Heat Metal on a Crossbow Bolt?

[Damon_Tor]

So if I shoot a monster with a crossbow bolt then cast Heat Metal on the bolt lodged in it, would you rule that this is a viable way to apply Heat Metal to a creature that isn't wearing armor? What sort of action would you require for the creature to remove the bolt? What if the creature can't reach the bolt at all (or has no hands to remove it with)?

Second, if three different spellcasters each cast Heat Metal on a different crossbow bolt lodged in a creature, will the creature take damage from all three spells assuming each caster continues to use their bonus actions to repeat the damage? This seems like a way around the "a creature cannot be effected by the same spell multiple times" rule: the creature isn't the target, the bolts are.

Third, consider the possibility that the spells are cast by Tiny Servants using an artificer's Spell Storage Item, effectively making this a one-man tactic, albeit high level.

[ImproperJustice]

The answers to most of the above will be answered by your GM.

Then you also need to decide what kind of game it is that you guys are playing.

[Tanarii]

No, because there is no way to determine that a bolt is lodged in a creature other than DM Fiat. Doing HP damage doesn't make it so, because hit points aren't meat.

Also if DM fiat ruled that a crossbow bolt is actually stuck in a creature for any reason, still No, because you can't see the bolt head after it is lodged in a creature, and you must be able to see the target. You could cast it before but you risk blowing a spell slot on the attack missing, plus the DM fiat ruling being that the attack didn't lodge in the creature even though it did hp damage.

[Damon_Tor]

The answers to most of the above will be answered by your GM.

Of course; assume you are the DM and one of your players is doing this.

[stoutstien]

Of course; assume you are the DM and one of your players is doing this.
From the hip.

Yes to heat metal on one bolt. Npc could easily remove it without much effort. Wrapping a target in a chain or using a hunter trap is a better idea.

No to multi casting on one Target. Period. Goes against a core game principal of allowing same spells to stack.

Tiny servant I would allow but only one of them.

[Damon_Tor]

No, because there is no way to determine that a bolt is lodged in a creature other than DM Fiat. Doing HP damage doesn't make it so, because hit points aren't meat.

So how would you adjudicate this? If you are a DM and your player casts Heat Metal on a Crossbow Bolt and shoots it at a monster and hits, what do you do?

[Tanarii]

So how would you adjudicate this? If you are a DM and your player casts Heat Metal on a Crossbow Bolt and shoots it at a monster and hits, what do you do?
Nothing. They wasted the spell.

Edit: Also, I'd certainly object to the process as a player when the DM had a enemy caster shoot a heat metal crossbow Bolt at me, do 3 pts of damage to my 100 hp character, then tell me the bolt is lodged and I was taking X per round.

If necessary I'd point it out to a player complaining to me, what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is one of those situations where how likely your DM is to rule that a bolt could be stuck in you this way is how they rule HP.
In the rules, your physical wellbeing is only one aspect of many involved in HP, that crossbow dealing 8 damage to you can be ruled as anything from "shook your resolve with how close it came to taking your eye despite missing" to "The bolt lodges squarely in your thigh".

Like Tanarii says, there's no reason for it to be assumed that the bolt is lodged inside to make this strategy work and I as a player would probably take issue with the DM making such a claim against my character just to make this combo function. This also assumes that your crossbow bolts are entirely made of metal, since you need to see the metal object you're targeting.

[Imbalance]

Is there RAW about recovering ammunition? When I asked, the DM allowed it based on a die roll (ie. approximate how many ranged attacks were successful, roll the next smallest die, result is how many are retrieved along with loot).

I ask in case it serves as a basis to say that an average number of bolts that land actually stick in the target to be recovered, then to figure if any are actually visible to the caster. You might give the caster a perception check with disadvantage to locate the target or even give the creature advantage on the con save to remove the bolt.

On the other hand, casting Heat Metal before the bolt is fired seems more workable mechanically. Nobody takes damage from it on the round that it is cast, and if the crossbow attack misses it's probably a complete waste. But as long as the caster can see it and maintain concentration, I don't see why it wouldn't work. I imagine this being a great way to boil a gelatinous cube from the inside out, though I can also imagine someone coming along to tell me why I'm wrong.

Whether it succeeds or not, if the players definitely want to attempt this tactic, assure them that it will be used against them later.

[Aett_Thorn]

Is there RAW about recovering ammunition? When I asked, the DM allowed it based on a die roll (ie. approximate how many ranged attacks were successful, roll the next smallest die, result is how many are retrieved along with loot).

I ask in case it serves as a basis to say that an average number of bolts that land actually stick in the target to be recovered, then to figure if any are actually visible to the caster. You might give the caster a perception check with disadvantage to locate the target or even give the creature advantage on the con save to remove the bolt.

On the other hand, casting Heat Metal before the bolt is fired seems more workable mechanically. Nobody takes damage from it on the round that it is cast, and if the crossbow attack misses it's probably a complete waste. But as long as the caster can see it and maintain concentration, I don't see why it wouldn't work. I imagine this being a great way to boil a gelatinous cube from the inside out, though I can also imagine someone coming along to tell me why I'm wrong.

Whether it succeeds or not, if the players definitely want to attempt this tactic, assure them that it will be used against them later.

RAW on recovering ammo is that you get half back. Remember that even if you hit the target, that doesn't mean you don't break the bolk when you try to take it out. Many medieval bolts were designed such that trying to take them out was both painful and dangerous.

[Damon_Tor]

This is one of those situations where how likely your DM is to rule that a bolt could be stuck in you this way is how they rule HP.
In the rules, your physical wellbeing is only one aspect of many involved in HP, that crossbow dealing 8 damage to you can be ruled as anything from "shook your resolve with how close it came to taking your eye despite missing" to "The bolt lodges squarely in your thigh".

How do those DMs handle poisoned arrows?

[JackPhoenix]

How do those DMs handle poisoned arrows?

The same way as normal arrow. You been extra lucky/more shaken while avoiding more serious threat. Or you may not have been fast enough and still recieved some surface wound, if the arrow has effect other than pure damage.

[Damon_Tor]

Nothing. They wasted the spell.

Edit: Also, I'd certainly object to the process as a player when the DM had a enemy caster shoot a heat metal crossbow Bolt at me, do 3 pts of damage to my 100 hp character, then tell me the bolt is lodged and I was taking X per round.

If necessary I'd point it out to a player complaining to me, what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Are you implying that NPCs don't already use Heat Metal on PCs? And I'll note that normally it comes in with no attack roll and no save, you just start taking damage and there's nothing you can do about it because there's no good way to doff armor in combat. But as a player you would complain to your DM for taking this spell, making it take two actions instead of one, and requiring a hit vs AC? I'm legitimately confused to what possible objection you would have here.

I would note that there are game mechanics that directly correlate dealing damage to "hitting meat". Poison is the one that springs to mind: someone dips their arrow in poison and deals 3 points of damage to your 100 hp PC, that poison will be effecting you as if it's in you. There's no good way to explain that away if you like to fluff non-fatal HP damage as "near misses".

There's plenty here I agree with: there's not currently a way to determine if a projectile embeds itself in a target and if so, how far. Even assuming HP = Meat, a bolt might just nick someone and still "hit" or on the opposite end of the spectrum, it might go all the way through and come out the other side. I'm looking for a fair way to simulate this using dice.

I also agree it isn't fair to make the embedded arrow unremovable. It's why I'm looking for opinions on how that should be done I figure an item interaction (free 1/turn, needs an action beyond that) paired with a medicine DC equal to the damage dealt by the initial attack would be simple and fair. So if the arrow lands and deals just 5 points of damage, it should just be able to pop it out no problem. But if the attack was a sharpshooter hit with hunters mark that did 17 points of damage, well that's in there pretty deep.

[Aimeryan]

Are you implying that NPCs don't already use Heat Metal on PCs? And I'll note that normally it comes in with no attack roll and no save, you just start taking damage and there's nothing you can do about it because there's no good way to doff armor in combat. But as a player you would complain to your DM for taking this spell, making it take two actions instead of one, and requiring a hit vs AC? I'm legitimately confused to what possible objection you would have here.

I would note that there are game mechanics that directly correlate dealing damage to "hitting meat". Poison is the one that springs to mind: someone dips their arrow in poison and deals 3 points of damage to your 100 hp PC, that poison will be effecting you as if it's in you. There's no good way to explain that away if you like to fluff non-fatal HP damage as "near misses".

