Heat Metal - as good as it seems?

[Vintrastorm]

Heat metal seems really really good (against people with plate armors). 2d8 damage as a bonus action, disadvantage to attacks... and it doesn't end (as for example witch bolt does) if target leaves the 60ft range.

Am I missing something?

[INDYSTAR188]

Heat metal seems really really good (against people with plate armors). 2d8 damage as a bonus action, disadvantage to attacks... and it doesn't end (as for example witch bolt does) if target leaves the 60ft range.

Am I missing something?

Not that I can see. I wonder if it works if the target is holding a metal weapon or wearing chain or scale armor?

[hymer]

It works on all medium or heavy metal armour.

I guess the only real downside is that it takes up your concentration. For moon druids, the activation by bonus action also means a conflict with subsequently wild shaping to take advantage of the enemy's predicament.
Smaller inconveniences are fire damage (which is among the more common resistances and immunities), and that the damage, while impressive for a second level slot, is spread out as much as it is.
A strict DM may also decide to delay casting of this spell, as one material component is a flame. So you may need to have a flame around, or cast Produce Flame to have it at hand (so to speak).
Finally, forcing disadvantage on an enemy's attack roll can also be done with spells like Darkness (which can affect multiple enemies, although with its own positives and negatives), so in that regard, Heat Metal is about on par.

All that said, it's a really good spell, and often a good use of your Concentration.

[Slipperychicken]

A strict DM may also decide to delay casting of this spell, as one material component is a flame. So you may need to have a flame around, or cast Produce Flame to have it at hand (so to speak).

A character can use a spellcasting focus or component pouch in place of a spell's material components.

[hymer]

@ Slipperychicken: I agree, but I'm not so certain every DM who reads that rather peculiar material component will.

[Ashrym]

I find I don't use it because it's another situational spell that depends on the opponent wearing metal armor or using a metal weapon. It's great when it can be used and not so much at other times. One a druid it can be swapped in and better; on a bard the lack of spell preparation keeps me away from it. I would rather take blindness and affect more creature types, still create disadvantage on attacks, give advantage on attacks, and not give up concentration.

[Slipperychicken]

@ Slipperychicken: I agree, but I'm not so certain every DM who reads that rather peculiar material component will.

They don't have to. It's the rules, explicitly stated under the definition of material components.

[hymer]

They don't have to. It's the rules, explicitly stated under the definition of material components.

Are you trying to have a debate about rule 0 and how much it applies in 5th edition? I don't really see what you're driving at here.

[Slipperychicken]

Are you trying to have a debate about rule 0 and how much it applies in 5th edition? I don't really see what you're driving at here.

I figured that we were talking about RAW in this thread, wherein the general tradition has been to assume the rules are being followed as much as is reasonable.

[emeraldstreak]

The thing is it's one of these (like Disarm) that are great against PCs, but not that great when used by the PCs. It's safe to say a sizeable % of the PCs wear medium/heavy metal armor, while only a small fraction of encounters feature enemies with armor.

[hymer]

I figured that we were talking about RAW in this thread, wherein the general tradition has been to assume the rules are being followed as much as is reasonable.

And I made (among many other points) an aside which would affect the evaluation depending on the DM. And I pointed out that it would be a DM-dependent thing. Are you saying I was wrong to do that?

[Slipperychicken]

And I made (among many other points) an aside which would affect the evaluation depending on the DM. And I pointed out that it would be a DM-dependent thing. Are you saying I was wrong to do that?

I mean, it doesn't seem useful to point it out in every case because it's always true for every rule. It would be like pointing out that the sky is blue, or that you might not get to use that rule because of scheduling conflicts preventing the game from starting.

It would be useful to mention it when there's a reason to think a DM might be more likely to ban or ignore a given rule. In that case, it's helpful to say something like "Your DM might decide to ban or ignore this rule for [insert reasons here]".

[hymer]

I mean, it doesn't seem useful to point it out in every case because it's always true for every rule. It would be like pointing out that the sky is blue, or that you might not get to use that rule because of scheduling conflicts preventing the game from starting.

It would be useful to mention it when there's a reason to think a DM might be more likely to ban or ignore a given rule. In that case, it's helpful to say something like "Your DM might decide to ban or ignore this rule for [insert reasons here]".

Who makes the determination of what a DM is likely to rule if not the person writing the post? You?
Regardless of that, I see no good reason why the distinctions should be 'more likely' rather than merely 'likely' or even 'it happened at my table' which is what most of us have to go on. We get plenty of discussion about things like critical misses or the availability of raising the dead in a campaign, although they are minority things. I consider them perfectly valid discussions nevertheless. As long as it isn't advertised as RAW and liable to trip up a reader, what's the harm?

[rollingForInit]

I this was used on the armor of an intelligent creature and I were a DM, I would probably have the creature try to grapple the caster or one of the caster's allies. That would force the caster to release the spell, or hurt himself/an ally as well.

[hymer]

I this was used on the armor of an intelligent creature and I were a DM, I would probably have the creature try to grapple the caster or one of the caster's allies. That would force the caster to release the spell, or hurt himself/an ally as well.

