Should heat metal work against armor?

[Darth Credence]

First, I hate the heat metal spell. I think it is all around a bad spell that makes no sense. You heat metal to a red hot state, and that does damage, but unless you decide to heat it again next round, it has cooled enough in six seconds to not do damage. It will do the same amount of damage if the metal it heats is a ring, an earring, or a suit of armor. It's a bad spell, IMO.

But ignoring that, and just going by the spell. It states that anyone in physical contact with the metal takes damage. Someone in plate armor is not in physical contact with the armor. The armor is touching the padding between the armor and the person, and the person is touching the padding. Wool is a very good insulator, and is probably what the padding is made of. So since the armor is not in contact with the person, heat metal really shouldn't do anything if it is done to the armor, right? For that matter, if someone is wearing gloves (let's say leather) then the weapon being heated probably shouldn't matter. I have personally picked up red hot coals from a bbq and moved them around with leather gloves, so I know that they do protect for a reasonable amount of time.

It seems that heat metal on someone's armor or weapon would be better for stopping others from grappling them or make the weapon do more damage, rather than be offensively used against others.

[Democratus]

It's magic. It doesn't do what "makes sense". It does what the spell description says.

The first paragraph describes what happens when you come in contact with it.

The second paragraph describes what happens if you are wearing the object, regardless of whether you are also wearing other things like padding. It also describes what happens if you are holding the object, regardless of whether you are wearing gloves.

Magic. :smallcool:

[JNAProductions]

I'll echo Dem here-it's magic.

Does it make perfect sense, from a realistic point of view? No. But neither does literally any other spell (magic doesn't exist), the rate of fire you can achieve with Crossbow Expert and Extra Attacks, dragons...

If you want to change the spell at your table, that's fine-just let your players know in advance. But I'd be weary about using realism as the reason why.

[blackjack50]

First, I hate the heat metal spell. I think it is all around a bad spell that makes no sense. You heat metal to a red hot state, and that does damage, but unless you decide to heat it again next round, it has cooled enough in six seconds to not do damage. It will do the same amount of damage if the metal it heats is a ring, an earring, or a suit of armor. It's a bad spell, IMO.

But ignoring that, and just going by the spell. It states that anyone in physical contact with the metal takes damage. Someone in plate armor is not in physical contact with the armor. The armor is touching the padding between the armor and the person, and the person is touching the padding. Wool is a very good insulator, and is probably what the padding is made of. So since the armor is not in contact with the person, heat metal really shouldn't do anything if it is done to the armor, right? For that matter, if someone is wearing gloves (let's say leather) then the weapon being heated probably shouldn't matter. I have personally picked up red hot coals from a bbq and moved them around with leather gloves, so I know that they do protect for a reasonable amount of time.

It seems that heat metal on someone's armor or weapon would be better for stopping others from grappling them or make the weapon do more damage, rather than be offensively used against others.

Plate armor means they can only heat a single metal plate (which wouldn’t be touching then). Chain mail? Pick a ringlet you heat.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Plate armor means they can only heat a single metal plate (which wouldn’t be touching then). Chain mail? Pick a ringlet you heat.

For the purposes of this spell, a "suit of heavy or medium armor" are explicitly a single object. What is an "object" in 5E tends to depend on what effect is viewing it and when. Shockingly unintuitive.

[Theodoxus]

Snip

"Oy, DM, is the guard wearing gloves? Yeah? How about a gambeson under his armor? No? It's too warm out in the summer sun? Cool. Er, I mean Hot Damn! HEAT METAL, BIZZOTCH!"

Literally this would mean exactly that - I'd be asking about each potential victim of my heat metal spell. So, eventually (hopefully sooner than later) you'd relent and allow me a bit of fun. OR, I'd start making a killing selling slightly used gauntlets, gambesons and other underarmor protective gear from the vast hordes of overprotected anti-heat metal foes in metal armor and shields we encounter.

At that point, just outlaw the spell. I hope you do similar for Shocking Grasp. "What do you mean you have advantage? I'm wearing copper armor, with grounding cleats on my boots. Your shocking grasp does nothing sir! You lose!"

At best, it would be an interesting arms race... "Fireball? I immediately douse myself in cold water. Takes a LOT of energy to evaporate water, yo!"

[Azuresun]

If your point of contention with Heat Metal is that you can slap it on someone to impose no-save perma-disadvantage on attacks and checks (which is quite nuts for a level 2 spell) and you'd like to actually use enemies who wear armour, then simply houserule that casting it on an item that someone can't drop allows a CON save to negate.

[Unoriginal]

First, I hate the heat metal spell. I think it is all around a bad spell that makes no sense. You heat metal to a red hot state, and that does damage, but unless you decide to heat it again next round, it has cooled enough in six seconds to not do damage. It will do the same amount of damage if the metal it heats is a ring, an earring, or a suit of armor. It's a bad spell, IMO.

And a burst of fire that has enough heat to kill someone where they stand but won't affect anyone immediately outside of the perimeter makes sense?

[Greywander]

If casting Heat Metal on their armor, which includes their gauntlets, doesn't work because they have padding underneath, then why would casting it on their weapon, which is being held by said gauntlet, work? In fact, very few weapons have you gripping metal parts directly, most weapon hafts and even sword handles are made of wood (optionally wrapped in leather).