There's plenty here I agree with: there's not currently a way to determine if a projectile embeds itself in a target and if so, how far. Even assuming HP = Meat, a bolt might just nick someone and still "hit" or on the opposite end of the spectrum, it might go all the way through and come out the other side. I'm looking for a fair way to simulate this using dice.

I also agree it isn't fair to make the embedded arrow unremovable. It's why I'm looking for opinions on how that should be done I figure an item interaction (free 1/turn, needs an action beyond that) paired with a medicine DC equal to the damage dealt by the initial attack would be simple and fair. So if the arrow lands and deals just 5 points of damage, it should just be able to pop it out no problem. But if the attack was a sharpshooter hit with hunters mark that did 17 points of damage, well that's in there pretty deep.

I agree with this.

As for the depth, perhaps a free item interaction with a Strength DC check equal to the damage the bolt dealt? If unsuccessful, the check is reduced next time by the amount achieved previously (cumulative).

[Vogie]

I'd rule you can do that after it hits. I mean, you could before, but if that arrow misses it's gone.

The Swords Bard in my WDH game purposefully bought our Rogue extra daggers and metal blowdarts specifically so they could pull this maneuver. I give the targets a low DC Strength or Dexterity check to take it out unless it's in the target's back (we use a flanking variant based on facing), where the DC is higher.

[Misterwhisper]

Not only is it a hard no, but also just flimsy powergaming.

It is the same level of powergaming as sneaking up and putting a helmet on a mage and then claiming they can’t cast because they are not proficient.

[Damon_Tor]

Not only is it a hard no, but also just flimsy powergaming.

It is the same level of powergaming as sneaking up and putting a helmet on a mage and then claiming they can’t cast because they are not proficient.

I don't get it. The spell works perfectly on anything with metal armor. No attack roll, no save, one action. So making it take two actions and an attack roll to work on other targets is powergaming?

[BarneyBent]

I think it’s creative and worth finding a way to make it work without being abusable.

If the spell is cast before firing the bolt, I’d say is does an extra 2d8 on a hit. I’d then roll a d20 to see if the bolt is lodged, based on a combination of size and fleshiness. If the spell is cast after firing the bolt, you’d have to check if the bolt was lodged AND visible to cast the spell, raising the DC for the D20 roll but potentially avoiding wasting the spell on a bolt that misses.

For example, tiny creatures are much more likely to have a bolt pass straight through than gargantuan creatures, who are much more likely to have the bolt stick. Skeletons are much more likely to have the bolt pass through than zombies.

Off the top of my head I’m thinking something like three categories of fleshiness (no flesh, some flesh, super fleshy), and the standard size categories. The size categories start with an 18 to lodge in a Tiny creature of moderate fleshiness, the DC going down by 3 as the size category goes up. Similarly, the DC goes up by 3 as fleshiness decreases, and down by 3 as fleshiness increases.

It’s a straight D20 roll done by the DM, pure luck related. It’s impossible to lodge in a Tiny skeleton as the DC is 21. A tiny, super fat rat however might have a DC of just 15, so you’ll lodge 25% of the time.

A Tarrasque is gargantuan and super fleshy (note that external armor is already accounted for by AC so this is fleshiness on a hit, I.e assuming armor has been pierced) and would have a DC of just 1 - i.e. it’s impossible for the bolt not to become lodged.

This is just an example and you could tweak it a bit - maybe start with 20 for tiny skeletal things and reduce by 2 instead of three with each factor, or 2 for size but 4 for fleshiness. But it would give a rough probability that each arrow/bolt would lodge.

This would have usefulness well beyond heat metal too. Casting Darkness on an arrow-tip, for example.

[Tanarii]

Are you implying that NPCs don't already use Heat Metal on PCs? And I'll note that normally it comes in with no attack roll and no save, you just start taking damage and there's nothing you can do about it because there's no good way to doff armor in combat. But as a player you would complain to your DM for taking this spell, making it take two actions instead of one, and requiring a hit vs AC? I'm legitimately confused to what possible objection you would have here.I assume we were talking about a way to get the effect of "wearing metal armor" on a creature that's not wearing metal armor. Otherwise this is a pointless exercise.


I would note that there are game mechanics that directly correlate dealing damage to "hitting meat". Poison is the one that springs to mind: someone dips their arrow in poison and deals 3 points of damage to your 100 hp PC, that poison will be effecting you as if it's in you. There's no good way to explain that away if you like to fluff non-fatal HP damage as "near misses".I'm not a fan of near misses personally, but that's a far cry from a crossbow bolt sticking in something.


There's plenty here I agree with: there's not currently a way to determine if a projectile embeds itself in a target and if so, how far. Even assuming HP = Meat, a bolt might just nick someone and still "hit" or on the opposite end of the spectrum, it might go all the way through and come out the other side. I'm looking for a fair way to simulate this using dice.

I also agree it isn't fair to make the embedded arrow unremovable. It's why I'm looking for opinions on how that should be done I figure an item interaction (free 1/turn, needs an action beyond that) paired with a medicine DC equal to the damage dealt by the initial attack would be simple and fair. So if the arrow lands and deals just 5 points of damage, it should just be able to pop it out no problem. But if the attack was a sharpshooter hit with hunters mark that did 17 points of damage, well that's in there pretty deep.okay, let's make some assumptions and see how it works out.

Assumption 1: First, you as the DM have to rule it's a creature that can take a hit from a crossbow bolt that might stick into it and stay there, without it being close to immediately fatal. That probably means a Large creature, with either a significant number of hit points coming from a high constitution, or is pretty heavily armored. Dragons especially come to mind as a target players might want to try this kind of thing on.

Next, the spell would have to be cast on the bolt in advance, so it can be seen.

Now let's pick some numbers for a chance of the bolt sticking. How about either/or the attack is a critical hit, or the first damage die is an 8+. That'd be a 5% chance of a crit without advantage or a 9.75% of a critical with advantage, and failing that a 12.5% of 8 damage for a light crossbow or 30% for 8+ with a heavy.

Without advantage: 17% with a light crossbow and 33.5% with a heavy.

With advantage: 21% with a light crossbow and a whopping 37% with a heavy crossbow.

Would that feel balanced to you?

[stoutstien]

Not only is it a hard no, but also just flimsy powergaming.

It is the same level of powergaming as sneaking up and putting a helmet on a mage and then claiming they can’t cast because they are not proficient.

Ehh, it's a far cry from clone shenanigans. it takes concentration of one of your casters and it can easily be removed. It's fire damage which is the worst damage and yes it's automatic and there's no save but it's not a lot of damage.
it's nothing more than a cool party trick the fun for a couple levels then it falls off.

[Damon_Tor]

Assumption 1: First, you as the DM have to rule it's a creature that can take a hit from a crossbow bolt that might stick into it and stay there, without it being close to immediately fatal. That probably means a Large creature, with either a significant number of hit points coming from a high constitution, or is pretty heavily armored.

I shot a deer with a crossbow a few days ago. Solidly medium creature. The arrow went high and lodged right under the spine. Missed the lungs. I chased that deer for half an hour with that arrow sticking out of it before it jumped over a fence onto a neighbor's property and vanished into the woods. As far as I know the arrow is still in it.

So I disagree with your assumptions.


Next, the spell would have to be cast on the bolt in advance, so it can be seen.

That's fair.


Now let's pick some numbers for a chance of the bolt sticking. How about either/or the attack is a critical hit, or the first damage die is an 8+. That'd be a 5% chance of a crit without advantage or a 9.75% of a critical with advantage, and failing that a 12.5% of 8 damage for a light crossbow or 30% for 8+ with a heavy.

Without advantage: 17% with a light crossbow and 33.5% with a heavy.

With advantage: 21% with a light crossbow and a whopping 37% with a heavy crossbow.

Would that feel balanced to you?

Seems complicated.

I prefer what Vogie suggested, the bolt always "sticks" to a degree based on the damage dealt. Removing it is an item interaction with a check equal to that damage, so no action required. So most of the time the enemy will be able to knock the bolt out before taking any damage at all.

[Misterwhisper]

Ehh, it's a far cry from clone shenanigans. it takes concentration of one of your casters and it can easily be removed. It's fire damage which is the worst damage and yes it's automatic and there's no save but it's not a lot of damage.
it's nothing more than a cool party trick the fun for a couple levels then it falls off.

It is just a stepping stone before someone wants to cast heat metal on their axe head and wants to add 2d6 fire damage.

