Dealing with Heat metal or as i like to call it. The Troll spell of 5th ed

[Davrix]

Ok so in my last game I had a bard who took this and well... Lets just say I was not a happy Dm most times.

Anyone have any good house rules for dealing with this sort of crap? Cause seriously as RAW there is nothing sopping the bard from heat metal on a ball bearing and using a sling shot to shoot it into a dragons mouth. (this happened)

To be honest I think my easiest / least jerk move here is to home-rule the caster must keep LOS on the object to prevent at least this level of shenanigans.

[Consensus]

I think that's a super creative use of this spell and as a dm I'd totally encourage that. Rather than hard houseruling something, you can just tell the player that you don't want them to use the spell in that way/so frequently. Although, your houserule should be fine. As a note for when you mentioned the ball bearing example, did you just let the bard make a regular attack to shoot it? because you'd totally have been within the realm of reasonability to at least give disadvantage because they're shooting it into the dragons mouth in the small window of time that it's open.

[Kane0]

Going by the spell itself:

- 60' range, stay out of it
- Concentration, break it
- 'Target you can see', avoid it
- Bonus action to heat, deny it

Going meta
- Opponents that don't feature, or at least wear, metal
- Creatures with good Con saves
- Creatures with Fire resistance/immunity
- Creatures with magic resistance/immunity
- Creatures with easy sources of advantage

Its just a neat trick, not an unbeatable cheat. No worse than summoning pixies or warlocks in darkness or whatever.

[Davrix]

I think that's a super creative use of this spell and as a dm I'd totally encourage that. Rather than hard houseruling something, you can just tell the player that you don't want them to use the spell in that way/so frequently. Although, your houserule should be fine. As a note for when you mentioned the ball bearing example, did you just let the bard make a regular attack to shoot it? because you'd totally have been within the realm of reasonability to at least give disadvantage because they're shooting it into the dragons mouth in the small window of time that it's open.

Oh I made the shot difficult sure but you need to understand something. Its less super creative when THATS ALL HE DOES

Heat arrow heads for the ranger.

Heats rings no the finger or a neckless

casts create water inside of a flute and argues thats a container


I would smile and let this slide more often if he would just yea know.... NOT DO IT EVERY FIGHT and every single boss



Going meta
- Opponents that don't feature, or at least wear, metal
- Creatures with good Con saves
- Creatures with Fire resistance/immunity
- Creatures with magic resistance/immunity
- Creatures with easy sources of advantage


I started working with some of that, I just hate the idea of tailoring my fights around one spell. The player should feel like its a good spell to use but eeesh the abuse Iv'e seen so far of it. I greatly dislike this spell as written.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Ok so in my last game I had a bard who took this and well... Lets just say I was not a happy Dm most times.

Anyone have any good house rules for dealing with this sort of crap? Cause seriously as RAW there is nothing sopping the bard from heat metal on a ball bearing and using a sling shot to shoot it into a dragons mouth. (this happened)

To be honest I think my easiest / least jerk move here is to home-rule the caster must keep LOS on the object to prevent at least this level of shenanigans.

You mean other then the text of the spell.
"such as a metal weapon or a suit of heavy or medium metal armor" Its perfectly in line to say that a little bit of ammunition(which is often destroyed after use). They don't mention ammunition, arrow heads, metal rings etc etc. The intention is clearly for a larger object not a tiny bit.
That aside

There is certainly no rule that lets the bard force the dragon to swallow said metal ball alone shoot it in the mouth. So sure even if they CAN use it on a a metal ball bearing there is no rule that lets them make another creature swallow it.

[Davrix]

One thing to note guys and i think this was in a sage advice. But you only need line of sight and its range to cast the spell. once you have you just have to maintain your concentration upon it. So literally you could be on a horse. Ride past a paladin and ride away and keep it going.

[Finlam]

It would be a reasonable call that casting heat metal on an arrow head destroys the arrow or that it imposes disadvantage on the attack. Seriously, that's like firing a bow with a clothes iron on max right next to your face.

[Davrix]

It would be a reasonable call that casting heat metal on an arrow head destroys the arrow or that it imposes disadvantage on the attack. Seriously, that's like firing a bow with a clothes iron on max right next to your face.

only if your using a longbow, crossbow wouldn't be that close. But the spell specifically says it doesn't melt the object so I know what the argument would be from the player.

[Finlam]

only if your using a longbow, crossbow wouldn't be that close. But the spell specifically says it doesn't melt the object so I know what the argument would be from the player.

But the rest of the arrow is wood?

If the tip is hot enough to deal damage on contact, why is the rest of the arrow immune to the damage? It send ludicrous to demand enough realism of a driving swallowing a ball bearing (way outside the raw) but then let something like this slide by.

That aside, even if you didn't want to go that route, and you enjoy an internally contradictory world, an arrowhead is not a valid target for the spell in the first place. The spell tagets "a manufactured metal object" not a piece of an object that is metal.

The arrow head is a component of the arrow object and the target would have to be the arrow, not the arrowhead. One is an object the other a party of an object. One is a valid target, one is not.

[Davrix]

But the rest of the arrow is wood?

If the tip is hot enough to deal damage on contact, why is the rest of the arrow immune to the damage?

The same reason you use a wooden spoon in cooking its a poor conductor of heat honestly

I also get what the intention is but by the wording and with no save its ripe for abuse

[mephnick]

Why didn't he take damage loading the ammunition that is now like a million degrees?

[Kane0]

Absorb elements and Counterspell are other options.

You don't need to tailor things to specifically counter it , but enemies that possess some kind of counter are perfectly fine. Especially if that's all he does and others know about it.

There are hard counters and soft counters. Hard counters aren't fun but soft counters are good.

[Percy_Ikana]

As for the arrow thing, if the bard really wants to burn a second level slot to deal 2d8 damage once, then let him, it's a huge waste of the slot, Imo.
As for small objects, they might not be large enough to cause real damage, a small ball bearing heated will hurt, but, wouldn't be lethal. Same goes for rings and such, that can cause discomfort and pain, but, enough damage to drop a normal man? Probably not.

[Davrix]

Why didn't he take damage loading the ammunition that is now like a million degrees?

Oh that's easy he went to a smith got a glove, took it to a tailor and had him make him one that was more flexible (I can go on from there he thought this crap out) At the time I didn't realize he had the spell and his bard juggles torches. >< So I was like sure.

[Finlam]

The same reason you use a wooden spoon in cooking its a poor conductor of heat honestly

I also get what the intention is but by the wording and with no save its ripe for abuse

It seems ludicrous to demand enough realism of a dragon swallowing a ball bearing (way outside the raw) but then let something like this slide by.

That aside, even if you didn't want to go that route, and you enjoy a self contradictory world, an arrowhead is not a valid target for the spell in the first place. The spell tagets "a manufactured metal object" not a piece of an object that is metal.