On the one hand, I don't want to stifle creativity, on the other, I don't want to stifle creativity. If players want to specifically take precautions to protect themselves from Heat Metal, but they'd probably have to be wearing enough layers under their armor that they would count as wearing armor they're not proficient with, or they might have trouble effectively wielding a weapon (if they're not wearing metal armor and only need to protect the hand holding their weapon). Otherwise, Heat Metal works against standard armor, regardless of layers underneath, and works on weapons even if you're wearing gloves and gripping a non-metal part (I could see something like a spear not being affected, since only a small portion is metal and is held far away from the wielder).

It's true that Heat Metal is a fairly potent spell, but it only works against creatures that wear armor (a lot of monstrosities and other creatures don't), and even then only against metal armor. Plus, there's still a pretty broad swathe of creatures that are resistant or immune to fire. Let the players have their fun with a neat spell, and just make sure to change it up every now and then so that they don't fall into routine tactics. If the same strategy works every time, the players will get bored, too. But it's totally okay to hype up a difficult battle only for the players to trivialize it with a spell like this; it makes the players feel powerful and like they outsmarted their opponent. Just make sure to genuinely challenge them on other encounters.

[Jerrykhor]

My DM has a saying for people who question the logic of how certain spells work, it goes something like this: Its Magic, I ain't gonna explain ****.

[Lunali]

My theory has always been that magic works the way people expect magic to work. This means that as science progresses and people become educated, some spells will become weaker and others will become stronger.

[Composer99]

Yes, heat metal should work against armour, because Magic (https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/02/assertion-twelve). ("MAGIC!")

I'd agree that it's overtuned for a 2nd level spell, and could probably stand to be lightly edited.

[Greywander]

It is strong, but it's easy to counter (both by the DM looking to challenge the players and by smart enemies who are familiar with the PCs tactics). I do think it's a bad idea for DMs to specifically counter the players all the time, but it can be good to change things up from time to time. In this case, if Heat Metal abuse is making fights too easy, try throwing more enemies wearing light armor at them, or monsters that don't wear armor at all, but also keep throwing enemies in metal armor at them, too. Maybe use barbarians that fight naked but use metal weapons, if the players haven't been targeting weapons with Heat Metal, that way you can force them to adjust their tactics while still making the spell usable.

[SociopathFriend]

If casting Heat Metal on their armor, which includes their gauntlets, doesn't work because they have padding underneath, then why would casting it on their weapon, which is being held by said gauntlet, work? In fact, very few weapons have you gripping metal parts directly, most weapon hafts and even sword handles are made of wood (optionally wrapped in leather).


This was my DM's ruling when I asked why Heat Metal wasn't hurting people with metal swords. Wooden grips and the like meant it didn't work. That's when he wasn't spending half a year IRL not throwing a single enemy with metal armor at us anyways.

Once I finally dropped Heat Metal? Boom- room full of eight guys in full plate and greatswords. I don't think I ever successfully cast that spell the entire campaign.

Little bitter about that one not gonna lie.

[DwarfFighter]

As a player, my fighter hates it as an exploit, and my wizard thinks he's a frickin' genius when he casts it. It is a spell that evokes two kinds of emotions.

I consider this a problem with the spell: There is no middle ground inherent to it. It often feels like a tiny version of Power Word Kill - if it is optimal to use in the encounter it will break it, otherwise it is a worthless investment of spell slots and actions. It is a spell that the GM needs to specifically plan for to keep the game interesting, and that in itself makes the game less interesting.

Heat Metal is ox droppings.

-DF

[Zhorn]

This was my DM's ruling when I asked why Heat Metal wasn't hurting people with metal swords. Wooden grips and the like meant it didn't work. That's when he wasn't spending half a year IRL not throwing a single enemy with metal armor at us anyways.

Once I finally dropped Heat Metal? Boom- room full of eight guys in full plate and greatswords. I don't think I ever successfully cast that spell the entire campaign.

Little bitter about that one not gonna lie.

Always more palatable to ban a spell rather than looking for ways to nerf it or engineer all rulings to render it unusable.
That's my advice to the OP on the matter. Don't want Heat Metal as is in your games? Just ban the spell. Much more preferable than the rulings ^ this poster had to deal with.

[MoiMagnus]

How would any of you feel about "Heat Object" instead of "Heat Metal" (so can apply to any object).
If we're going with "it's magic, don't use logic", there is not a lot of reason other than tradition to keep the spell restricted to metal.
[Unless you think that would make it OP.]

[DwarfFighter]

It's the smug presumption of cleverness that gets to me.



GM: The door gives in after a few good kicks and you stumble into the room. Three Orcs have grabbed their weapons and move up to form a hasty defense.

Player (nasally): Are any of them wearing any meh-tal?

GM (sighs): Yes, they are wearing chain shirts of shoddy make.

Player (nasally smug): Then I cast Heat Meh-tal on them!


It's like they solved a huge puzzle that had the wisest sages stumped.

-DF

[Valmark]

I mean... It's explicitely what the spell does so yes, it should work against armor.

Logic, common sense or whatever doesn't really have any bearing on magic aside from the defined rules it has- or any other weird factor of a fantasy world ('weird' meaning things that don't exist IRL).