[stoutstien]

It is just a stepping stone before someone wants to cast heat metal on their axe head and wants to add 2d6 fire damage.

Hmm if it also did the damage to one using the axe I could be a good risk/reward spell then

[BarneyBent]

It is just a stepping stone before someone wants to cast heat metal on their axe head and wants to add 2d6 fire damage.

Well firstly, they’d take the damage themselves as well. Secondly, for a 1 minute duration concentration effect it’s not that unbalanced. Compare to Elemental Weapon which has a lower damage die (1d4), but also makes the weapon a +1 weapon, you choose your damage type and lasts for an hour, as a 3rd level spell.

If a player wants to cast Heat Metal on their axe and take damage (I’d handwave the disadvantage - you chose to do this and are mentally prepared for the pain) in order to also do extra damage to an enemy then power to them. Would be super flavourful on a Tiefling, Fire Genasi or Forge Cleric.

[Kane0]

Sure, why not

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

Well firstly, they’d take the damage themselves as well. Secondly, for a 1 minute duration concentration effect it’s not that unbalanced. Compare to Elemental Weapon which has a lower damage die (1d4), but also makes the weapon a +1 weapon, you choose your damage type and lasts for an hour, as a 3rd level spell.

If a player wants to cast Heat Metal on their axe and take damage (I’d handwave the disadvantage - you chose to do this and are mentally prepared for the pain) in order to also do extra damage to an enemy then power to them. Would be super flavourful on a Tiefling, Fire Genasi or Forge Cleric.

No. Axes hafts are wood. Not metal. Their wouldn't be enough heat transference to the welder to matter.


What I don't remember in 5e is if objects ignore x amount of damage due to hardness.....like they did in 3.

[Chronos]

Even aside from the silly rule that HP don't represent actual corporeal damage (which is unrealistic and flies against all the underlying assumptions of the game), there's still no guarantee that a hit that does damage results in the bolt being embedded in the target. It could have grazed the target (and maybe even still did significant damage, depending on where it grazed), or it could have gone right through, or it could have penetrated in slightly but then fallen out, etc. And it'd take too much rules overhead to decide whether it was embedded or not.

Also, a bolt head is a very small amount of metal compared to the things the spell usually targets.

As for multiple casters using it on multiple metal items wielded by the same creature, though, that's not a matter of effects not stacking. It's a matter of damage, and damage always stacks (the game wouldn't work at all if that weren't true).

[Damon_Tor]

It is just a stepping stone before someone wants to cast heat metal on their axe head and wants to add 2d6 fire damage.

The timing issue means you couldn't use this as a damage multiplier on top of multiple attack rolls: Heat Metal deals damage only when the spell is cast and when the caster uses a bonus action to repeat it. It doesn't trigger on contact.

And even if a player were trying to make it work that way: oh no, a level 2 spell that adds 2d6 damage to a damage roll. How will the game possibly recover?

[NaughtyTiger]

The timing issue means you couldn't use this as a damage multiplier on top of multiple attack rolls: Heat Metal deals damage only when the spell is cast and when the caster uses a bonus action to repeat it. It doesn't trigger on contact.

ha, a druid could use it on his scimitar... use the bonus action, when he hits... and it would do 2 more points of damage than flame blade... poor flame blade.

[Demonslayer666]

As a DM and having a player ask me if they could target an embedded crossbow bolt with Heat Metal, I would say no. It's not metal, only the tip is made of metal. And it's not a weapon, it's ammunition for a weapon. And it's certainly not armor. So it's not eligible as a target for the spell.

Now I am thinking of an alchemist concoction of liquid metal, or metal flakes/dust/shavings in it that would make this work...

[Cybren]

No, because there is no way to determine that a bolt is lodged in a creature other than DM Fiat. Doing HP damage doesn't make it so, because hit points aren't meat.

Also if DM fiat ruled that a crossbow bolt is actually stuck in a creature for any reason, still No, because you can't see the bolt head after it is lodged in a creature, and you must be able to see the target. You could cast it before but you risk blowing a spell slot on the attack missing, plus the DM fiat ruling being that the attack didn't lodge in the creature even though it did hp damage.

Why would you need to see the head of the bolt? the entire thing is metal
Edit:
Looking this up it appears that this isn't the case, just some are.

[JackPhoenix]

As a DM and having a player ask me if they could target an embedded crossbow bolt with Heat Metal, I would say no. It's not metal, only the tip is made of metal. And it's not a weapon, it's ammunition for a weapon. And it's certainly not armor. So it's not eligible as a target for the spell.

Heat Metal doesn't care if the target object is armor or weapon, only if it's made of metal.

[Demonslayer666]

Heat Metal doesn't care if the target object is armor or weapon, only if it's made of metal.

Righto, it does not need to be a weapon or armor, but it does need to be made of metal and if you want it to affect the creature, it needs to be held (like a weapon) or worn (like armor).

[KorvinStarmast]

Not only is it a hard no, but also just flimsy powergaming. It is the same level of powergaming as sneaking up and putting a helmet on a mage and then claiming they can’t cast because they are not proficient. I can see this ruling.
It is just a stepping stone before someone wants to cast heat metal on their axe head and wants to add 2d6 fire damage. And that's a decent reason to object; setting precedents that you don't want to have to deal with. I also appreciate one of the remarks above about HP not being meat.

This attempt looks a little like a "called shot" but it does not rely on that. But once the bolt is in the enemy, can the bonus action keep the heat going? I think it can, once begun. If a guy in chain mail gets heat metalled, him running around the corner does not interrupt the spell's effect. (There was a ruling on that some a few years ago).

Let's look at the spell's text:


Heat Metal
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M (a piece of iron and a flame)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

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.

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.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 2nd. The crossbow bolt is made of wood, the tip presumably made of metal.

that you can see within range

You cast it on the crossbow bolt before it is fired. In a hit, the crossbow bolt is now in the target, but is the creature wearing or holding it?

Ruling needed as the "it's stuck in me" isn't technically either.

Note: on the target's turn, it can use "interract with an object" to pull it out of their flesh. (Or at least try to).

This sets up an interesting serial problem the DM may need to solve:

There is a barrel of flammable oil.
The characters have a druid heat the metal the tip of the crossbow bolt. It is now red hot. The crossbowman shoots at the barrel of flammable oil/naptha/whatever.

Result: the red hot metal penetrates the barrel on a hit, or doesn't it? If so, does this start a fire?

Depending on how you all play at your table, I can see this as a reward for innovative use of a spell.

[JackPhoenix]

Righto, it does not need to be a weapon or armor, but it does need to be made of metal and if you want it to affect the creature, it needs to be held (like a weapon) or worn (like armor).

Nope again. Any creature in physical contact with the object takes damage, holding or wearing it only matters for the Con save and dropping it.


This sets up an interesting serial problem the DM may need to solve:

There is a barrel of flammable oil.
The characters have a druid heat the metal the tip of the crossbow bolt. It is not red hot. The crossbowman shoots at the barrel of flammable oil/naptha/whatever.

Result: the red hot metal penetrates the barrel on a hit, or doesn't it? If so, does this start a fire?

Depending on how you all play at your table, I can see this as a reward for innovative use of a spell.

It does not. It glows red-hot, but that's due to magic. It doesn't behave like actual red-hot metal object would: it only causes damage when the caster spends bonus action and it's perfectly safe to handle otherwise, and it does not damage objects at all, let alone setting them on fire. There's a difference between something glowing red-hot and actually having appropriate temperature.

[Aimeryan]

As a DM and having a player ask me if they could target an embedded crossbow bolt with Heat Metal, I would say no. It's not metal, only the tip is made of metal. And it's not a weapon, it's ammunition for a weapon. And it's certainly not armor. So it's not eligible as a target for the spell.

Now I am thinking of an alchemist concoction of liquid metal, or metal flakes/dust/shavings in it that would make this work...

Bolts were commonly made of hard wood with only the tips being steel (cheaper), however, adventurers need not request common materials - add a bit of a cost to have them made out of steel throughout. This is if you want to cast the spell after the bolt has been embedded in the target - if you want to cast it before you only need the tip to be metal.

As for Heat Metal, the spell requires a manufactured metal object - which a bolt most certainly is (the metal parts of it, anyway). It does not require holding or wearing, that merely enacts additional effects.

[Damon_Tor]

Bolts were commonly made of hard wood with only the tips being steel (cheaper), however, adventurers need not request common materials - add a bit of a cost to have them made out of steel throughout. This is if you want to cast the spell after the bolt has been embedded in the target - if you want to cast it before you only need the tip to be metal.

