range to maintain concentration on a spell, unless a spell’s description or other game feature says otherwise.

 

[Reynard]

Sage Advice:

If you’re concentrating on a spell, do you need to maintain line of sight with the spell’s target or the spell’s effect?​

You don’t need to be within line of sight or within range to maintain concentration on a spell, unless a spell’s description or other game feature says otherwise.

I wonder if anyone has asked about the action aspect. Like, if you cast heat metal and the target teleported to the moon, could you still use a bonus action once every six seconds to inflict damage on them?

 

[billd91]

I wonder if anyone has asked about the action aspect. Like, if you cast heat metal and the target teleported to the moon, could you still use a bonus action once every six seconds to inflict damage on them?

I'd be going with no on that one, personally. If you've removed yourself from the fight to the point where it's totally irrelevant to your situation (like teleporting to the moon or any other place the enemy cannot conceivably get to), you pretty much can't spend actions on it.