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

[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.