As for Heat Metal, the spell requires a manufactured metal object - which a bolt most certainly is (the metal parts of it, anyway). It does not require holding or wearing, that merely enacts additional effects.

And the character in question is an artificer. Making full-metal crossbow bolts for his own purposes should be trivial.

[Luccan]

I'd allow it. I also think it's fair to say that unless the whole bolt is metal, you'd better be casting it on the head before you shoot it. It won't break the game; at worst Heat Metal becomes less situational. Also, Heat Metal is not part of an attack. I'd rule you need to be in contact with the item for more than a moment or two before taking damage from the spell. In other words, if you cast it in an axe or spear head, you're not doing additional damage.

Edit: as for removing bolts, just have it take an action. They're still using their action up, so at least you get that.

[CapnWildefyr]

I'd allow it too. However, line of sight can be blocked by a shield, my companion who is fighting the same opponent, even the opponent turning or twisting for a split second. I would also make sure the players specifically buy all metal quarrels.

As for the axe head issue -- that one I'd rule against or make the damage minimal, maybe a d4? As was stated earlier this spell really implies prolonged contact.

Finally, heating an edged weapon can destroy its temper, if you play with that level of realism. Personally i would only rule like that after more than one use like this, but... it would ruin the edge.

Oh - 3 casters and 3 bolts, no problem (separate items, separate spells). But not on the same bolt.

[KorvinStarmast]

It does not. It glows red-hot, but that's due to magic. It doesn't behave like actual red-hot metal object would: it only causes damage when the caster spends bonus action and it's perfectly safe to handle otherwise, and it does not damage objects at all, let alone setting them on fire. There's a difference between something glowing red-hot and actually having appropriate temperature. I can see that ruling also.

[Maelynn]

- if you want to fire the bolt and then cast the spell on it, it'll fail. The tip of the bolt is the part that has to be enchanted, and you can no longer see that. If the entire bolt were to be made of metal, then it'd be possible.

- regarding casting prior to shooting: line of sight is only required for the actual casting of the spell, it says nothing about consequent actions. So once the spell is cast on the tip of the bolt, it doesn't matter that after shooting it the tip disappears from LoS. The Bonus Action you can use for additional damage says nothing about needing LoS.

- the only requirement is a 'manufactured metal object that you can see within range'. The one possible objection I see here is that you could argue that the object isn't a 'metal object', only a small part of it is. However, I consider that nitpicking.

- the first time the bolt will be able to do its additional damage is on the caster's turn. If the caster and the archer aren't the same, that already means there's no 2d8 damage on impact. That won't happen until the caster has their turn again.

As a DM, I would allow it. It requires a 2nd-level spell slot, as well as concentration from the moment it's cast. Also, it's dependent on both a successful hit and doing damage (and even then a DM could rule that, since it only did 1 damage, that translates into a bruise rather than piercing the flesh, but that's nitpicking again). And if the caster and the archer are 2 different people, then the concentration factor becomes even more important.

What would make it overpowered? The fact that you can do 2d8 per BA without spending a spell slot? Well, it's still concentration, so there's no room for other concentration-based spells, and every round there's a chance the caster takes damage and has to roll a concentration check. Also, the target who has the arrow in them would have to use an Action to remove the bolt, meaning they can't use that Action to attack or cast a spell.

If this plays out the way I think it would, I'm quite sure they'll only get 1 attempt at a BA for 2d8 - after which the bolt is removed and the damage ends. That's not overpowered at all. I'd allow it, and as someone else said I'd applaud the creative use of a spell in combat.

[Pex]

If Heat Metal was to be cast within one round after a critical hit or sharpshooter was used taking the -5 to hit, then rule of cool it would be fine. The victim can remove the bolt but it takes a Use An Object action, so the net effect is it does a little extra damage and cost a turn or keep taking the extra damage for the price of specific circumstances to happen. I call it player ingenuity, not trying to get away with something.

[Chronos]

What would make it overpowered? The fact that you can do 2d8 per BA without spending a spell slot?
What's this about not spending a spell slot? You still have to cast the spell. And with a one-minute duration, you're not likely to be using the same casting of it in multiple combats.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

What's this about not spending a spell slot? You still have to cast the spell. And with a one-minute duration, you're not likely to be using the same casting of it in multiple combats.

It is like a worse Dragon Breath. Or flaming spare

[Dalebert]

No to multi casting on one Target. Period. Goes against a core game principal of allowing same spells to stack.


Disagree on this part. The effect is on an object. The dmg is being dealt on different rounds--the turns off the various casters. It's not really stacking. If this was a thing that dealt dmg at the start of the creatures turn, for instance, i wouldn't let it stack. It's no different than if you were casting an instantaneous dmg spell or hitting them with a flaming sphere. The other ongoing effect--imposing disadvantage continuously--would not stack, but disadvantage doesn't stack already.

[Maelynn]

What's this about not spending a spell slot? You still have to cast the spell. And with a one-minute duration, you're not likely to be using the same casting of it in multiple combats.

The BA doesn't require an extra spell slot. Once it's cast on the bolt tip, it deals 2d8 per BA.

And the same casting wouldn't even last till the end of the same combat. All it takes is for the target to use 1 action to remove it and then it's gone. Unless you can somehow prevent them from taking any actions during their turn.

[Demonslayer666]

Nope again. Any creature in physical contact with the object takes damage, holding or wearing it only matters for the Con save and dropping it.



It does not. It glows red-hot, but that's due to magic. It doesn't behave like actual red-hot metal object would: it only causes damage when the caster spends bonus action and it's perfectly safe to handle otherwise, and it does not damage objects at all, let alone setting them on fire. There's a difference between something glowing red-hot and actually having appropriate temperature.

Yep, thanks again - just need to be in contact for the damage.

I see it as the magic is heating up the metal. The bonus action is to make it flare up again.



Bolts were commonly made of hard wood with only the tips being steel (cheaper), however, adventurers need not request common materials - add a bit of a cost to have them made out of steel throughout. This is if you want to cast the spell after the bolt has been embedded in the target - if you want to cast it before you only need the tip to be metal.

As for Heat Metal, the spell requires a manufactured metal object - which a bolt most certainly is (the metal parts of it, anyway). It does not require holding or wearing, that merely enacts additional effects.

Agreed, if the bolt is mostly metal, I could see this working after the bolt is fired.

I do not agree with precast on just the tip of a conventional bolt. The object needs to be metal, and I don't agree that just the tip of an object can considered a separate object.

[stoutstien]

Yep, thanks again - just need to be in contact for the damage.

I see it as the magic is heating up the metal. The bonus action is to make it flare up again.




Agreed, if the bolt is mostly metal, I could see this working after the bolt is fired.

I do not agree with precast on just the tip of a conventional bolt. The object needs to be metal, and I don't agree that just the tip of an object can considered a separate object.

Using this approach then heat metal would not work with plate armor seeing how there will be at least a thick layer of canvas between the armor and the user if not leather and chain mail

[LibraryOgre]

So if I shoot a monster with a crossbow bolt then cast Heat Metal on the bolt lodged in it, would you rule that this is a viable way to apply Heat Metal to a creature that isn't wearing armor? What sort of action would you require for the creature to remove the bolt? What if the creature can't reach the bolt at all (or has no hands to remove it with)?

Second, if three different spellcasters each cast Heat Metal on a different crossbow bolt lodged in a creature, will the creature take damage from all three spells assuming each caster continues to use their bonus actions to repeat the damage? This seems like a way around the "a creature cannot be effected by the same spell multiple times" rule: the creature isn't the target, the bolts are.

Third, consider the possibility that the spells are cast by Tiny Servants using an artificer's Spell Storage Item, effectively making this a one-man tactic, albeit high level.

I would allow it (though I don't know enough about the third part). You'd also have to consider when an arrow counts as being stuck in, not just "Hit and gone".

[Pex]

You'd also have to consider when an arrow counts as being stuck in, not just "Hit and gone".

That's why I mentioned critical hit or took the -5 to attack for sharpshooter. It provides an unbiased game mechanical excuse.

[Tanarii]

That's why I mentioned critical hit or took the -5 to attack for sharpshooter. It provides an unbiased game mechanical excuse.
Agreed if you're going to use something to determine "stuck in" for projectiles, a crit is probably the best way to go.

Now we just need to add ongoing impaling damage to piecing weapons ...