The arrow head is a component of the arrow object and the target would have to be the arrow, not the arrowhead. One is an object the other a part of an object. One is a valid target, one is not.

[Davrix]

As for the arrow thing, if the bard really wants to burn a second level slot to deal 2d8 damage once, then let him, it's a huge waste of the slot, Imo.
As for small objects, they might not be large enough to cause real damage, a small ball bearing heated will hurt, but, wouldn't be lethal. Same goes for rings and such, that can cause discomfort and pain, but, enough damage to drop a normal man? Probably not.

I dont think you understand the lv of shenanigans here.

one the ranger and him stick the arrows in places that might take a turn to pull out or on large beasts they actually cant because of no hands. He shoots ball bearings into the mouths of monsters and while it doesn't always work and I roll to see if they spit it out or swallow once its in he can technically just go hide and then hum all day long doing that much fire damage each turn while casting buff spells on the party

[Percy_Ikana]

Oh that's easy he went to a smith got a glove, took it to a tailor and had him make him one that was more flexible (I can go on from there he thought this crap out) At the time I didn't realize he had the spell and his bard juggles torches. >< So I was like sure.

The arrow would not give the target disadvantage, since, it's not something the target can't remove, and ammunition is (50/50) destroyed on use anyways. So, that's a second level spell, and an action, to add cantrip level damage to a single attack by someone else.
Honestly, if you bard thinks that heat arrows is some super combo, then, how have you been letting this all work? Because any way I look at it, I only see "cool thing, but not really useful"

Edit, post was answeres beforehand

Also, yhea, I think you are bieng far too permissive with this. I add to the idea of talking to your party about it if it's no fun for you. The DM matters too.

[Davrix]

It seems ludicrous to demand enough realism of a dragon swallowing a ball bearing (way outside the raw) but then let something like this slide by.

That aside, even if you didn't want to go that route, and you enjoy a self contradictory world, an arrowhead is not a valid target for the spell in the first place. The spell targets "a manufactured metal object" not a piece of an object that is metal.

The arrow head is a component of the arrow object and the target would have to be the arrow, not the arrowhead. One is an object the other a part of an object. One is a valid target, one is not.

Oh i tried to argue that fact but there is a point of how much bitching do i want to hear from said player about how he can justify it with science physic and logic (and will do math on the paper in front of me) To justify his needs.

I didn't realize ammo had a 50/50 of being destroyed though I'll keep that in mind for next time.

[rbstr]

I don't think you need to do anything about it. It's super effective vs. things wearing metal armor because it's hard to get off.
But pretty much anything else can be dropped or removed making the problem temporary and leaving the spell useful but not particularly strong in all.


IMO with a Heat-Metal'd ball bearing there are a couple of things that should make it pretty much not a problem:
#1 the person can't be holding the ball when the spell is cast as they'd suffer the consequences. So there's the item-interaction rule to
#2 You set the DC/AC of the ball actually ending up someplace to cause trouble. Shooting it down a Dragon's mount seems to very on the more impossible-ish end of that spectrum.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I like the spell. It is situationally very useful. Our new DM had us fight maybe 4 levels of devils and demons who are largely immune or resistsnt to fire damage.

[Davrix]

I don't think you need to do anything about it. It's super effective vs. things wearing metal armor because it's hard to get off.
But pretty much anything else can be dropped or removed making the problem temporary and leaving the spell useful but not particularly strong in all.


IMO with a Heat-Metal'd ball bearing there are a couple of things that should make it pretty much not a problem:
#1 the person can't be holding the ball when the spell is cast as they'd suffer the consequences. So there's the item-interaction rule to
#2 You set the DC/AC of the ball actually ending up someplace to cause trouble. Shooting it down a Dragon's mount seems to very on the more impossible-ish end of that spectrum.


Good points on that and yea I was upping the DC / AC for such a thing and honestly I did have my revenge. The last time he did it the dragon puked all over him to get it out >.> Hot burning acid puke... he might of died

That being said the campaign is over i was just thinking for next time if i run across this from another player or the same one.

[Percy_Ikana]

Good points on that and yea I was upping the DC / AC for such a thing and honestly I did have my revenge. The last time he did it the dragon puked all over him to get it out >.> Hot burning acid puke... he might of died

That being said the campaign is over i was just thinking for next time if i run across this from another player or the same one.

Well, as annoying as the situation was, next time, just make it clear that you won't let it work like that again. Use the rules as written, limit it to sight, and 60ft, regardless of what a sage advice (which, I view as iffy at best) say.

[Davrix]

Well, as annoying as the situation was, next time, just make it clear that you won't let it work like that again. Use the rules as written, limit it to sight, and 60ft, regardless of what a sage advice (which, I view as iffy at best) say.

basically what i was going to do. Keeping eye contact on the object will limit the seriously dumber ideas that was given at my table with its use.

[Protato]

I had just used it to melt a golden statue in a game I'm in, but haven't used it much in combat really. Still, while it is a useful spell, if it's all a character does it stops feeling cool and creative and starts feeling cheesy.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Well, as annoying as the situation was, next time, just make it clear that you won't let it work like that again. Use the rules as written, limit it to sight, and 60ft, regardless of what a sage advice (which, I view as iffy at best) say.

That's going to have effects far beyond "heat metal" then the crux of the problem was giving the spell abilities it didn't have.

Once again from the text of the spell
"such as a metal weapon or a suit of heavy or medium metal armor"
The examples given are for medium or heavier armor or metal weapons. Not ammunition, not rings or necklaces. Limit it to that size range starting with a dagger which in medieval fantasy terms is about a foot long. None of his shenanigans he dealt with will work if you limit it using the text of the spell.

[Percy_Ikana]

That's going to have effects far beyond "heat metal" then the crux of the problem was giving the spell abilities it didn't have.

Once again from the text of the spell
"such as a metal weapon or a suit of heavy or medium metal armor"
The examples given are for medium or heavier armor or metal weapons. Not ammunition, not rings or necklaces. Limit it to that size range starting with a dagger which in medieval fantasy terms is about a foot long. None of his shenanigans he dealt with will work if you limit it using the text of the spell.

Check my previous posts, I think the DM was allowing far far to much to steam from that spell. I agree with you completely, I think most of what he described was well outside the bounds of beat metal. But, I also am not a fan of suddenly changing how you've been letting players do things without at least explaining why, hence why I said talk to the problem player, and make it clear that it would not happen in another game.

[Lord Vukodlak]

But, I also am not a fan of suddenly changing how you've been letting players do things without at least explaining why, hence why I said talk to the problem player, and make it clear that it would not happen in another game.

And the limitations you purposed wouldn't do that? Letting the guy avoid heat metal(and a ton of other spells) by simply taking a step back on their turn is going to introduce a a whole new list of shenanigans and lessen the usefulness of a ton of other spells and abilities. Dominate Person stops working if the target moves more then 60ft from you? Or a friend falls off a cliff and you use your reaction to cast feather fall, whoops he still dies unless you jump down after him because he falls out of range.