How would any of you feel about "Heat Object" instead of "Heat Metal" (so can apply to any object).
If we're going with "it's magic, don't use logic", there is not a lot of reason other than tradition to keep the spell restricted to metal.
[Unless you think that would make it OP.]

It would certainly be far stronger then it is now, no doubt about it. I'd make it a different spell altogether (and higher leveled).

[Unoriginal]

A spell does what a spell is said to do, nothing more, nothing less.

It's not *logical* (as killing people by using your mind to summon heat into reality rarely is), it's *thematically appropriate*


It's the smug presumption of cleverness that gets to me.



GM: The door gives in after a few good kicks and you stumble into the room. Three Orcs have grabbed their weapons and move up to form a hasty defense.

Player (nasally): Are any of them wearing any meh-tal?

GM (sighs): Yes, they are wearing chain shirts of shoddy make.

Player (nasally smug): Then I cast Heat Meh-tal on them!


It's like they solved a huge puzzle that had the wisest sages stumped.

-DF

Sounds more like you loathing players than you loathing the spell.

[DwarfFighter]

I loathe the attitude, and Heat Metal invites it.

Players don't ask if a door is locked so they can triumphantly cast Knock on it. They discover the door is locked, they want to get through, they cast Knock. The "win" is to getting through the door, not the act of defeating the lock.

[Captain Panda]

First, I hate the heat metal spell. I think it is all around a bad spell that makes no sense. You heat metal to a red hot state, and that does damage, but unless you decide to heat it again next round, it has cooled enough in six seconds to not do damage. It will do the same amount of damage if the metal it heats is a ring, an earring, or a suit of armor. It's a bad spell, IMO.

I mean, you're the DM and you can nerf the spell if you want, but pretending it's because the idea of heating metal doesn't "make sense" is not going to be a satisfying reason to anyone at the table.

And besides that if you find "heat metal" to be a broken spell you're going to be in for a real bad time when the PCs start using spells that are actually powerful like spirit guardians, fireball, or conjure animals. Maybe just build encounters in a way that account for these things and let your players use the abilities they're supposed to have, instead of taking their fun away?


I loathe the attitude, and Heat Metal invites it.

Players don't ask if a door is locked so they can triumphantly cast Knock on it. They discover the door is locked, they want to get through, they cast Knock. The "win" is to getting through the door, not the act of defeating the lock.

Other dude said it before I could, but yeah, sounds like you just hate your players for using a spell as intended. It's a spell that explicitly heats metal, asking 'are they wearing metal armor?' is a reasonable thing to do. It takes concentration and a level 2 slot and has conditions to it that won't always come up. It's a fine spell, but it's far from overpowered.

Sometimes I wonder how DMs with this sort of attitude expect PC spellcasters to act? Toss out upcast burning hands every round until they're out of spell slots, and then flail wildly and feel useless?

[Theodoxus]

DM: "We're playing D&D tonight! Roll Characters!"
Table: "Yay!"
Jim: "I'm gonna be a Fighter with a honking big sword!"
Bill: "I'm gonna be a Cleric with a honking big sword!"
Sam: "I'm gonna be a Wizard with a rapier!"
Jason: "I'm gonna be a Druid with a staff!"
Chris: "I'm gonna be a Bard with a ukulele!"

DM: "This is a non-magic world. so no Clerics, Wizards, Druids or Bards. Sorry."

Table: "Wut? Why?!?"

DM: "Heat Metal is OP, and I want to run a campaign without it."

Table: "See ya next week bub."

[DwarfFighter]

I'd have to ban Fighters too, since they tend to wear armor. Reduce the risk of dealing with Heat Metal even further.

-DF

[Theodoxus]

I'd have to ban Fighters too, since they tend to wear armor. Reduce the risk of dealing with Heat Metal even further.

-DF

We're playing Barbarians, Monks and Rogues! Woo!

[DwarfFighter]

We're playing Barbarians, Monks and Rogues! Woo!

In short: Conan and a friend.

-DF

[Darth Credence]

FTR, I have never nerfed the spell, and have no intention of banning it. I allow it to be used as is. The first paragraph was just getting my priors out of the way so that it was clear that I do not like the spell in general, before moving on to a question about it.

The reason for the question is that the obvious defense against heat metal is to ensure that no metal is directly touching the person. I have an NPC that is smart and knows enough about the players and what they are capable of that they know the spell exists and that the players use it, so they would absolutely prepare themselves for it. I started to review the spell to figure out how a smart opponent would counter it, and it says that it damages any creature in physical contact with the metal. Then I reviewed heavy armor, and found that plate mail specifically calls out heavy padding underneath the armor. Well, that sounds like exactly the method one would use to foil the spell - put a bunch of heavy padding between the metal and the person wearing it so it doesn't damage the person.

When the obvious method of foiling the spell is already inherent to the armor, it makes me wonder if it should actually affect someone wearing that armor. If it does, then there really is no effective counter to it. Hence, question.

[Triskavanski]

My artificer used it like 3-4 times at max in the current campaign im in. Then all the enemies became immune to fire or are sneaky bastards that do rogue armor. Not bitter about it.. cause I mean, we went to averince where everyone and their mother is a friggin devil or demon and immune to fire. :/

But holy hell, can the artificer have some more real combat spells or something?