[Vogie]

I would allow it (though I don't know enough about the third part). You'd also have to consider when an arrow counts as being stuck in, not just "Hit and gone".

Hit and gone? Are your crossbolt bolts jacketed hollow point bullets?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Hit and gone? Are your crossbolt bolts jacketed hollow point bullets?

Glancing blows or piercing shots.

Someone with sufficiently tough hide (Dragon, or for PC's, Goliath/Dragonborn) have a reasonable excuse for being struck directly by a projectile, damaged by it but not ultimately impaled by it. Small or lithe creatures (Gnomes, Halflings, Wood Elves) could reasonably be struck fully through by the projectile, or at least to a degree where the metal tip would cause them no discomfort (past the initial strike, obviously) if it were affected by heat metal.

There's no easy way to assume that the bolt is always stuck in the target on a hit, I'll add my approval of the "Crit or Sharpshooter" rationalizing. If there's a significant mechanical backing behind it I'm much more inclined to roll with the idea.

[Xeko]

Here's one point I haven't seen anyone bring up yet, that I feel is pretty important to this conversation. "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." Why would the spell specify heavy or medium armor? Would not the brass rivets found in a suit of studded leather armor work as well? What about the buckles of padded leather, regular leather, or other armors? But the spell specifies heavy or medium armor. This makes me think that the amount of metal matters. Which would mean the spell would only work on metal objects of moderate size. Tiny metal objects, like belt buckles or jewelry, or, indeed, the heads of crossbow bolts, likely would not work. Otherwise, what is the point of specifying heavy or medium armor? Pretty much all armor has SOME amount of metal on it.

But, another reason to be opposed to casting heat metal on crossbow bolts, is that the spell is intentionally situational. How many enemies actually wear metal armors? Like 90% of the monster manual are aberrations, beasts, demons and devils, undead, dragons and giants, oozes and monstrosities. And what generic humanoid enemies there are tend to be either lightly armored rogues, or entirely unarmored casters. There are very very very few enemies that even wear armor at all. I can't help but feel like that was by design. Intentional. The spell is not meant to be all that useful, outside of very specific situations. It is much more useful as a disarming trick, than anything else. And I just feel like crossbow bolt shenanigans is taking away from the spirit of the spell a bit.

[Luccan]

Here's one point I haven't seen anyone bring up yet, that I feel is pretty important to this conversation. "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." Why would the spell specify heavy or medium armor? Would not the brass rivets found in a suit of studded leather armor work as well? What about the buckles of padded leather, regular leather, or other armors? But the spell specifies heavy or medium armor. This makes me think that the amount of metal matters. Which would mean the spell would only work on metal objects of moderate size. Tiny metal objects, like belt buckles or jewelry, or, indeed, the heads of crossbow bolts, likely would not work. Otherwise, what is the point of specifying heavy or medium armor? Pretty much all armor has SOME amount of metal on it.

But, another reason to be opposed to casting heat metal on crossbow bolts, is that the spell is intentionally situational. How many enemies actually wear metal armors? Like 90% of the monster manual are aberrations, beasts, demons and devils, undead, dragons and giants, oozes and monstrosities. And what generic humanoid enemies there are tend to be lightly either armored rogues, or entirely unarmored casters. There are very very very few enemies that even wear armor at all. I can't help but feel like that was by design. Intentional. The spell is not meant to be all that useful, outside of very specific situations. It is much more useful as a disarming trick, than anything else. And I just feel like crossbow bolt shenanigans is taking away from the spirit of the spell a bit.

Well, if you follow some people's ruling suggestions in the thread, it won't happen very often anyway or it'll be a feat tax. I think your reading is valid, but at the same time I want to respond to your points: I'd argue that the problem with studded leather is that it's very small and not in close physical contact. Generally you have clothing on under armor. But while a chain shirt might have padding underneath it, it's also covering your whole torso. If you've got a bolt buried in your leg, shoulder, or gut, it's probably close enough that its size it less of an issue.

I also don't think it's ruining the spirit of the spell to reward clever players. You should reward clever players and an extra 2d8 for a few rounds every so often isn't going to break the game in any serious way. Especially since it's a single target spell that takes concentration and you can't transfer it after it stops being useful on a target.

[Xeko]

I also don't think it's ruining the spirit of the spell to reward clever players. You should reward clever players.

True, I just don't really consider this trick as all that clever. It's like the example given earlier of tossing a helmet onto a caster's head and then claiming they can't cast anymore because they aren't proficient. It would be clever to find a unique solution or combo within the bounds of the rules. This feels more like bending or skirting the rules to your own advantage.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

True, I just don't really consider this trick as all that clever. It's like the example given earlier of tossing a helmet onto a caster's head and then claiming they can't cast anymore because they aren't proficient. It would be clever to find a unique solution or combo within the bounds of the rules. This feels more like bending or skirting the rules to your own advantage.

Is the helmet considered as armor?
I don't think so. You may say that they can't cast spell that requires sight depends on the helmet.
You will need to throw a real armor on them and armor have listed Donning and Doffing times.
You may don a shield on the caster(with a very high check in my opinion, maybe requiring the caster to be grappled or restricted in other way) and if he have no proficiency with shields he will have problem casting and he will need to use an action to remove it.


I see this use of heat metal like the use of the spell in smiting, making walls weaker(heating and cooling to make fractures in the material) and warming your tea/cooking dinner.

It is smart, creative and make the spell weaker(it wasn't so good from the start). I have no problem with it.

It is like casting darkness on an arrow and shooting it in a wall or the enemy ship crow nest.

[Dr. Cliché]

Personally I'd be happy to allow this (assuming the target is corporeal :smallwink:).

As for whether the bolt embeds itself in the target, I'd probably use the attack roll as a guide. If you hit the target's AC exactly, then the bolt just glances off. Beat its AC and the bolt will be embedded (the more you beat its AC by the deeper the bolt will be).

The creature can use an action to remove the bolt, but it might have some difficulty depending on how deep it is lodged. I'm thinking that deeper bolts will either take longer to remove (e.g. a Standard or Move Action instead of a Bonus Action or Object Interaction) or else will cause more damage to the creature if it pulls them out.



Glancing blows or piercing shots.

Someone with sufficiently tough hide (Dragon, or for PC's, Goliath/Dragonborn) have a reasonable excuse for being struck directly by a projectile, damaged by it but not ultimately impaled by it.

Kind of but it's a bit odd if these bolts are doing normal damage yet never achieving any meaningful penetration.


Small or lithe creatures (Gnomes, Halflings, Wood Elves) could reasonably be struck fully through by the projectile

Just a point but I think full penetration is *extremely* unlikely. Bear in mind that crossbow bolts lack the velocity of bullets and also have a lot more mass to try and push through their targets (and this is assuming they don't just hit a bone). Even against smaller creatures it's very unlikely that they'd come out the other side.

[Tanarii]

Here's one point I haven't seen anyone bring up yet, that I feel is pretty important to this conversation. "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." Why would the spell specify heavy or medium armor? . I can't help but feel like that was by design.
Because according to the designers, Studded Leather doesnt count as a metal armor. There are no light metal armors. Note this also means Druids can use Studded Leather.

I dont agree with that, but its the design intent.

So ... Medium or Heavy specified because thats where all the metal armors are, and metal armor specified because they want to excluse Hide.

[Demonslayer666]

Using this approach then heat metal would not work with plate armor seeing how there will be at least a thick layer of canvas between the armor and the user if not leather and chain mail

Not if it's based off of being mostly metal - which is what I was getting at.

[Misterwhisper]

Is the helmet considered as armor?
I don't think so. You may say that they can't cast spell that requires sight depends on the helmet.
You will need to throw a real armor on them and armor have listed Donning and Doffing times.
You may don a shield on the caster(with a very high check in my opinion, maybe requiring the caster to be grappled or restricted in other way) and if he have no proficiency with shields he will have problem casting and he will need to use an action to remove it.


I see this use of heat metal like the use of the spell in smiting, making walls weaker(heating and cooling to make fractures in the material) and warming your tea/cooking dinner.

It is smart, creative and make the spell weaker(it wasn't so good from the start). I have no problem with it.

It is like casting darkness on an arrow and shooting it in a wall or the enemy ship crow nest.

The difference is you are tying to scam out a way to use heat metal on enemies not wearing armor or using a metal weapon where as the darkness arrow is exactly what the spell does in the description.