Furthermore the actual rules state.
"Once a spell is cast, its effects aren’t limited by its range, unless the spell’s description says otherwise." (phb 203)
That's not sage advice that's the RAW.

[Davrix]

Check my previous posts, I think the DM was allowing far far to much to steam from that spell. I agree with you completely, I think most of what he described was well outside the bounds of beat metal. But, I also am not a fan of suddenly changing how you've been letting players do things without at least explaining why, hence why I said talk to the problem player, and make it clear that it would not happen in another game.


Choose a manufactured metal object, such as a metal weapon or a suit of heavy or medium metal armor, that you can see within range. You cause the object to glow red-hot. Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast the spell. Until the spell ends, you can use a Bonus Action on each of your subsequent turns to cause this damage again

that part it would include rings and other things

[lperkins2]

It seems ludicrous to demand enough realism of a dragon swallowing a ball bearing (way outside the raw) but then let something like this slide by.

That aside, even if you didn't want to go that route, and you enjoy a self contradictory world, an arrowhead is not a valid target for the spell in the first place. The spell tagets "a manufactured metal object" not a piece of an object that is metal.

The arrow head is a component of the arrow object and the target would have to be the arrow, not the arrowhead. One is an object the other a part of an object. One is a valid target, one is not.

The problem with this line of thinking is almost nothing is entirely metal. That plate armour? Leather straps. The sword? A wood, or leather grip. The steel helmet? Some sort of padding inside. Since the spell specifically allows for armour, it seems unreasonable to claim it can only target whole objects when the specified use requires targeting the metal part of an object. Now, since a held weapon inflicts damage on the wielder, even though the handle is wrapped in leather, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to have the arrow damage the shooter, and require a CON save to avoid dropping it. In fact, the spell description says 'in contact with the object', not 'in contact with the metal of the object'. I suppose the caster could take the ready action to cast it on the arrow in flight, but to do that they're burning a 2nd level slot, and must maintain concentration on it. They also have to expend their reaction to actually cast the spell, and if anything goes wrong in this sequence, the slot (and their turn) is wasted.

Limiting the spell to only the example targets it specifically lists in the description is a pretty bad idea, at least at most tables, since the usual struggle is in getting players to think at all outside the box. That said, reducing or eliminating the damage inflicted based on object size would be fair, especially if you scaled the damage up should it get applied to an extra large object.

As for the OP, most of the problems don't seem to come from the spell, per se, but from the DM letting the players get away with silly stuff not directly related to the spell. Remember the way HP works: it's an abstraction, early HP damage doesn't represent any actual pain, injury, or even necessarily contact with the target. You'd be justified in having the arrow not do any extra damage for being hot, absent a critical hit or knocking the creature into super low HP territory. For balance, I'd probably let it do the initial damage, but after that, it's a hot arrow on the ground. Maybe require a DC 3 dex save if you move through the area at a run to avoid stepping on it, but that's about it.

As for hitting a creature someplace it can't dislodge the arrow, it's fairly common for players to want some sort of called shot mechanic, and DMs simply have to improvise on that. But even if you let them try, and they make the shot with whatever penalties you impose, once again there is no promise that the arrow gets through the creature's plot armour and sticks in.

And even if you let the players' have their silly shenanigans, what's the spell actually doing? 2d8 damage a round, against a single target, using the bard's concentration and a level 2 slot, and every bonus action.

For a level 3 slot, he could be dropping haste on a SS ranger, letting them make an extra 2 attacks, or giving a rogue an extra chance to land their sneak attack dice. For a level 2 slot, he could be using a 2d12 witch bolt, which would similarly do auto-damage, but taking an action instead of a bonus action. Because it only takes a bonus action, he can toss out other non-concentration spells at the same time, but what's that going to be? Probably something like firebolt, for 2d10. Of course, the firebolt will miss some of the time, and expose the caster to counter attacks, which could easily end his concentration. So how much extra damage is he likely to be doing this way? Well, hitting every other round with firebolt and every round with heat metal does an average of 14 damage. Hitting every round with witch bolt does 13. And remember, witch bolt is considered a terrible spell because it's concentration to deal damage to a single target, instead of web, darkness, or anything to actually control the battle.

I would suspect you've got a mechanical issue. Handling concentration wrong, or concentration checks, or something of that nature if this is really being so surprisingly effective.

As for the bard, it's a class that tends to struggle to have a good way to contribute to combat, most of them end up one trick ponies. Then again, most characters in 5e end up one trick ponies in combat. The GWM fighter is going to -5/+10 attack, so is the sniper. The rogue is going to try to stab stuff, the ranger is going to shoot stuff. The druid is going to turn into a dire wolf *every time*.

[Iolo Morganwg]

It's a concentration spell, and it takes a bonus action to cause damage on subsequent turns. It doesn’t seem that OP. If the bard is using Heat Metal for single target damage, he's not inspiring anyone, using Healing Word or Faerie Fire, etc.

[Solunaris]

In my opinion, the Bard is actually gimping himself here. Sure, he's adding a bit of damage every round to an enemy for a bonus action. That's great because he isn't using his bonus action for any of his special Bard abilities or using his concentration on any spells to buff or debuff multiple allies or enemies at the same time.

The true power of Heat Metal comes when you can force an enemy to drop a metal weapon and then an ally picks it up; denying the enemy their weapon. The damage is really just a secondary effect.

But, if your player really wants to focus on damage I say let them. Bards generally have trouble with direct damage and it's not like he is going to be out-damaging the Fighter anyway. If you truly have a problem with the arrows being heated, just say that the arrow glanced the creature dealing damage but not sticking into them. Or that the arrow punctured through entirely and the arrowhead is outside of the creature.

[StoicLeaf]

@OP:

Idea #1, be a man!
There are no called shots mechanics in this game. The system doesn't support it. He gets to make his attack roll, if he crits you could narrate that the ammo got stuck in flesh/mouth, or not, it's entirely up to you. If he persists you calmly tell him that that isn't within the rules and as the DM your job is to enforce those rules. If you want to make house rules that support called shots then good luck, because you'll end up having to deal with **** like this. Next up: firing fireballs into a person's mouth and why that should make them instantly explode, regardless of their hp!

Idea #2, role reversal!
The next group of bad guys all have heat metal and fire their ball bearings into the bard's mouth. He'll either whine about it (hah!) or come up with a way to counteract it, a way which then you can use!

Idea #3, pay attention to mechanics
You say he then disappears and starts buffing his team mates. How? He's concentrating on heat metal, and most of the good buff spells require concentration. He's using his bonus action to cause damage.