[Valmark]

Keep in mind that physical contact doesn't mean direct- I'm still touching something even if I do it through gloves, for example. Like others have said if that's all it took to defeat Heat Metal it probably wouldn't be a threat to anybody.

[Segev]

It's the smug presumption of cleverness that gets to me.



GM: The door gives in after a few good kicks and you stumble into the room. Three Orcs have grabbed their weapons and move up to form a hasty defense.

Player (nasally): Are any of them wearing any meh-tal?

GM (sighs): Yes, they are wearing chain shirts of shoddy make.

Player (nasally smug): Then I cast Heat Meh-tal on them!


It's like they solved a huge puzzle that had the wisest sages stumped.

-DF

Do you also hate the following?


GM: The door gives in after a few good kicks and you stumble into the room. Three Orcs have grabbed their weapons and move up to form a hasty defense.

Player (nasally): Are they all grouped together?

GM (sighs): Yes, they were gathered around their camp fire.

Player (nasally smug): Then I cast fahrbahl on them!


Because to me, it sounds like players daring to ask tactical questions makes them smug, in this depiction. :smallmad:

[ProsecutorGodot]

Do you also hate the following?


GM: The door gives in after a few good kicks and you stumble into the room. Three Orcs have grabbed their weapons and move up to form a hasty defense.

Player (nasally): Are they all grouped together?

GM (sighs): Yes, they were gathered around their camp fire.

Player (nasally smug): Then I cast fahrbahl on them!


Because to me, it sounds like players daring to ask tactical questions makes them smug, in this depiction. :smallmad:

Hey, it even stretches to martials.

Player: "Hey, are they within 30ft of me?"

GM (thoroughly annoyed by questions about the game world): Yes.

Player: Well then I run up and hit them!

It seems silly to call a player "smugly clever" when they know what their character can do and want to confirm whether they can in this situation.

They picked heat metal, their character knows it works on armor, the player only knows they're in armor if they ask you. This is just the standard gameplay loop in action.

[StoneSeraph]

Do you also hate the following?


GM: The door gives in after a few good kicks and you stumble into the room. Three Orcs have grabbed their weapons and move up to form a hasty defense.

Player (nasally): Are they all grouped together?

GM (sighs): Yes, they were gathered around their camp fire.

Player (nasally smug): Then I cast fahrbahl on them!


Because to me, it sounds like players daring to ask tactical questions makes them smug, in this depiction. :smallmad:

Players should really know better; tactical questions are no different than metagaming.

[Gallowglass]

There is no greater danger to immersion than players and DMs with high school equivalency science educations nitpicking flaws with select spells while ignoring them in others.

[Tanarii]

Players don't ask if a door is locked so they can triumphantly cast Knock on it. They discover the door is locked, they want to get through, they cast Knock. The "win" is to getting through the door, not the act of defeating the lock.I don't think I've ever seen a 5e PC with Knock, despite all the kvetching about it online.

But I'm fairly sure the single player out there in the gaming world who did crowed their genius the first time they came across a locked & unbreakable door and no one in the party had Thieves Tools! :smallamused:


Always more palatable to ban a spell rather than looking for ways to nerf it or engineer all rulings to render it unusable.
This should go both ways. Let's all start by banning True Strike and Witch Bolt.

[MrStabby]

This was my DM's ruling when I asked why Heat Metal wasn't hurting people with metal swords. Wooden grips and the like meant it didn't work. That's when he wasn't spending half a year IRL not throwing a single enemy with metal armor at us anyways.

Once I finally dropped Heat Metal? Boom- room full of eight guys in full plate and greatswords. I don't think I ever successfully cast that spell the entire campaign.

Little bitter about that one not gonna lie.

I mean disalowing swords from hurting their holders seems a bit harsh, especially given the spell description. Not having anything with metal armour come up the the world for an extended period doesn't seem suspicious at all. I mean I can go for months without seeing anyone in metal armour. More seriously though, if it is a high magic campaign where a) there are a lot of casters b) a lot of threats are save based rather than attack roll based c) people learn from the deaths of their friends then there will be less value placed on heavy armour. Add in NPCs based on wizards, druids, bards, rogues, monks and people actually wearing metal armour could be pretty damn rare. Then dilute it further if you might have a campaign that deals with fiends, beasts, oozes, plants, constructs, monstrosities, aberations, dragons... I mean, looking through the monster manual very few enemies actually even use weapons, let alone wear metal armour.


How would any of you feel about "Heat Object" instead of "Heat Metal" (so can apply to any object).
If we're going with "it's magic, don't use logic", there is not a lot of reason other than tradition to keep the spell restricted to metal.
[Unless you think that would make it OP.]
Yes. It would make it OP. Now as a higher level spell... fine.


It's the smug presumption of cleverness that gets to me.



GM: The door gives in after a few good kicks and you stumble into the room. Three Orcs have grabbed their weapons and move up to form a hasty defense.

Player (nasally): Are any of them wearing any meh-tal?

GM (sighs): Yes, they are wearing chain shirts of shoddy make.

Player (nasally smug): Then I cast Heat Meh-tal on them!


It's like they solved a huge puzzle that had the wisest sages stumped.