Also heat metal is a great spell. No hit, no save, 10 rounds of easy fire damage for a bonus action and concentration on a second level spell.

Not that amazing at level 11 or something but you can get it at level 3.

[Knaight]

I'm good pulling in concepts of fictional positioning here. Whether the bolt is embedded or not will generally be a factor of the description, which will be based on damage done, HP of the target, size, etc. It's squishy, sure, but I really don't have a problem with that, especially as I wouldn't be taking whether or not a heat metal is incoming into account here.

I'd also rule just ripping a bolt out as a bonus action, generally speaking. There's exceptions there, mostly based on body plan (an elephant could pull a bolt out with its trunk, a horse is going to have issues), but from a balance perspective I'm just not worried.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

The difference is you are tying to scam out a way to use heat metal on enemies not wearing armor or using a metal weapon where as the darkness arrow is exactly what the spell does in the description.

Also heat metal is a great spell. No hit, no save, 10 rounds of easy fire damage for a bonus action and concentration on a second level spell.

Not that amazing at level 11 or something but you can get it at level 3.

I am not scamming :( this isn't something nice to say.

I am just running a game to a group of engineers and programs so we play in the why that make sense to us and fun to us(they made one game hut springs with lava and underground river, they calculate the distance they need to make the lava flow so it wont heat the water to the perfect temperature and easy dispose, the barbarian have the thermodynamics skill).


I was just showing the argument for why I will allow it. And why I think that the helmet on the caster is a bad example.

After all heat metal can heat metal manufactures and a bolt head is manufactured and made of metal. The spell gives armor and weapons as example and not limits from my reading.

I don't think that suboptimal creative use of a spell need to be punished, the fact he was used suboptimaly is enough punishment.

I still think a caster have better options most of the time to concentrate on with a second level spell.

[Misterwhisper]

I am not scamming :( this isn't something nice to say.

I am just running a game to a group of engineers and programs so we play in the why that make sense to us and fun to us(they made one game hut springs with lava and underground river, they calculate the distance they need to make the lava flow so it wont heat the water to the perfect temperature and easy dispose, the barbarian have the thermodynamics skill).


I was just showing the argument for why I will allow it. And why I think that the helmet on the caster is a bad example.

After all heat metal can heat metal manufactures and a bolt head is manufactured and made of metal. The spell gives armor and weapons as example and not limits from my reading.

I don't think that suboptimal creative use of a spell need to be punished, the fact he was used suboptimaly is enough punishment.

I still think a caster have better options most of the time to concentrate on with a second level spell.

It is not a “suboptimal use” it is a use that is not possible without home brewed rules.
Suboptimal use would be casting it on the enemy with 6 daggers on his belt instead of they guy with one big axe.

That is no different than saying you want to lightning bolt the wet floor and expect to electrocute the invisible guy in the puddle even though you can’t see him.

Creativity is not excuse to break the rules of the game.

Also, no your barbarian player does not have thermodynamics as a skill because it does not exist in 5e.

What you have is a very loose set of home brewed rules.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

It is not a “suboptimal use” it is a use that is not possible without home brewed rules.
Suboptimal use would be casting it on the enemy with 6 daggers on his belt instead of they guy with one big axe.

That is no different than saying you want to lightning bolt the wet floor and expect to electrocute the invisible guy in the puddle even though you can’t see him.

Creativity is not excuse to break the rules of the game.

Also, no your barbarian player does not have thermodynamics as a skill because it does not exist in 5e.

What you have is a very loose set of home brewed rules.

Well , the the casting heat metal of a bolt is in the rules, there are no rules for stucking a bolt in an enemy.

You have no mechanical reason to allow a lightning bolt to electrocute the puddle, you can fluff it as electrocuting the puddle as it have no problem hitting an invisible enemy if the enemy doesn't hide or if you know his location.

Casting if on the bolt is like casting it on the queen necklace. You just need to make contact with the bolt and your enemy.


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.
Is the bolt head manufactured?yes.
Is the bolt head is made of metal?yes, just like how my weapon blade is made of metal.


ob·ject
noun
/ˈäbjekt/
1.
a material thing that can be seen and touched.
"he was dragging a large object"
synonyms: thing, article, item, piece, device, gadget, entity, body; More

Is it an object? It looks like yes.

There is no rule for stucking bolts into enemies so you will need to use chapter 9 of the DMG, like I did with giving the barbarian thermodynamic as a skill.

The lost of concentration and 2 level slot for 2d8(9) damage a turn and disadvantage for one enemy looks like to much to pay.
There are rear situations where this spell is useful.

[Misterwhisper]

Well , the the casting heat metal of a bolt is in the rules, there are no rules for stucking a bolt in an enemy.

You have no mechanical reason to allow a lightning bolt to electrocute the puddle, you can fluff it as electrocuting the puddle as it have no problem hitting an invisible enemy if the enemy doesn't hide or if you know his location.

Casting if on the bolt is like casting it on the queen necklace. You just need to make contact with the bolt and your enemy.


Is the bolt head manufactured?yes.
Is the bolt head is made of metal?yes, just like how my weapon blade is made of metal.



Is it an object? It looks like yes.

There is no rule for stucking bolts into enemies so you will need to use chapter 9 of the DMG, like I did with giving the barbarian thermodynamic as a skill.

The lost of concentration and 2 level slot for 2d8(9) damage a turn and disadvantage for one enemy looks like to much to pay.
There are rear situations where this spell is useful.

I never said you can’t cast heat metal on a bolt head.

That is perfectly legal.

Hitting someone with that bolt and expecting it to fire damage and repeated damage, that is completely homebrew.

[Aimeryan]

It is not a “suboptimal use” it is a use that is not possible without home brewed rules.

...

What you have is a very loose set of home brewed rules.

Would just like to point out that 5e is not an omni-encyclopedia; it does not cover all and every possibility and interaction with the world. Most of what a DM describes happening in a campaign will not be covered in 5e; any NPC interaction, the state of the world, etc.

Simply put, most play in 5e (and all D&D editions) is 'homebrew' if you rule interactions as homebrew. Indeed, one of the founding principles of 5e is 'rulings, not rules' - making such rulings is in the very nature of the game.

[Misterwhisper]

Would just like to point out that 5e is not an omni-encyclopedia; it does not cover all and every possibility and interaction with the world. Most of what a DM describes happening in a campaign will not be covered in 5e; any NPC interaction, the state of the world, etc.

Simply put, most play in 5e (and all D&D editions) is 'homebrew' if you rule interactions as homebrew. Indeed, one of the founding principles of 5e is 'rulings, not rules' - making such rulings is in the very nature of the game.

Those are examples of storytelling and role playing.

What the heat metal bolt idea is is wanting a spell to do something that it is not described as able to do by the spell.

A dm can allow it if they want, they can say that the bolt does whatever they want, but it is still a homebrew rule.

[Aimeryan]

Those are examples of storytelling and role playing.

What the heat metal bolt idea is is wanting a spell to do something that it is not described as able to do by the spell.

A dm can allow it if they want, they can say that the bolt does whatever they want, but it is still a homebrew rule.

The spell does exactly what it says it does. What is being described here it the result of shooting something with a bolt - a normal interaction. Everything is homebrew that is not explicitly written, however, it diminishes the meaning to ascribe normal consequences as homebrew.

[Maelynn]

it diminishes the meaning to ascribe normal consequences as homebrew.

I agree. If the rules don't explicitly cover something, then it's up to interpretation - and while you can argue endlessly about what the correct interpretation should be, in the end it's still an interpretation of rules that don't cover every possible situation. Saying someone else's interpretation is homebrew is actually rather disrespectful.

[Wynters]

Just a brief couple of points for those who are relying on any bolt that hits actually embedding.

A Heavy crossbow does 1d10 damage, or 5.5 on average. Let's say you have 66HP as a lvl 10 fighter, that's eleven heavy crossbow bolts embedded in you before you suffer a negative mechanical impact.

Assuming a mere 860lb crossbow, at close range it seems a bolt will do 150-160 feet per second and with a quarrel weight of 87g (which seems reasonable for this crossbow) it'll comfortably punch through 25cm of ballistic gel. Not only will it completely penetrate it, but it'll embedded so far that the fletchings will be inside the flesh.* I'm not sure how simple it'll be to a) get a decent grip and b) pull it out as a Bonus action. Remember, there'll be a fair amount of 'suckage' from the wound as well bone and cartilage interfering.**

Does anyone else find it unlikely that this exemplary level 10 fighter will be uninhibited by having eleven crossbow bolts sticking through him? Do remember that, once he lies down for a snooze, he'll be totally uninjured the next morning as well. I'm not sure how well that gels with the idea of those bolts embedding.