[Snivlem]

The only real problem here is the arrow trick I think, because it bypasses what is the obvious downside to an otherwise very powerfull spell: Not every creature will have metal object on them. I'd suggest something like this: When they try it, make the player role a d6: On a 1-2 the arrow stick in the victims body, on 3 - 6 it breaks, passes through or something similar, so the spell won't have any effect except the initial damage.

[MrStabby]

I think that the issue isn't the damage. It is a nice side effect but the main thing is forcing no-save disadvantage.

On fights with a lot of enemies giving 10% of the enemies disadvantage is ok, it's good but not really game breaking. On the other hand if you have most of the power of the enemies embedded in a single character then you can be using a single spell to impose disadvantage on 80% of the fight.

More, lower level enemies are part of the answer.

[StoicLeaf]

I think that the issue isn't the damage. It is a nice side effect but the main thing is forcing no-save disadvantage.

On fights with a lot of enemies giving 10% of the enemies disadvantage is ok, it's good but not really game breaking. On the other hand if you have most of the power of the enemies embedded in a single character then you can be using a single spell to impose disadvantage on 80% of the fight.

More, lower level enemies are part of the answer.

I suppose you could go full RAW here.
An arrow in your buttock is neither you holding or wearing it.

[SirGraystone]

I would simply rule that a metal object need to weight of at least 1 (like a dagger) to have enough metal in it to be effective. The spell does say something like a weapon or armor, but not small item like ring or necklace.

[Beelzebubba]

You're being way too permissive. There's only so far cleverness goes, and you're enabling far too many exploits here. The fact that it's become the 'go to' means you've enabled it here, and you need to fix it.

--

The spell is written for armored foes, or for substantially-sized things like a metal weapon being held firmly by the hand and being used as a weapon.

An arrow won't have enough metal to do that much damage, and it won't necessarily stick in for long - it could fall out, or get pulled out, or the arrow head can go all the way through and not even touch the creature.

A tiny metal object like a BB won't do d8 damage either. It's not enough metal. Maybe 1hp a round, and even then, any creature with a hot thing like that in it's mouth will spit it out almost immediately, it's a reflex. So, 1hp damage, then it's over.

And, with either one of these situations, there is no Disadvantage. It's not using the arrow or BB to attack with, so it's not trying to fight through the pain in it's hands to use their weapon effectively. And, it's not like a suit of armor that is draped over it's entire body, so there is no broad contact with the hot metal to force a general Disadvantage to all combat.

At best, it's basically a slightly more powerful Alchemist's Fire, doing some localized damage, and it's taking the caster's Concentration to do it. And, like Alchemist's Fire, or like being set on fire by a Fire Elemental, they can sacrifice an action to remove the damage.

If you start treating the over-used, 'one trick pony' exploits like this, with some common sense, they'll go away.

--

That said, the original idea of tossing a metal dagger into the mouth of a Dragon is clever and good. I don't recommend nerfing that one for the sake of nerfing it, but given common sense - if it's causing that much damage, then the Dragon will spit it out too. Maybe it takes away the Dragon's bite attack, or possibly attack action, while it dislodges it. That's a good reward, and potentially delays the use of it's Breath Weapon.

But, otherwise, it's just a small amount of damage, and again confers no Disadvantage, for the same reasons above.

--

That's how I'd rule it. Hope this helps.

[KorvinStarmast]

Cause seriously as RAW there is nothing sopping the bard from heat metal on a ball bearing and using a sling shot to shoot it into a dragons mouth. (this happened)
False. That is not RAW. 5e does not have called shots. (That said, I think it's a cool thing to try, so any DM would need to figure out the increase in difficulty in making that shot, be it disadvantage on the attack or something like a -5 the way SS or GWM does things).

Also, the next time that dragon breaths, out comes the ball bearing.
Or, the dragon pukes it up. It's not like the dragon won't feel the fire in its guts.
(Ever stick your finger down your own throat, or a tooth brush, to induce vomiting? I did once after too many tequila shots and a realization that I'd over done it. Not gonna do that again, but glad I purged myself).

[ErHo]

Steel ball bearings is hard core for a sling shot!

Give him the only option for ammo is rocks, or lead(historically at least)

Lead is a metal of course, but its melt temperature is so low, it turns liquid before it glows.

When they try to heat up the shot, it just melts.

[ErHo]

The only real problem here is the arrow trick I think, because it bypasses what is the obvious downside to an otherwise very powerfull spell: Not every creature will have metal object on them. I'd suggest something like this: When they try it, make the player role a d6: On a 1-2 the arrow stick in the victims body, on 3 - 6 it breaks, passes through or something similar, so the spell won't have any effect except the initial damage.

I wonder is the arrow or ball bearing sinking into the flesh counts as out of sight, thereby dispelling once its inside.

[Specter]

Interms of arrows and stuff that goes inside someone, just be more descriptive. HP is acombination not only of physical fortitude, but luck and maneuvering as well. Nowhere in the rules does it say that an arrow is stuck to a target if it hits, or that a dragonswallowed something that's thrown in its mouth.

[Knaight]

Give him the only option for ammo is rocks, or lead(historically at least)

There's a serious case to be made that lead isn't even the second most common historical choice, given the ubiquity of formed clay for over a thousand years.

It's also not really that hard to make specialized information, and while it wouldn't regularly be available already made getting a custom job done is hardly unreasonable. Limiting the ammunition here feels like distorting the setting to try and solve a mechanical problem, in a way that the sling just getting damaged by hot ammunition doesn't.

[GlenSmash!]

The same reason you use a wooden spoon in cooking its a poor conductor of heat honestly

I also get what the intention is but by the wording and with no save its ripe for abuse

Blacksmiths don't forge red hot metal by holding it with wooden spoons. Cooking heat doesn't approach red-hot.


Oh that's easy he went to a smith got a glove, took it to a tailor and had him make him one that was more flexible (I can go on from there he thought this crap out) At the time I didn't realize he had the spell and his bard juggles torches. >< So I was like sure.

blacksmiths also don't hold red-hot metal with gloved hands, no matter how well they are gloved. This would ruin their gloves and their hands.


Oh i tried to argue that fact but there is a point of how much bitching do i want to hear from said player about how he can justify it with science physic and logic (and will do math on the paper in front of me) To justify his needs.

I didn't realize ammo had a 50/50 of being destroyed though I'll keep that in mind for next time.

Don't argue with your players. Make a ruling and move on. If they want to talk about it after the game that's fine, but don't waste your table time arguing.

[Blacky the Blackball]

Also, remember that hit points are not "meat points".

Just because an attack with a bow succeeds doesn't mean that the opponent has the arrow stuck in them with the head embedded in their flesh. It might have been a glancing blow that just scratches or grazes them. It might not have actually made contact at all but they've fatigued themselves dodging it, or they're running out of luck and divine favour.

[Knaight]

Also, remember that hit points are not "meat points".

Just because an attack with a bow succeeds doesn't mean that the opponent has the arrow stuck in them with the head embedded in their flesh. It might have been a glancing blow that just scratches or grazes them. It might not have actually made contact at all but they've fatigued themselves dodging it, or they're running out of luck and divine favour.

