Heat Metal + Animate Objects

[Techcaliber]

Hello everybody, hello!

I've been reading through spells, preparing a bard I want to play in the future, and when reading spells, I thought about the combo of heat metal and animate objects.

I understand this would require 2 casters, as they are both concentration spells, but my question is, would this be worth the effort since heat metal can only target 1 object.

Would it be worth animating multiple ( or a single) metal object and then causing one to have the effects of heat metal, essentially giving you a mobile heat metal, or would it be a waste of 2 concentration slots? (Not a thing, I know, just how I am thinking about it).

Sorry for how bad this is written, I'm just trying to get the idea out the best I can.

[zinycor]

Completely table dependent if this would work in any fun way. I believe (while I am not sure) that raw, you would just damage the animated object, eventually destroying it.

[Throne12]

Have a blacksmith forge a large metal puppet. So you wizard can cast animate object on it them you cast heat metal on it. Now this metal puppet can punch thing with fire damage or give things burning hug.

As a DM I would allow this. You dont see too many combos well I dont.

[Damon_Tor]

Hello everybody, hello!

I've been reading through spells, preparing a bard I want to play in the future, and when reading spells, I thought about the combo of heat metal and animate objects.

I understand this would require 2 casters, as they are both concentration spells, but my question is, would this be worth the effort since heat metal can only target 1 object.

Would it be worth animating multiple ( or a single) metal object and then causing one to have the effects of heat metal, essentially giving you a mobile heat metal, or would it be a waste of 2 concentration slots? (Not a thing, I know, just how I am thinking about it).

Sorry for how bad this is written, I'm just trying to get the idea out the best I can.

Order of operations is important: an object isn't a creature and a creature isn't an object. So you would need to cast Heat Metal on the object first, then cast Animate Object. Even then, some people are of the opinion that a spell will cease to effect a target as soon as it ceases to be a legal target for the spell (ie, Dominate Beast stops working if cast on a druid who then reverts to humanoid form). That's not explicit, but the developers have agreed with it in the past. I'll note there are spells which this ruling would break entirely (a spell that can only target a magic weapon but turns the target into a magic weapon, making said weapon into an illegal target for itself) so every table will have to judge for itself.

But with that minor rule quibble aside, yes it should work. As Zinycor noted, it would be difficult to argue that the Animated Items are not in direct physical contact with themselves, and so they would take the damage as well as anything they're grappling with.

[Techcaliber]

Thanks for all the responses so far! I always appreciate it when people chime in and help me with my ideas that I have put about 20 seconds of thought into.

Thanks again!

[RingoBongo]

So would merely moving the object around to touch people would hurt them. Or would this be ruled as an attack action? ...

Basically, how many ducks can you pat before you goose?... Could be massive aoe damage.

[JackPhoenix]

So would merely moving the object around to touch people would hurt them. Or would this be ruled as an attack action? ...

Basically, how many ducks can you pat before you goose?... Could be massive aoe damage.

It could not. Heat Metal can only target one object, and it only causes damage when the caster uses his bonus action. In addition, the caster can only do so on his turn, so the animated object can't attack and trigger the damage when it hits.

[RingoBongo]

Okay.... Let's try this then.

Step 1. Dude caster casts heat metal on a set of half plate.
Step 2. Other dude caster casts animate object and dismantles the armor and has it somehow adhere to several different targets.
Step 3. OG dude caster concentrating on heat metal uses bonus action to deal damage to all with a part of the armor on them...

Edit: more cheese...

Same steps as above, BUT cast heat metal on a set of ball bearings. 1000 targets of aoe damage.....

Well only 10 as that is the limit of animate object (unless you upcast it).

[JackPhoenix]

Okay.... Let's try this then.

Step 1. Dude caster casts heat metal on a set of half plate.
Step 2. Other dude caster casts animate object and dismantles the armor and has it somehow adhere to several different targets.
Step 3. OG dude caster concentrating on heat metal uses bonus action to deal damage to all with a part of the armor on them...

Heat Metal allow you to use your BA to cause an object (singular) to damage any creature in physical contact with it. Once you dismantle the armor, it's no longer single object. Even if the whole armor is affected in the first place (which is doubtful), you can still only cause damage with one piece at a time.


Same steps as above, BUT cast heat metal on a set of ball bearings. 1000 targets of aoe damage.....

Well only 10 as that is the limit of animate object (unless you upcast it).

"Set of ball bearings" is not an object. A ball bearing is. You cast Heat Metal on one of them.

[RingoBongo]

Ahhh...

Can't blame me for trying!? 🙃

[NNescio]

Order of operations is important: an object isn't a creature and a creature isn't an object. So you would need to cast Heat Metal on the object first, then cast Animate Object. Even then, some people are of the opinion that a spell will cease to effect a target as soon as it ceases to be a legal target for the spell (ie, Dominate Beast stops working if cast on a druid who then reverts to humanoid form). That's not explicit, but the developers have agreed with it in the past. I'll note there are spells which this ruling would break entirely (a spell that can only target a magic weapon but turns the target into a magic weapon, making said weapon into an illegal target for itself) so every table will have to judge for itself.

Across many editions, there are always people somehow managing to insert "changing to an invalid type means the spell ends" as a general rule despite type restrictions usually only applying to initial targeting when casting a spell. This was silly in 3.X (as a general rule), it's still silly in 5e (again, as a general rule, rule of thumb can be a different matter), because of the existence of spells that change the type of a target itself as part of the spell effect. Ruling it this way would mean Magic Weapon (as you mentioned) ending itself prematurely because the enchanted weapon is no longer non-magical. Or more tellingly, the Animate Objects spell itself.

(The Crawford tweet (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/10/what-happens-when-a-wildshaped-druid-that-has-had-its-hp-max-reduced-reverts-back-to-normal/) is confusingly worded [typical Crawfordism], but we get to it in a minute.)

The RAW way in 5e is to handle it on a case-by-case basis (as is the case for most 5e spells, because WotC insisted on making every spell sui generis this time instead of having sensible parent classes). Specifically, we see whether the spell 'checks' for creature (or object) type as part of an ongoing effect. Dominate Beast, for example, has a "while the beast is charmed" clause.

Suppose a Wild Shaped Druid gets hit with the spell. It is a legal target, because its type is Beast (since its game statistics gets replaced with that of a beast except for things that don't matter here). So it becomes Charmed for the duration of the spell. While the beast is Charmed, it is 'dominated'. If the Druid drops out of Wild Shape (by having its beast form knocked to 0 HP, for example), it is still Charmed (and the Dominate Beast spell remains ongoing), but since the Druid is no longer a Beast, a literal reading of the "while clause" would cause it to become invalid and the Druid ceases to be dominated.

(This might be what Crawford was trying to allude to. Might.)

Going back to Heat Metal, the spell has text stating "Any creature in physical contact with the object...", "If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes the damage from it, ..." If it doesn't drop the object, ..." . Animate Objects states that "Each target animates and becomes a creature". A similar literal reading (as with the Dominate Beast example) would then invalidate the previous clauses, preventing any damage and rider effects being dealt by the Animated object because it's now a creature, not an object.

Of course this relies on a very literal and restrictive reading of "the object", so it's not the only valid RAW interpretation. Also, it might be possible for an entity to both be considered an object and a creature (RAI Crawford seems vehemently against this, but the status of sentient magic items still remains vague).