Frankly, if someone gets a crossbow bolt embedded in them (whether it's eleven or just one), I don't really see them as doing anything else other than falling over and, possibly, crawling slowly and carefully away. Loosely like being down to 0HP. Isn't it just easier to go with HP not representing actual meat damage?

*Medieval vs Modern Crossbows/bows Ballistic Gel Tests - Tod's Workshop (Youtube)
**Wouldn't there also be rules for doing yourself extra damage as you move around energetically with something (or eleven things) sticking out of your chest, sawing away as you flex and bend? I'm also not sure that just whipping the bolt out isn't going to cause more damage.

[Damon_Tor]

Frankly, if someone gets a crossbow bolt embedded in them (whether it's eleven or just one), I don't really see them as doing anything else other than falling over and, possibly, crawling slowly and carefully away. Loosely like being down to 0HP. Isn't it just easier to go with HP not representing actual meat damage?

Again, the other day I chased a deer around for an hour with a crossbow bolt sticking out of it before it hopped a fence and eluded me entirely. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug. And again, hp has to be meat or poison stops making sense.

[JackPhoenix]

Again, the other day I chased a deer around for an hour with a crossbow bolt sticking out of it before it hopped a fence and eluded me entirely. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug. And again, hp has to be meat or poison stops making sense.

Modern hunting crossbow have draw weight of about 150-200 lb. Medieval crossbows go from about 300 lb (could still be hand-drawn), with "average" being 500-700 pounds, up to 1000+ lb for the heaviest examples.

And again, if the poison does just HP damage, HP doesn't need to be meat any more than with any other source of HP damage. And people still make the mistake of only thinking with the duality of "HP is always meat/HP is never meat until the last hit". That's not true... HP is a combination of different things, including "meat", and how much of each factor is used in every hit is very context sensitive. Agile elven fencer isn't blocking enemy attacks with his face, while huge thick-skinned monster isn't narrowly avoiding attacks at the last moment, even if they may have the same AC and HP.

[Aimeryan]

Just a brief couple of points for those who are relying on any bolt that hits actually embedding.

A Heavy crossbow does 1d10 damage, or 5.5 on average. Let's say you have 66HP as a lvl 10 fighter, that's eleven heavy crossbow bolts embedded in you before you suffer a negative mechanical impact.

Assuming a mere 860lb crossbow, at close range it seems a bolt will do 150-160 feet per second and with a quarrel weight of 87g (which seems reasonable for this crossbow) it'll comfortably punch through 25cm of ballistic gel. Not only will it completely penetrate it, but it'll embedded so far that the fletchings will be inside the flesh.* I'm not sure how simple it'll be to a) get a decent grip and b) pull it out as a Bonus action. Remember, there'll be a fair amount of 'suckage' from the wound as well bone and cartilage interfering.**

Does anyone else find it unlikely that this exemplary level 10 fighter will be uninhibited by having eleven crossbow bolts sticking through him? Do remember that, once he lies down for a snooze, he'll be totally uninjured the next morning as well. I'm not sure how well that gels with the idea of those bolts embedding.

Frankly, if someone gets a crossbow bolt embedded in them (whether it's eleven or just one), I don't really see them as doing anything else other than falling over and, possibly, crawling slowly and carefully away. Loosely like being down to 0HP. Isn't it just easier to go with HP not representing actual meat damage?

*Medieval vs Modern Crossbows/bows Ballistic Gel Tests - Tod's Workshop (Youtube)
**Wouldn't there also be rules for doing yourself extra damage as you move around energetically with something (or eleven things) sticking out of your chest, sawing away as you flex and bend? I'm also not sure that just whipping the bolt out isn't going to cause more damage.

In a word? Fantasy.

[Wynters]

In a word? Fantasy.Indeed. But, if you go down the route of 'hand waving' basic physics because 'fantasy' then you also invalidate any comparison with real world physics. That's fine if that's the game you want to play, but there may well be inevitable consequences.

I suggest that many people would rather 'hand wave' the interpretation that HP = meat than 'hand wave' everything else. Although, if that's the particular ditch you want to die in then it's your game.

I am quite tickled by the idea that any battle between high HP pool opponents is simply a case of them taking turns, every 3-seconds, running each other through with very large pieces of very sharp metal, gouts of blood exploding from front and back as they saw the blades in and out (occasionally having to put their boot on their opponent's chest in order to free their blade). Then, after a minute or so of frenzied stabbing, they both nod at each other, nap for a few hours and wake up totally fine. I don't know why but, for some reason I find that slightly more amusing than sitting at point blank range taking turns firing crossbow bolts into each other's chest until they've each gained a couple of lbs of weight, then sleeping it off, but YMMV.

[Aimeryan]

Indeed. But, if you go down the route of 'hand waving' basic physics because 'fantasy' then you also invalidate any comparison with real world physics. That's fine if that's the game you want to play, but there may well be inevitable consequences.

I suggest that many people would rather 'hand wave' the interpretation that HP = meat than 'hand wave' everything else. Although, if that's the particular ditch you want to die in then it's your game.

I am quite tickled by the idea that any battle between high HP pool opponents is simply a case of them taking turns, every 3-seconds, running each other through with very large pieces of very sharp metal, gouts of blood exploding from front and back as they saw the blades in and out (occasionally having to put their boot on their opponent's chest in order to free their blade). Then, after a minute or so of frenzied stabbing, they both nod at each other, nap for a few hours and wake up totally fine. I don't know why but, for some reason I find that slightly more amusing than sitting at point blank range taking turns firing crossbow bolts into each other's chest until they've each gained a couple of lbs of weight, then sleeping it off, but YMMV.

You don't need to handwave much at all; 5e is a place of magic, it exists in everything - the magic simply makes creatures more endurable. You hit me with a greatsword in real life I'll die from anything but a very glancing blow. You hit me in 5e and the magic that pervades me takes the damage and I carry on as if nothing happened - until that magical lifeforce is spent.

5e is simple. That is what it is. I could come up with far more complex systems testing for parries, dodges, blocks, armor mitigation, limb damage, blood loss, etc. 5e went with a simple AC test and simple HP pool.

Now, that doesn't mean the DM cannot rule on interactions not explicitly written down - in that, they are encouraged to do so. If the DM wants to rule that bolts can become embedded nothing is stopping them. They can do that with a mechanic, by fiat, by rule of cool, however they feel best suits their group. The simple nature of 5e means a lot of stuff has to be ruled on by a DM; does shooting a target with a bolt mean sometimes the bolt sticks in the target? Rule.

[Wynters]

5e is simple. That is what it is. I could come up with far more complex systems testing for parries, dodges, blocks, armor mitigation, limb damage, blood loss, etc. 5e went with a simple AC test and simple HP pool.Why come up with a complex system for it when you can just say 'Hp =/= meat'? Or are you saying that this interpretation is not as valid as 'HP=meat' and the vast amount of hand waving that goes with it?


Now, that doesn't mean the DM cannot choose to add to this. If the DM wants to rule that bolts can become embedded nothing is stopping them. They can do that with a mechanic, by fiat, by rule of cool, however. The simple nature of 5e means a lot of stuff has to be ruled on by a DM; does shooting a target with a bolt mean sometimes the bolt sticks in the target? Rule.Absolutely, people can play with whatever interpretation of the rules they like and, as you say, it's intrinsic to the system that the DM has to make personal rulings on just about everything. My comment was specifically aimed at people who were unaware that crossbow bolts, of the type relevant to the situation, sticking into targets was not a realistic take. You'll note I didn't pass any comment on the spell in question, or it's use.

[Aimeryan]

Why come up with a complex system for it when you can just say 'Hp =/= meat'? Or are you saying that this interpretation is not as valid as 'HP=meat' and the vast amount of hand waving that goes with it?

Absolutely, people can play with whatever interpretation of the rules they like and, as you say, it's intrinsic to the system that the DM has to make personal rulings on just about everything. My comment was specifically aimed at people who were unaware that crossbow bolts, of the type relevant to the situation, sticking into targets was not a realistic take. You'll note I didn't pass any comment on the spell in question, or it's use.