Although this does run into issues. Dodging a red hot glowing arrow isn't any harder than dodging a normal arrow, yet it probably should do more damage due to added fire damage (although I'd be knocking the piercing damage down a fair bit).

[Consensus]

Although this does run into issues. Dodging a red hot glowing arrow isn't any harder than dodging a normal arrow, yet it probably should do more damage due to added fire damage (although I'd be knocking the piercing damage down a fair bit).

The target can feel the heat radiate off of it and is demoralized

[Errata]

Heat Metal isn't overpowered. It's normally very situational, and Bards already have a lot of inherently situational abilities with not a lot of spells known for them all. It's also concentration based and uses up bonus actions, and Bards have lots of other things that are concentration based or use bonus actions. Under the right circumstances, it can be a fine spell. Even under the best circumstances, though, it's not any better than many other classes abilities that would allow them to do high nova burst damage and end the encounter before the Bard's slow trickle of conentration damage over time has a chance to add up to much. Concentration effects are meant to be more powerful than non, but you can only do one, and if it's making a huge difference your NPCs can target them and make them do a lot of concentration checks. If they're running away to evade that, then they're probably not being very effective at much else besides maintaining concentration, which hardly seems overpowered compared to other classes doing useful things each turn with their actions.

If you find some clever trick that supposedly makes Heat Metal applicable to each and every situation, then sure, that changes the balance discussion a bit (though it's still not overwhelming). However, you're allowing an awful lot of house ruling in their favor to be able to say that they can aim a metal projectile down any enemies throat without fail. There are a lot of variables that are beyond the scope of the rules required to make that happen, and it's only your decisions that are saying it's an easy thing that would happen all the time. I think it's good to be flexible as a DM and allow them to try ideas that are not explicitly covered by rules, but you need to use the tools at your disposal to make it reasonable. Something exceptional like that shouldn't be automatic.

The first time they tried it, sure, let them have it, because that's a clever tactic. But if they're doing it consistently, you need to start applying some common sense rules. A called shot into the mouth is a house rule, and you should make it hard enough that it's far from a guaranteed hit. Something like that feels more like a critical hit than a run of the mill attack, though you may want a house rule that allows them to pay a steep accuracy penalty for a moderate chance at hitting where they want. Then, the dragon shouldn't just have to blithely swallow anything that hits its throat. It could get a constitution save or something to spit it out rather than swallow it, and if it fails it could attempt another save to regurgitate it as an action on subsequent turns. If they fail a difficult called shot attack roll OR the dragon makes its save, they wasted 2 turns and a spell slot on something with very little effect.

The arrow head trick? First of all, the arrow head is not particularly in line with the examples they gave, which are more substantial. Lots of things have tiny bits of metal and that doesn't really appear to be the intention. You could rule that it has to be a certain weight of metal, which would require the ranger to have custom arrows that probably don't work as well as normal arrows. Even if you're inclined to allow it for things that have small bits of metal on a mostly non-metal object, like an arrow, you could say that the enemy can just remove the arrow sticking out of them. Maybe it counts as their free object interaction for the turn, or if it's in an awkward part of their body, it takes them a regular action to remove it. But they have alternatives if they don't want to take that damage. If it only lasts a round of damage, it's not at all overpowered compared to other level 2 effects. Not to mention, if the ranger misses the spell was wasted.

Casting it on a magic ring? This gets into the debate of how much metal is enough, but assuming the ring is primarily metal I'd allow it. This seems well in line with the intended effect of the spell. You're forcing a single enemy choose to discard a single piece of equipment. That's what this spell is for, and that's totally fine. Rings are very easy to remove, so I'd probably call that a free object interaction for the turn and it doesn't even waste their action. If the bard ever breaks concentration, then they could pick the ring back up and wear it again, so it's using their concentration to deny them one object. If that's worth it, then well played to them. Your big bad should probably not be solely dependent on a single spell or magic item for all their power. So this would weaken them, but if it totally defeats them, that seems like a flaw in the design of the encounter.

[ErHo]

@OP:

Idea #1, be a man!
There are no called shots mechanics in this game. The system doesn't support it. He gets to make his attack roll, if he crits you could narrate that the ammo got stuck in flesh/mouth, or not, it's entirely up to you. If he persists you calmly tell him that that isn't within the rules and as the DM your job is to enforce those rules. If you want to make house rules that support called shots then good luck, because you'll end up having to deal with **** like this. Next up: firing fireballs into a person's mouth and why that should make them instantly explode, regardless of their hp!

Idea #2, role reversal!
The next group of bad guys all have heat metal and fire their ball bearings into the bard's mouth. He'll either whine about it (hah!) or come up with a way to counteract it, a way which then you can use!

Idea #3, pay attention to mechanics
You say he then disappears and starts buffing his team mates. How? He's concentrating on heat metal, and most of the good buff spells require concentration. He's using his bonus action to cause damage.


This guy has the right idea

[Rogerdodger557]

-snip-



- Creatures with magic resistance/immunity




This won't work, since the spell is targeting an object, not a creature.

[xroads]

Heat Metal works best on objects the target needs or can't take off quickly. By just using an "interact with environment" action, an NPC can remove a burning ring or yank out an arrowhead.

As for the ball bearing, having the dragon puke out the ball bearing on the bard was a great solution.

[MadBear]

1. Talk with you players and let them know that you're going to be changing how you've been letting heat metal work. Don't surprise them with changes mid-game. If they have to know why, just point out that you think you've been too permissive with how you've been letting it work.

2. Things like heating a bolt or arrow shouldn't autosucceed. If the arrow hits, maybe it glances off, maybe it skims off them dealing damage but not sticking, or maybe it goes straight through one side and out the other (especially if it's super hot).

If you want to be a little permissive give them a % that it gets stuck (like idk 33%). Or just say it doesn't work anymore.

3. The ball barring thing is a little ridiculous and should require more then just a straight up disadvantage to pull off. You're literally waiting for the right moment for the characters mouth to be open. If it was me, I'd tell them they'd have to hold their action, and they'll have disadvantage (outside of letting it work once/twice for the rule of cool the first time it happened).

4. there's no reason that fullplate heated to a scorching red is dealing the same amount of damage that a ring is doing. Let them know that the object has to be more significant then a ring/necklace (or if you're gonna be permissive, let them know small objects like this will only deal 1d8).

If they want to argue with you about this, let them know that you've tried it there way, and you're not a fan of how it's working. It's your game to DM, and you're welcome to be as permissive or not permissive of any rules you want.

It sounds like right now, you've been too permissive and you're posts sounds really angry with your players which isn't good for anyone.

[BlueFountain]

And here in my game the druid with it has only thought about casting it on armor once.