-DF

Well it could be worse. Imagine a party that comes up with a cunning plan to take the enemy by surprise, to sneak into their stronghold whilst most of them are asleep... then when the alarm sounds they complain the the DM is screwing with them as they are all wearing nightshirts and don't have any metal armour on.


FTR, I have never nerfed the spell, and have no intention of banning it. I allow it to be used as is. The first paragraph was just getting my priors out of the way so that it was clear that I do not like the spell in general, before moving on to a question about it.

The reason for the question is that the obvious defense against heat metal is to ensure that no metal is directly touching the person. I have an NPC that is smart and knows enough about the players and what they are capable of that they know the spell exists and that the players use it, so they would absolutely prepare themselves for it. I started to review the spell to figure out how a smart opponent would counter it, and it says that it damages any creature in physical contact with the metal. Then I reviewed heavy armor, and found that plate mail specifically calls out heavy padding underneath the armor. Well, that sounds like exactly the method one would use to foil the spell - put a bunch of heavy padding between the metal and the person wearing it so it doesn't damage the person.

When the obvious method of foiling the spell is already inherent to the armor, it makes me wonder if it should actually affect someone wearing that armor. If it does, then there really is no effective counter to it. Hence, question.

I think it is a good question. For me the answer still has to be to do what the spell says and what the player has a legitimate expecation of it doing, but finding a way to a) play your NPCs as anything other than complete morons and b) trying to, as far as is possible, create a logically consistant world for your playersis a good thing.


My artificer used it like 3-4 times at max in the current campaign im in. Then all the enemies became immune to fire or are sneaky bastards that do rogue armor. Not bitter about it.. cause I mean, we went to averince where everyone and their mother is a friggin devil or demon and immune to fire. :/

But holy hell, can the artificer have some more real combat spells or something?
Yeah, the artificer has a tricky list. There are a lot of fantastic spells that are just a bit too situational.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There is no greater danger to immersion than players and DMs with high school equivalency science educations nitpicking flaws with select spells while ignoring them in others.

Amen. This is over reason why physics (and all other physical laws) in my setting are very very different under the hood. You get gross effects you can detect with 12th century equipment and techniques, but the reasons are different. No atoms, no conservation laws, etc.

[MrStabby]

Amen. This is over reason why physics (and all other physical laws) in my setting are very very different under the hood. You get gross effects you can detect with 12th century equipment and techniques, but the reasons are different. No atoms, no conservation laws, etc.

I go beyond physics being magical in my setting. Things like diseases are not due to microorganisms for example. Attempts at chemistry won't work without appropriate magic.

Mathematics is hard to break from though; mathematical laws will persist between settings, not that it always means I am on top of implementing them.

[DwarfFighter]

A tangent: What about armor that isn't metal? Imagine a culture using bone, glass, or ceramics as material instead of metals. The PCs encounter an enemy with a ceramic breastplate. It is medium armor, so it fits the example in the text of the spell. But it isn't made of metal so it doesn't fit the theme of the spell. What should win here? RAW or RAI?

-DF

[xyianth]

Out of morbid curiosity, what do you imagine the heat metal spell should actually be allowed to work on if both weapons and armor are off the table because of padding/gloves/hilts/etc...? Because honestly, it sounds like your logic equates to a 2nd level spell becoming worse than witchbolt in effect. (and that is bad, in case that isn't clear) If you don't like a spell, ban it; don't nerf it into a smoldering crater and leave it as a trap choice for players to pick up and be disappointed in later.

As a blanket guideline: never try and apply physics/logic to magic in dnd in any edition. That is how you get ridiculous nonsense like the shape water cantrip being a method to open locks. (via freezing a tiny amount of water poured into the lock, which FTR doesn't work at all) Or to relate to heat metal: how do you know that the heat isn't actually produced via magically inducing the metal object to give off microwave radiation which can and would go straight through padding and gloves and sizzle flesh? By using logic/physics to defeat a spell all you do is open yourself to an arms race between you and players who try and use different 'rational' explanations to justify things.

I hate the heat metal spell too. It is too powerful when it applies for a 2nd level spell, and it has a lot of world building impact whenever it is in play. It is also one of the few spells that punishes martial characters far more than casters. When I DM, I ban it along with simulacrum, true polymorph, contagion, feeblemind, and pre-errata healing spirit. I also create and play with lots and lots of homebrew. I hate trap choices in player creation even more than I hate unbalanced spells. Choosing to not ban an unbalanced spell but making it into a trap choice instead is not an improvement imho.

If you absolutely don't want to ban the spell, but want a clever npc to be immune to it, use bone armor. It is explicitly not metal and therefore isn't a valid target of the spell and can be made to have the same properties of plate mail if you so choose. Make it out of some powerful creature's bones to justify the added toughness if the fact that real world bones are significantly less durable than metal bothers you. As for a non-metal weapon, bone or obsidian would work. You could rationalize the acquisition of these special items as 'preparation' against your party's signature trick. If your players include a druid that is choosing to not wear/use metal this could also be a decent treasure to find upon defeating said npc. (unless of course you don't let armor used by npcs fit players because they don't have the same measurements; physics and real-world logic is a dangerous slippery slope in dnd if I haven't already made that clear)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I go beyond physics being magical in my setting. Things like diseases are not due to microorganisms for example. Attempts at chemistry won't work without appropriate magic.