The system is simply you have a HP Pool. It doesn't actually matter how you rule damage and losing HP. Personally, I find the whole damage type (piercing, slashing, bludgeoning, etc.), the weapon type (dagger, sword, greatsword, etc.), and the requirement to hit makes most sense simulated as being hit and taking damage.

Your post was basically 'this does not make sense'. My post was 'this is how it makes sense'. Problem solved. As for how handwavy it is, I require one - supernatural endurance. I have yet to find a simulation of the mechanics that is less handwavy.

[JackPhoenix]

The system is simply you have a HP Pool. It doesn't actually matter how you rule damage and losing HP. Personally, I find the whole damage type (piercing, slashing, bludgeoning, etc.), the weapon type (dagger, sword, greatsword, etc.), and the requirement to hit makes most sense simulated as being hit and taking damage.

Your post was basically 'this does not make sense'. My post was 'this is how it makes sense'. Problem solved. As for how handwavy it is, I require one - supernatural endurance. I have yet to find a simulation of the mechanics that is less handwavy.

Your post is also explicitly NOT how it works according to RAW.

[braveheart]

As a GM, I'd roll to see the state of the bolt when the player trys to target it, if the bolt is not viably lodged, I'd let my player choose a different course of action.

Since heat metal targets an item, each bolt lodged in the creature would be a viable target for the spell and deal its damage separately.

As for removing bolts, I'd let a creature with hands, dislodge up to 2 bolts for 1 action (1 per grasping appendage not holding something when the action is taken), and if a creature does not posses hands or another viable grasping appendage I'd let it take a full round action to remove 1 bolt.

As for tiny servants and artificers, I'm not familiar enough with the class to be able to make a call on it right now.

[NNescio]

After all heat metal can heat metal manufactures and a bolt head is manufactured and made of metal. The spell gives armor and weapons as example and not limits from my reading.

I don't think that suboptimal creative use of a spell need to be punished, the fact he was used suboptimaly is enough punishment.

Bolt head is metal. Bolt shaft isn't, assuming a usual medieval European one, which is made out of wood (modern shafts will sometimes use Aluminum, and the medieval Chinese had a fondness for iron shafts). If the bolt head is embedded, you can't see it (and don't have A Clear Path to the Target), therefore targeting it with Heat Metal is impossible.

Even if we assume otherwise with a metal shafted bolt, we start running into issues with the combat abstraction model. That is, it is tricky trying to adjudicate whether the bolt is visible in the whirling frenzy of combat, where creatures are assumed to be constantly maneuvering around their space and changing their facings all the time. You could go with an ad-hoc percentile roll (abstracting both hit location and body orientation), but that slows down the game. Having the bolt shaft be automatically visible (or the tiny fraction of a bolt head that is left fortuitously unembedded, if we go with that route) also sets a bad precedent for targeting other tiny objects carried by a creature, like say, Disintegrating a magic ring.

(Armor is non-issue due to the size and coverage, and weapons and tools are usually wielded in the hands and can be easily seen in combat, even if tiny.)

Another thing to consider is how the bolts get embedded in the first place. Especially how it fits in the damage as HP abstraction. Assuming, say, for example, that all bolts that hit embed themselves into the target starts running into absurd "video game physics" situations like a Fighter or Barbarian running around with 10+ bolts stuck into their chest like a walking pincushion from Skyrim. This flies in the face of simulationism (and remember, the whole argument about creatively using Heat Metal hinges upon simulationism).

Now, with all that said, if a player tries to use Heat Metal this way on my table, I would allow it (automatically, no rolls needed), but for that one time only (the enemy happens to turn in the right direction and the bolt manages to embed itself in such a fortuitous way that it becomes targetable). I am with rewarding creative spell use, but I am wary of setting precedents that can slow down the table and cause unfortunate rules interactions later down the road (including, say, the ruling being turned into an actual houserule when the other players start DMing).


The lost of concentration and 2 level slot for 2d8(9) damage a turn and disadvantage for one enemy looks like to much to pay.
There are rear situations where this spell is useful.

An embedded bolt is neither being worn or held. Disadvantage doesn't come into play.


You don't need to handwave much at all; 5e is a place of magic, it exists in everything - the magic simply makes creatures more endurable. You hit me with a greatsword in real life I'll die from anything but a very glancing blow. You hit me in 5e and the magic that pervades me takes the damage and I carry on as if nothing happened - until that magical lifeforce is spent.

And why does this Looney Tunes-esque magic not disappear when you walk into an Antimagic Field?


Since heat metal targets an item, each bolt lodged in the creature would be a viable target for the spell and deal its damage separately.

Yes. The damaging effects of Heat Metal are separate, discrete effects that occur on the individual turns of their respective casters. They don't come under the Combining Game Effects rule. This is not unlike, say, getting hit by two different Spiritual Weapons, or getting rammed by two Flaming Spheres (only one instance of the creature-ends-its-turn part apply though).

[stoutstien]

I think my favorite saying for it is verisimilitude is not realism and reality makes a poor RPG.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And why does this Looney Tunes-esque magic not disappear when you walk into an Antimagic Field?


Because AMF, despite it's name, is very specific about what it affects. Spells and magical objects only. Specifically, it disrupts coherent magic, not background magic.

[napoleon_in_rag]

So if I shoot a monster with a crossbow bolt then cast Heat Metal on the bolt lodged in it, would you rule that this is a viable way to apply Heat Metal to a creature that isn't wearing armor? What sort of action would you require for the creature to remove the bolt? What if the creature can't reach the bolt at all (or has no hands to remove it with)?


I would allow it if the shaft of the bolt/arrow was made entirely of metal. The shafts of many modern arrows are hollow aluminum tubes so this is pretty realistic. Of course, the melting point of aluminum is significantly lower than steel so maybe the spell would only last one round until the aluminum dripped away.

I would require each arrow be custom made by special craftsmen (gnomes?) and be much more expensive than regular ammunition and bought individually. And not be reusable because the spell would warp the arrow/bolt.



Second, if three different spellcasters each cast Heat Metal on a different crossbow bolt lodged in a creature, will the creature take damage from all three spells assuming each caster continues to use their bonus actions to repeat the damage? This seems like a way around the "a creature cannot be effected by the same spell multiple times" rule: the creature isn't the target, the bolts are.


I would allow three different casters to cast the spell on three different arrows/bolts. I would not allow three different casters to cast on the same bolt.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Bolt head is metal. Bolt shaft isn't, assuming a usual medieval European one, which is made out of wood (modern shafts will sometimes use Aluminum, and the medieval Chinese had a fondness for iron shafts). If the bolt head is embedded, you can't see it (and don't have A Clear Path to the Target), therefore targeting it with Heat Metal is impossible.

Even if we assume otherwise with a metal shafted bolt, we start running into issues with the combat abstraction model. That is, it is tricky trying to adjudicate whether the bolt is visible in the whirling frenzy of combat, where creatures are assumed to be constantly maneuvering around their space and changing their facings all the time. You could go with an ad-hoc percentile roll (abstracting both hit location and body orientation), but that slows down the game. Having the bolt shaft be automatically visible (or the tiny fraction of a bolt head that is left fortuitously unembedded, if we go with that route) also sets a bad precedent for targeting other tiny objects carried by a creature, like say, Disintegrating a magic ring.

(Armor is non-issue due to the size and coverage, and weapons and tools are usually wielded in the hands and can be easily seen in combat, even if tiny.)

Another thing to consider is how the bolts get embedded in the first place. Especially how it fits in the damage as HP abstraction. Assuming, say, for example, that all bolts that hit embed themselves into the target starts running into absurd "video game physics" situations like a Fighter or Barbarian running around with 10+ bolts stuck into their chest like a walking pincushion from Skyrim. This flies in the face of simulationism (and remember, the whole argument about creatively using Heat Metal hinges upon simulationism).

Now, with all that said, if a player tries to use Heat Metal this way on my table, I would allow it (automatically, no rolls needed), but for that one time only (the enemy happens to turn in the right direction and the bolt manages to embed itself in such a fortuitous way that it becomes targetable). I am with rewarding creative spell use, but I am wary of setting precedents that can slow down the table and cause unfortunate rules interactions later down the road (including, say, the ruling being turned into an actual houserule when the other players start DMing).



An embedded bolt is neither being worn or held. Disadvantage doesn't come into play.

.

I never said I support the idea of casting heat metal after the hit. I only see casting it before firing the bolt as viable.

I agree with you in the case of casting on a bolt after shooting the target.

I don't know why I thought that the bolt is worn, my mistake on this one.