To add to what Kane0 stated though and Subproject on ruining the arrow head (wood does burn and all), well depending how hot the metal gets and what the sling is made out of or what the bard has on their hand, you could potentially rule they’d burn themselves or burn through the sling. Even leather will get burnt eventually.

I teach welding, even though there is little touching of the hot welded metal with our welding gloves, they eventually burn through and we have to get replacements and those are specifically designed for… well dealing with really hot metal.

Spell may say it doesn’t melt the object, but it doesn’t say it doesn’t harm/damage anything else the object comes in contact with. Also, wouldn’t a dragon have some form of immunity or resistance to heat attacks?

[Throne12]

As a DM I use to get mad at things like this untell I realize it doesn't matter. They are going to kill the monsters anyway. Also the bard don't have that many attack spells. Just dont think about it. Let then have fun.

[FabulousFizban]

you're bard is using a second level spell slot and burning concentration to deal 2d8 a round; even if he then uses firebolt or something as his action that is only 3d8. That really isn't that bad. No where near the damage output of say a monk or a rogue. Everyone develops favored tactics, and this seems like a pretty good one, but hardly game breaking.

The main thing to consider is that once the enemy affected by heat metal dies, the spell is wasted. Against powerful, singular monsters this spell could be irritating, but against a group of monsters your caster is using a 2nd level spell for a single mook. Get me? Nevermind that the spell is useless against anything with resistances. You just need to create encounters that make the tactic less useful to get this player to branch out in his tactics. Make your party fight a group of salamanders - that will make the bard think twice.

[Dudewithknives]

1. You are complaining about a player in your game, doing something not possible in the game that you allowed.

Be a better DM, say no.

2. Heat Metal is great against people it works on but it takes concentration. So no other buffs or debuffs, or readying a spell. Just for 2d8 of the most resisted element in the game, is not that big, but the disadvantage that goes with it is the issue.

Back to first issue, say no.
Very few enemies wear medium or heavy metal armor anyway.

Thus whole issue came from you letting a PC break the rules to do something not in the game.


Just say no.

[Cynthaer]

Seconding everyone else's advice about putting your foot down, but I wanted to focus on this bit especially:


Oh i tried to argue that fact but there is a point of how much bitching do i want to hear from said player about how he can justify it with science physic and logic (and will do math on the paper in front of me) To justify his needs.

I absolutely get it—when someone is extremely persistent like that, it can really wear down your defenses over time until it's easier to just give them what they want. People have used this to get stuff from others since the dawn of time, so there's no shame in having succumbed.

In this case, I hope you can draw some confidence from knowing that this player is being rude, and is not participating in the spirit of the game. I don't care if he can calculate the ambient heat from the arrow down to millimeter precision; D&D is a heavily abstracted game about magic and monsters, not a damn physics simulator.

D&D is a cooperative game. It's poor form to "trick" the DM into letting you get a specialized item just so you can turn around and use it to badger them into letting you abuse a spell, instead of announcing openly what you intend to do so you can work out a balanced approach with the DM. It's also poor form to use out-of-game social pressure and the threat of filibuster in order to coerce more in-game power out of the DM.

These are the problems you will need to address in your next game, not the mechanics of a specific spell. If he tries to pull another fast one on you by sneaking in a mechanical bonus that you never approved, or starts bringing in out-of-game reasoning to argue for a specific in-game effect, feel confident in denying him outright.

If he wants to specialize in something that's not explicitly supported by RAW, that's great, but he needs to talk to you about how that's going to play out mechanically in a balanced way. He doesn't get to decide how he wants his own personal houserule to work and then force it on you by waiting to bring it up when it's mid-game and you're trying to move things along. That's unfair and crappy.

[mormon_soldier]

this player is being rude[/B], and is not participating in the spirit of the game. I don't care if he can calculate the ambient heat from the arrow down to millimeter precision; D&D is a heavily abstracted game about magic and monsters, not a damn physics simulator.



Yeah, I second that. Sure the players want to have fun, and the DM is curating that experience for them in a way, but it's still a game that the DM is playing. Don't feel bad about trying to resolve someone making the game unfun for you.

[Squiddish]

Throw some druids at them. Unlike most humanoids they aren't as reliant on metal armor and weapons, but unlike most animals they can be strategic. Also, they can give that bard a taste of his own medicine.

[MadBear]

Throw some druids at them. Unlike most humanoids they aren't as reliant on metal armor and weapons, but unlike most animals they can be strategic. Also, they can give that bard a taste of his own medicine.

the thing is, until he figures out some of the weird stuff he already allowed the players can:

A: shoot druid with arrowhead and cause heat metal to work anyways
B: Throw a sling of iron into it's mouth/and cause it to work anyways.

[Mjolnirbear]

Oh i tried to argue that fact but there is a point of how much bitching do i want to hear from said player about how he can justify it with science physic and logic (and will do math on the paper in front of me) To justify his needs.

I didn't realize ammo had a 50/50 of being destroyed though I'll keep that in mind for next time.

Just a side point.

This is D&D, not Science Quarterly. Lightning spells don't shock everything in water; it's magic, not electricity. Magic missile isn't measured by units of force but by magical will. A warlock with devil's sight can see in magical darkness despite the complete lack of photons hitting his eyes.

So no, logic and math don't apply. Because magic. Casters are possessed of insane versatility even when only considering the bare minimum à spell allows.

This doesn't mean you can't go outside a spells literal function. Creativity is great. But it can't be repeatable. It's not logic. It's not science. It's magic. Your lightning bolt fried those wet Lizardfolk not because water+electricity, but because of a surge of adrenaline, a strange Elemental plane flare, a nearby ley line, or for no reason whatsoever. You can't repeat it every time. (or maybe you can only repeat it by spending inspiration, or using a higher spell slot, or gaining 's level of exhaustion.)

Dont let him abuse it for free, at the bare minimum. Make him pay extra.

[Orvir]

I don't see what the problem is, as there appears to be a lot of drawbacks. Heat metal requires an action, so for the ball bearing trick: 1) he won't be able to shoot it till his next turn, 2) he has a chance of missing, and 3) if you allow for the swallow trick (why not, it's cool) then just let the critter use the con save in the spell description to drop (spit up) the object. Furthermore, 4) he's giving up his bonus action on subsequent turns to do damage instead of bardic inspiration.

The arrow trick might get him around the first drawback if he comes earlier in the initiative order, but the other drawbacks remain.

With rings or a necklace, the creature can drop the item, that's an intended use of the spell.

I'm not sure what you're saying about create water.

The spell isn't overpowered, and the way he's using it is weaker than it would normally be vs. armored opponents like guards, knights, hobgoblins, etc.

[Avonar]

Oo I dislike this spell. I've seen it be used really creatively, the party wrapping a chain around a roper for example and that's great. I'd encourage that.

But it screws you if you're throwing humanoid enemies at them. You cannot throw an armoured enemy against the party if they have Heat Metal because it absolutely trivialises the fight. Let alone an armoured boss.