Mathematics is hard to break from though; mathematical laws will persist between settings, not that it always means I am on top of implementing them.

Same. Although I don't necessarily carry over all math--numbers literally have meanings. So doing a calculation with multiples of 8 (the number of perfection) will act differently than doing it with multiples of 9 (an unholy number).

One example of the differences--matter is all one "thing", the same thing that all energy is. In fact, there is only one "type" of thing in existance. Anima. The stuff of souls. The differences come in aspects, which can be present in greater or lesser quantities. Imposing aspects (or nullifying them) is all of chemistry, as well as magic. So in that sense, chemistry is magic (don't tell the ponies).

[Valmark]

A tangent: What about armor that isn't metal? Imagine a culture using bone, glass, or ceramics as material instead of metals. The PCs encounter an enemy with a ceramic breastplate. It is medium armor, so it fits the example in the text of the spell. But it isn't made of metal so it doesn't fit the theme of the spell. What should win here? RAW or RAI?

-DF

Both RAW and RAI would say that Heat Metal doesn't work. The example in the text is a medium metal armor, not just a medium armor.

[Darth Credence]

Out of morbid curiosity, what do you imagine the heat metal spell should actually be allowed to work on if both weapons and armor are off the table because of padding/gloves/hilts/etc...? Because honestly, it sounds like your logic equates to a 2nd level spell becoming worse than witchbolt in effect. (and that is bad, in case that isn't clear) If you don't like a spell, ban it; don't nerf it into a smoldering crater and leave it as a trap choice for players to pick up and be disappointed in later.

Again - I have not nerfed it, and I don't intend to do so. They can absolutely use the spell as written, and have. But it could also be used for torture, heating pots to heat the contents such as oil, cooking without starting a camp fire, starting fires, increasing damage on weapons that can be held without the wielder taking damage, or used on rings or other jewelry that is touching the skin.

But that said, not all spells have to be worthwhile. When the spell was first created by whatever caster figured it out, it was probably outstanding, because no one knew about it. But it wouldn't take long for people to develop a counter to it, and not allowing other people in the game world to use such a counter is horrible for world building. Think of it like the Wildcat formation in football. When it was first in use, it was great - you'd get ten blockers for the runner, who would have time to pick their lane. But after a relatively short amount of time, defensive coordinators figured out the fix - since the runner was almost never a good passer, they could bring all of the linebackers up close to shut off the run. Now, the Wildcat is rarely used at upper levels of the game. Someone breaks it out from time to time to try to fool people, and it sometimes it catches people off guard, but for the most part every team is prepared for it (although they do have to spend resources to prepare, so it has value in the abstract of making teams not have as much time to prepare to stop other options). Why not with a spell? A person can certainly take it, and they may be able to get some use out of it, but for the most part, smarter opponents have a defense baked in that makes it worthless against them.


As a blanket guideline: never try and apply physics/logic to magic in dnd in any edition. That is how you get ridiculous nonsense like the shape water cantrip being a method to open locks. (via freezing a tiny amount of water poured into the lock, which FTR doesn't work at all) Or to relate to heat metal: how do you know that the heat isn't actually produced via magically inducing the metal object to give off microwave radiation which can and would go straight through padding and gloves and sizzle flesh? By using logic/physics to defeat a spell all you do is open yourself to an arms race between you and players who try and use different 'rational' explanations to justify things.

I do not, as a general rule, apply physics or logic to magic. My initial statement was simply describing why I hate the spell. Your question about heat metal directly contradicts the text of the spell, though. "Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast the spell." Physical contact, not close enough for microwaves to do damage. Someone with thick padding underneath their armor is not in physical contact with the metal. Someone with thin underclothes underneath their armor is not in physical contact with the metal. If we go by the spell as written, and the description of armor as written, people wearing plate armor are not in physical contact with the metal and would not be damaged by heat metal. Hence, the question of should it work on armor.


I hate the heat metal spell too. It is too powerful when it applies for a 2nd level spell, and it has a lot of world building impact whenever it is in play. It is also one of the few spells that punishes martial characters far more than casters. When I DM, I ban it along with simulacrum, true polymorph, contagion, feeblemind, and pre-errata healing spirit. I also create and play with lots and lots of homebrew. I hate trap choices in player creation even more than I hate unbalanced spells. Choosing to not ban an unbalanced spell but making it into a trap choice instead is not an improvement imho.

If you absolutely don't want to ban the spell, but want a clever npc to be immune to it, use bone armor. It is explicitly not metal and therefore isn't a valid target of the spell and can be made to have the same properties of plate mail if you so choose. Make it out of some powerful creature's bones to justify the added toughness if the fact that real world bones are significantly less durable than metal bothers you. As for a non-metal weapon, bone or obsidian would work. You could rationalize the acquisition of these special items as 'preparation' against your party's signature trick. If your players include a druid that is choosing to not wear/use metal this could also be a decent treasure to find upon defeating said npc. (unless of course you don't let armor used by npcs fit players because they don't have the same measurements; physics and real-world logic is a dangerous slippery slope in dnd if I haven't already made that clear)

How about this as an alternate instead of bone armor (because I'd rather not try to justify bone armor)? Wrapping the armor in cloth on the outside. Cover the armor so it cannot be seen, therefore it cannot be a target of the spell. Or paint it, such that the paint completely covers all of the metal. These seem to be clearly within RAW, but I'm sure it would be hated by anyone who uses the spell.