You deal the damage when you first cast it, and can then do it on subsequent rounds with your bonus action. So no need to drop the spell, and you could just use it when you find it's useful. The disadvantage is still only inflicted on the holder/wearer of the metal item, regardless.

[Mr.Moron]

Definitely seems like it falls under the category of "We didn't play test this".

[BW022]

Lots of spells in 5E are as "good as it seems". Heat metal isn't that powerful vs. a lot of other spells.

Magic missile does 3d4+3 instantly, no save, no attack roll, no bonus action. Melf's acid arrow would do 4d4, plus 2d4 the next round (with an attack roll). Flaming sphere 2d6 (with safe), blocks an area, sets stuff on fire, and could be moved to different targets as a bonus action. Scorching ray is three rays each doing 2d6 (requiring a hit)... that is up to 6d6 instantly.

Heat metal obviously has advantages and disadvantages. Disadvantages are obvious.
* The spell requires the target to have metal armor or a weapon. Useless against most animals, beasts, undead, oozes, etc. Even humanoids often only have hide and leathers.
* In the case of weapon, they could simply drop it and pull out another.
* You require a bonus action to reapply the damage.
* It requires concentration, meaning you can't cast any other concentration spells.
* It requires concentration, meaning if you get hit, you must make a save to keep the spell up.
* It only affects one target and can't be moved to an additional target.
* Some creatures have resistance to fire damage.

At 3rd-level, any single CR 3 opponents have 60hp. On average it would take you seven rounds to drop it. That is a lot of rounds taking bonus actions, avoiding being hit, or making constitution saves -- especially for a druid. It is also a lot of rounds for that creature to be attacking your friends. Most people would probably want to do a 6d6 instantly and hope to drop it as quickly as possible. Against higher CR opponents... many can have 100 hp or so. Against multiple low-level opponents, you'd likely rather have an AoE spell or flaming sphere were you could spread the damage out.

Yes... many 5E spells are more powerful than 3.x. However, so are your opponents. Most creatures average around 20+ hit points per CR. If you are facing an NPC... they could also easily cast similar spells back at you -- say guiding bolt for 4d6. Two or three rounds of that and (even if you manage to keep your concentration), you are likely to drop before him -- baring the other PCs doing some serious damage to him besides your heat metal.

[Ferrin33]

Definitely seems like it falls under the category of "We didn't play test this".

It has specific requirements for the spell to affect certain enemies(wearing metal armor/wielding metal weapon).

It stops the damage if opponent is disarmed, which is forced unless opponent makes his saving throw and chooses not to drop it which stops the damage.

It requires an action, and then your bonus action + concentration to mantain.

It's damage is mediocre unless maintained, and avoidable if cast on a weapon. So the best use of the ability would be if the enemy wears metal armor, forcing the disadvantage and damage. So not only does it have severe limitations on possible targets(Doesn't work against most monsters), its damage is not instantaneous and-

Nevermind, just saw BW022 posting what I wanted. Thank you. :)

[edge2054]

I guess the only real downside is that it takes up your concentration.

Druid's have some amazing spells. Many of which require concentration.

[hymer]

Druid's have some amazing spells. Many of which require concentration.

Yes. Therefore it is a strongly felt negative downside, the 'real' one as I put it. Or am I misunderstanding you?

[edge2054]

Yes. Therefore it is a strongly felt negative downside, the 'real' one as I put it. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Probably misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to be disagreeable but to contextualize just how big of a balancing factor concentration is, especially for Druids.

[Ashrym]

Probably misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to be disagreeable but to contextualize just how big of a balancing factor concentration is, especially for Druids.

Being able to prepare the spell when a person knows it will be useful is a definite plus. The spells is also on the bard list, however, and since bards don't prepare spells the target requirements is a big drawback. Good in some types of campaigns, almost useless in others. Not a lot of monsters wear metal armor, unfortunately.

[MrUberGr]

Note that it is any metal item. For example we deffinately had to interupt a ritual, but couldn't get to the caster. I used this spell on his ring, forcing a concentration check, and interrupting a ritual. Sure he took the ring of but never managed to finish the ritual as he would have otherwise.

Pretty sure it could be usefull in some other RP or combat situations. For example you use it on someones arrow, he hits the monster, and them you can deal your 2d8 fire damage on any monster regardless of metal items, plus it will be kind of hard to take it out!

[TheOOB]

Note that it is any metal item. For example we deffinately had to interupt a ritual, but couldn't get to the caster. I used this spell on his ring, forcing a concentration check, and interrupting a ritual. Sure he took the ring of but never managed to finish the ritual as he would have otherwise.

Pretty sure it could be usefull in some other RP or combat situations. For example you use it on someones arrow, he hits the monster, and them you can deal your 2d8 fire damage on any monster regardless of metal items, plus it will be kind of hard to take it out!

It's a useful spell, but even at it's best it's not overpowered by any sense. Yes, 90 average damage for a second level slot is good, but using that as your concentraition and bonus actions for that period of time is more than a fair cost.