I houserule that if the target succeeds the constitution save then they don't get any disadvantages because honestly that just make more sense to me. The guaranteed 2d8 is more than enough.

[BrainFreeze]

So honestly if he is going to nit pick that much on this, I would argue that the creature is neither holding or wearing the ball bearing or the arrow and therefore is not subject to disadvantage.

"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. If it doesn't drop the object, it has disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until the start of your next turn"(PHB, 250)

The requirement is to be holding the item or wearing it, having it embedded into your flesh(arrow), or in your stomach(ball bearing), does not fulfill this clause.

[UrielAwakened]

A lot of DMs in this topic trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist killing any fun to be found in the process.

Heat Metal is not a great spell for players. It's an amazing spell for DMs, and a certified player-killer.

Any mediocre damage you get out of using it creatively is fair play.

[Malifice]

Oh I made the shot difficult sure but you need to understand something. Its less super creative when THATS ALL HE DOES

Heat arrow heads for the ranger.

Heats rings no the finger or a neckless

casts create water inside of a flute and argues thats a container


I would smile and let this slide more often if he would just yea know.... NOT DO IT EVERY FIGHT and every single boss



I started working with some of that, I just hate the idea of tailoring my fights around one spell. The player should feel like its a good spell to use but eeesh the abuse Iv'e seen so far of it. I greatly dislike this spell as written.

You're not running the spell properly.

It only affects substantial metal objects (a single weapon or medium or heavy metal armor are the objects provided). And it only affects 1 object per casting.

A ball bearing doesnt cut it. You're not taking 2d8 damage from touching a red hot ball bearing.

Also the object only deals damage to anything if they are in physical contact with the object when you cast the spell. Casting it on something else, and then throwing or shooting it at someone does nothing.

If the creature remains in physical contact with the object (holding or wearing it) the object (retains its grip on the weapon, or wears the armor) you can use a bonus action on each of your subsequent turns to again deal 2d8 damage.

Plus its a 2nd level spell, that uses concentration.

On your bards turn he casts Heat metal on a Rangers arrow. Nothing happens as it is not a metal manufactured weapon or object. Even if it was (say its a steel arrow or maybe a crossbow bolt which were made of steel) it still does nothing (unless the Ranger happens to be holding the crossbow bolt, in which case the Ranger takes damage).

On the rangers turn he shoots the crossbow bolt, and even if it hits something, it still does nothing. It deals no extra damage (it only deals damage on the turn you cast the spell, and on subsequent turns of yours if a creature is holding or touching it).

On your turn you cant use a bonus action to deal any damage to the creature he shot, because the creature that was shot with the crossbow bolt isn't holding or touching the crossbow bolt (unless he picked it up on his turn after being shot of course).

You can rule the crossbow bolt is 'sticking out of the creature' and this makes him eligible target on your next turn, but thats a house rule. The game assumes that HP are not meat, and that arrows and bolts and knives dont lodge in creatures that are hit by them (and that many hits are not actually hits at all, but are parried, glance of armor, dodged at the last minute etc).

[Cybren]

Although this does run into issues. Dodging a red hot glowing arrow isn't any harder than dodging a normal arrow, yet it probably should do more damage due to added fire damage (although I'd be knocking the piercing damage down a fair bit).

Presumably heat metal would make a metal arrowhead softer and thereby lose penetration. 5E would model that, if it cared to, by giving disadvantage vs armor, probably.

[Malifice]

But it screws you if you're throwing humanoid enemies at them. You cannot throw an armoured enemy against the party if they have Heat Metal because it absolutely trivialises the fight. Let alone an armoured boss.

It deals 9 damage per round of a commonly resisted type (fire). The real kicker is the disadvantage on attack rolls if you fail a Con save for a round.

The status effect sucks, but its hardly a game breaker, and it requires the creature to fail a Con save, and it uses Concentration.

The damage is trivial.

Plus, you dont see solo humanoids packing metal all that often. Or at least you shouldnt. Most humanoid encounters are groups (Orcs, Goblins, Bandits, Hobgoblins, Thugs, Knights, Cultists, Guards etc). Those guys come in numbers.

[Malifice]

Don't argue with your players. Make a ruling and move on. If they want to talk about it after the game that's fine, but don't waste your table time arguing.

This. So much this.

[Avonar]

It deals 9 damage per round of a commonly resisted type (fire). The real kicker is the disadvantage on attack rolls if you fail a Con save for a round.

The status effect sucks, but its hardly a game breaker, and it requires the creature to fail a Con save, and it uses Concentration

Here's the thing: the Con save is pretty irrelevant. All the Con save does is mean that they don't have to drop an item, if they choose not to they still have disadvantage (which I think is very silly).

Doing 2d8 fire damage per round as a bonus action at level 3 is powerful. Giving a foe guaranteed disadvantage regardless of saves is frankly silly. As long as the caster can keep back then the concentration isn't often a problem.

I will agree though it isn't a game breaker. I just think it's a terribly designed spell that does too much. I've been running some of the official modules, and we've had a few encounters that are meant to be difficult be trivialised by a single second level spell, regardless of saves. I don't like that.

[Tiadoppler]

If you use Heat Metal on an arrow head carried by a ranger, the ranger takes 2d8 fire damage and must succeed at a CON save to keep from having Disadvantage. It's smarter to place the arrow on the ground first, then pick the arrow up after the spell is cast, but that requires an additional bonus action to reach down and grab the newly heated arrow.


If you shoot the heated arrow at a target, it may or may not hit. If it hits, it may or may not stick in (by DM fiat).

If the caster has a turn before the creature, the caster can use the bonus action to cause the damage again.
"Any creature in physical contact with the object" takes the damage.

The creature is not "holding or wearing the object", it is embedded in the flesh, so there is no CON save and no attack/ability disadvantage.

The struck creature can then use a bonus action to pull the heated arrow out and drop it on the ground.



The use of this spell on a weapon or armor is much more effective.

[Cybren]

Why would picking up an arrow be a bonus action??

[Tiadoppler]

Why would picking up an arrow be a bonus action??

Leaning down to pick something up from the ground? It's the same idea as being disarmed. If you've dropped a weapon/potion on the ground, it's not a free action to pick it back up.

[Cybren]

Leaning down to pick something up from the ground? It's the same idea as being disarmed. If you've dropped a weapon/potion on the ground, it's not a free action to pick it back up.

1) it absolutely is
2) even if it weren't, Use an Object is an action, not a bonus action, unless you have Cunning Action.

[Tiadoppler]

1) it absolutely is
2) even if it weren't, Use an Object is an action, not a bonus action, unless you have Cunning Action.

Oh, I see. I thought you were objecting to the idea that it took any time at all.

*Shrug* It depends on how the arrow's placed on the ground. If it's stuck upright into the dirt, that can be as fast or faster than drawing from a quiver.