[Democratus]

Again - I have not nerfed it, and I don't intend to do so. They can absolutely use the spell as written, and have. But it could also be used for torture, heating pots to heat the contents such as oil, cooking without starting a camp fire, starting fires, increasing damage on weapons that can be held without the wielder taking damage, or used on rings or other jewelry that is touching the skin.

Sounds like you're trying to apply physics again. A spell does only what is in the spell description, nothing more.

You can make a house rule that allows cooking food in a pot affected by the Heat Metal spell. But that would be a house rule. A creature in the pot would take fire damage. But damage isn't the same thing as cooking (unless you rule it so).

[Keltest]

How about this as an alternate instead of bone armor (because I'd rather not try to justify bone armor)? Wrapping the armor in cloth on the outside. Cover the armor so it cannot be seen, therefore it cannot be a target of the spell. Or paint it, such that the paint completely covers all of the metal. These seem to be clearly within RAW, but I'm sure it would be hated by anyone who uses the spell.

Unless they were wearing a mithril chain shirt or breastplate (because such functionality is explicit to those items) i would say something like "Sure, as long as youre willing to take disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks for being a bedsheet ghost/toilet paper mummy."

If somebody is going to do something strange and dumb sounding to get around a relatively niche thing, i might let it work... as long as theyre willing to eat all the reasons that it is dumb and not done.

[Segev]

I think the idea is that it's balanced by requiring action every round to apply the damage and disadvantage. This is questionable, since it's only a bonus action and while the damage is "only" 2d8 for a second-level spell, it's unavoidable.

As to the logic behind taking a bonus action, yes, I imagine it does cool down that fast, just as it heats that fast. Think of the bonus action as almost re-casting the spell each time.

[xyianth]

Again - I have not nerfed it, and I don't intend to do so.

The spell gives, as an example, a suit of medium armor. You are nerfing the spell by not letting it work on armor.


But that said, not all spells have to be worthwhile. snip

So long as you are upfront with your players that heat metal has been reduced to a cantrip (create bonfire is a cantrip...) this is fine. If you don't inform players of your changes to the spell, this is not fine.


I do not, as a general rule, apply physics or logic to magic. My initial statement was simply describing why I hate the spell. Your question about heat metal directly contradicts the text of the spell, though. "Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast the spell." Physical contact, not close enough for microwaves to do damage. Someone with thick padding underneath their armor is not in physical contact with the metal. Someone with thin underclothes underneath their armor is not in physical contact with the metal. If we go by the spell as written, and the description of armor as written, people wearing plate armor are not in physical contact with the metal and would not be damaged by heat metal. Hence, the question of should it work on armor.

You are treating the padding that is literally part of the armor as not being part of the object. The text says it damages anyone in contact with the object, not the metal parts of the object. A suit of plate armor is not a collection of objects in dnd, it is one object and that object is made of metal. Both yours and my alternative explanations equally ignore aspects of the text.


How about this as an alternate instead of bone armor (because I'd rather not try to justify bone armor)? Wrapping the armor in cloth on the outside. Cover the armor so it cannot be seen, therefore it cannot be a target of the spell. Or paint it, such that the paint completely covers all of the metal. These seem to be clearly within RAW, but I'm sure it would be hated by anyone who uses the spell.

Wrapping the armor in cloth seems like trying to wear heavy armor underneath light armor to me. I wouldn't let someone benefit from the AC of the heavy armor while using an ability that can't be used while wearing heavy armor just because they wrapped it in light armor, and this feels like the same kind of thing to me. (i.e. cherry picking the attributes of two sets of armor and using the combination) And if a coat of paint blocks line of sight in your games, I'd run around naked covered in warpaint and be immune to magic. Can you just make the metal armor magically immune to the heat metal spell? All these attempts to justify heat metal immunity feel overly contrived and counterproductive.

[Darth Credence]

Sounds like you're trying to apply physics again. A spell does only what is in the spell description, nothing more.

You can make a house rule that allows cooking food in a pot affected by the Heat Metal spell. But that would be a house rule. A creature in the pot would take fire damage. But damage isn't the same thing as cooking (unless you rule it so).

Yep, I am. I ruled that if a pot is glowing red hot, it heats what is inside it. I'm perfectly fine with this ruling.


Unless they were wearing a mithril chain shirt or breastplate (because such functionality is explicit to those items) i would say something like "Sure, as long as youre willing to take disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks for being a bedsheet ghost/toilet paper mummy."

If somebody is going to do something strange and dumb sounding to get around a relatively niche thing, i might let it work... as long as theyre willing to eat all the reasons that it is dumb and not done.

Why would this cause a disadvantage? It would certainly be possible to tailor cloth to cover the outside of any armor without getting in the way. I'm not talking about just wrapping a bedsheet around themselves at the last moment. And of course, that would have nothing to do with paint.


The spell gives, as an example, a suit of medium armor. You are nerfing the spell by not letting it work on armor.