Edit: I think I was remembering 4e rules for picking stuff up.

[Mellack]

Oh, I see. I thought you were objecting to the idea that it took any time at all.

*Shrug* It depends on how the arrow's placed on the ground. If it's stuck upright into the dirt, that can be as fast or faster than drawing from a quiver.

Edit: I think I was remembering 4e rules for picking stuff up.

Picking up a dropped weapon is an example of what you can do with your free object interaction.

[Malifice]

Doing 2d8 fire damage per round as a bonus action at level 3 is powerful. Giving a foe guaranteed disadvantage regardless of saves is frankly silly. As long as the caster can keep back then the concentration isn't often a problem.

It would want to be powerful at 3rd level. Its a 2nd level spell, meaning the PC can only do it 2/long rest at that level, and only against a single creature each time (who can simply drop the item if possible to avoid the effects).

In fact for a standard 6 encounter adventuring day, its not powerful at that level. It requires concentration, deals minimal damage, requires a very specific target, and the status effect (while strong) isnt a game changer.

Hold Person is the same level spell and slaps the Paralyzed condition on the target. Paralyzed = 1 whole round of your party gaining advantage to hit, dealing automatic critical hits, and the creature automatically failing Dex and Str saves, plus it loses at least a whole rounds worth of actions.

At 3rd level, your average party can easily dish out an extra 50 damage a round from auto crits using simply at will attacks.

Id much rather my Fighter PC be targetted with Heat Metal by an enemy caster, than be targeted with Hold person. Hold Person is effectively save or die. Heat metal means I take 9 fire damage, am likely at disadvantage to attack rolls, but can simply walk over to the Caster and wallop him with my greatsword (or draw a bow and shoot the guy), likely ending the spell (resulting in 9 damage and disadvantage for a round).

[Davrix]

Guys Ive gotten some good suggestions out of this thread and moved on like a week ago now :) not sure why this is turning into such a debated topic when I've already marked down my mistakes. Will fix my rulings for next time and have moved on. Posting essentially the same advice from earlier posts seems rather silly to me right now.

Also thank you to all those who offered advice it has been very helpful and I will fixing the problem should it ever come up again. Though I think the player understood that he might of gone a bit to far when he died from dragon flame acid puke to the face :)

[Malifice]

Guys Ive gotten some good suggestions out of this thread and moved on like a week ago now :) not sure why this is turning into such a debated topic when I've already marked down my mistakes. Will fix my rulings for next time and have moved on. Posting essentially the same advice from earlier posts seems rather silly to me right now.

Also thank you to all those who offered advice it has been very helpful and I will fixing the problem should it ever come up again. Though I think the player understood that he might of gone a bit to far when he died from dragon flame acid puke to the face :)

Read the spell mate.

No offence but you werent even close to what the spell says it does in the text.

Cast it on object, if someone is holding or wearing the object on the turn the spell is cast they take 2d8 fire damage (and must make a Con save).

On each of your subsequent turns if a creature is holding or touching the object, they take an addtional 2d8 damage if you spend a bonus action to burn them.

You were running it... weird. Reading the spell might have helped.

[tatsuyashiba]

Something else to consider when weighing balance of Heat Metal spell: enemies most likely to be effected by it RAW (wielding metal weapons or metal armor) are also the most likely to have proficiency in Con save.

[GlenSmash!]

Guys Ive gotten some good suggestions out of this thread and moved on like a week ago now :) not sure why this is turning into such a debated topic when I've already marked down my mistakes. Will fix my rulings for next time and have moved on. Posting essentially the same advice from earlier posts seems rather silly to me right now.

Also thank you to all those who offered advice it has been very helpful and I will fixing the problem should it ever come up again.

Threads tend to live eon long after they have been helpful :smalltongue:


Though I think the player understood that he might of gone a bit to far when he died from dragon flame acid puke to the face :)

Haha!

Nice.

[MadBear]

Guys Ive gotten some good suggestions out of this thread and moved on like a week ago now :) not sure why this is turning into such a debated topic when I've already marked down my mistakes. Will fix my rulings for next time and have moved on. Posting essentially the same advice from earlier posts seems rather silly to me right now.

Also thank you to all those who offered advice it has been very helpful and I will fixing the problem should it ever come up again. Though I think the player understood that he might of gone a bit to far when he died from dragon flame acid puke to the face :)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2927/14485875039_62358192c6_z.jpg

[Davrix]

Read the spell mate.

No offence but you werent even close to what the spell says it does in the text.

Cast it on object, if someone is holding or wearing the object on the turn the spell is cast they take 2d8 fire damage (and must make a Con save).

On each of your subsequent turns if a creature is holding or touching the object, they take an addtional 2d8 damage if you spend a bonus action to burn them.

You were running it... weird. Reading the spell might have helped.


One I do take offense because I read the spell. Sometimes you cant always absorb the meaning in a quick read at the table.

Two I don't like arguments taking up to much time of the game and when the player made his points about how he thought the spell should work I simply let it be for the campaign as it wasn't a long one and came here for some advice about handing it in the next game. Because i find its much easier to change rulings between campaigns and players don't feel like there being nerfed because I can come to them and say, here is where it caused problems and now I can also back them up with points of here is how the spell should work based on the wording. Yes it frustrated me during the game at times but there was still a lot of fun and my post might of been a bit of a vent but good points were made and I took the advice offered. Simply coming in here and saying LTR isn't helpful or conductive to a discussion because like i said before. I don't want to sit there for 20 minutes debating the matter. I read it quickly an argument was made I made a ruling. Turns out it wasn't a very good one but I kept the game moving and will fix it now.

Edit

@Madbear LOL so true

[Sinon]

Oh i tried to argue that fact but there is a point of how much bitching do i want to hear from said player about how he can justify it with science physic and logic (and will do math on the paper in front of me) To justify his needs.
I realize this is going to be controversial, but I have always advocated for a houserule that every time someone mentions physics in a game about magic, they have to do a tab of acid.

[Malifice]

I realize this is going to be controversial, but I have always advocated for a houserule that every time someone mentions physics in a game about magic, they have to do a tab of acid.

Please invite me to your game.

[Sinon]

Unfortunately, these things are the province of the young, and I am kinda old.

Well, actually, super old.

Old enough to have lived in Keep on the Borderlands, where dwarves were dwarves, halflings were halflings, irony and satire were things, but humans could be fighters, clerics, thieves, or magic users.

Elves were elves, but that meant they were both fighters and magic users, and they didn’t hit second level before everyone quit the campaign and started playing Star Frontiers (Yazirian Rage!)

Obviously, forcing your friends to do psychotropic drugs is wrong. A rule mandating that would absurd, almost as absurd as bringing up physics in game about magic.

[Gardakan]

Heat Metal has enough restriction. It doesn't affect most things you end up fighting. It's good against Metal wearing creatures... which most aren't anyway.