<Sigh.> One more time. I am absolutely, positively, no question NOT DOING THAT. They have used the spell as written several times against people in armor. It has happened, and I am sure that it will happen again. I don't know how to make it more clear than saying I let them use the spell as written, but when reviewing how a smart character would defeat it, it seems that by RAW, it shouldn't work on people in plate armor. After going through this, I asked a question.





So long as you are upfront with your players that heat metal has been reduced to a cantrip (create bonfire is a cantrip...) this is fine. If you don't inform players of your changes to the spell, this is not fine.



You are treating the padding that is literally part of the armor as not being part of the object. The text says it damages anyone in contact with the object, not the metal parts of the object. A suit of plate armor is not a collection of objects in dnd, it is one object and that object is made of metal. Both yours and my alternative explanations equally ignore aspects of the text.

Does this mean that it would make sense that someone could add a thin layer of cloth underneath their armor, that is not a part of the armor, that would block the heat metal? That seems like a reasonable answer, and would work for my NPC. I'm ok with that, and it would result in them trying to do heat armor to this NPC, while the NPC grins and shrugs it off as though it is nothing, or perhaps even plays it up like it is working. I can get behind that. Does it seem that way to you?



Wrapping the armor in cloth seems like trying to wear heavy armor underneath light armor to me. I wouldn't let someone benefit from the AC of the heavy armor while using an ability that can't be used while wearing heavy armor just because they wrapped it in light armor, and this feels like the same kind of thing to me. (i.e. cherry picking the attributes of two sets of armor and using the combination) And if a coat of paint blocks line of sight in your games, I'd run around naked covered in warpaint and be immune to magic. Can you just make the metal armor magically immune to the heat metal spell? All these attempts to justify heat metal immunity feel overly contrived and counterproductive.

Why would that be like trying to wear light armor over heavy armor? Does no one wear a cloak over their armor in your game world? Are pants and a shirt generally considered light armor? A wizard's robe? Any of that could cover the armor.
As to the paint, you are using real world logic here, thinking that seeing the paint means the same as seeing the object. You have to see the object, not the outline of the object, and paint clearly blocks that, so it should work. Wait, that leads to ridiculous outcomes when you completely ignore how things work in the real world? You don't say.
Finally, you don't think telling the players that this NPC has armor that is magically immune to heat metal won't annoy them more than saying they cannot see the armor that is covered by clothing and it cannot be subject to heat metal, but if the clothing gets damaged it may open up a gap they can see and exploit?

[Gale]

Seems weird to rule that Heat Metal shouldn't hurt you because you have padded wool between you and the metal. The spell does 2d8 fire damage, which is enough to kill a commoner twice over. I don't think it's preposterous to assume it's hot enough to damage you through the padding, regardless of how good of an insulator it is.

Either way, if we use the logic that "heat metal shouldn't harm you due to the protective wool padding" then why do most other fire effects still harm you? Is Heat Metal significantly different from Burning Hands or Hellish Rebuke? Why isn't the armor always offering you immunity, or at least resistance to fire damage? Why should it only offer such protection in this one instance?

I don't find this argument particularly compelling, personally. As Crawford says, D&D isn't a physics simulator and shouldn't be thought of as one. Spells do what they say, and it makes perfect sense to me that magical fire can ignore ordinary insulation. The spell is simply using metal as a conduit to deliver fire damage, and needs a certain amount of metal for the effect to function. That's why it doesn't work with light armors, and it shouldn't function with rings or earrings either. (At least not in my opinion.)

[micahaphone]

If you want to make an intelligent BBEG who knows the party uses Heat Metal but you want him to be a martial, he has a unique set of enchanted clothing/an amulet/ a cursed crown that gives him AC equivalent to a set of plate. Bonuses for making it cursed, so if players want to loot it they can but it comes with a cost.




Either way, if we use the logic that "heat metal shouldn't harm you due to the protective wool padding" then why do most other fire effects still harm you? Is Heat Metal significantly different from Burning Hands or Hellish Rebuke? Why isn't the armor always offering you immunity, or at least resistance to fire damage? Why should it only offer such protection in this one instance?

Excellent point!

[Valmark]

<Sigh.> One more time. I am absolutely, positively, no question NOT DOING THAT. They have used the spell as written several times against people in armor. It has happened, and I am sure that it will happen again. I don't know how to make it more clear than saying I let them use the spell as written, but when reviewing how a smart character would defeat it, it seems that by RAW, it shouldn't work on people in plate armor. After going through this, I asked a question.

The point is that you are nerfing the spell, adding requirements that aren't there. The spell doesn't require direct physical contact, unless you mean to say that wearing gloves when touching anything means I'm not touching them physically.

It's not clever wearing armor... Well, normally. Like you said people don't usually wear metal armor without anything under it.
Nor do weapons have metal handles (usually).

[Willie the Duck]

Okay, first thoughts on the spell, as a spell (and functioning as I believe the designers intended) – I don’t love the idea of a low-level damage spell with no save that does a high amount of damage and at the same time imposes a huge penalty on the person affected, all because of a huge number of riders and clauses (requires concentration, requires bonus action each round, damage is moderate-damage-over-time, only affects people with metal, those with held metal can easily drop it). That reminds me too much of other games and editions where everything was a wonton arms race between devistatingly powerful kill routines and ubiquitous defenses to said effects (random example: 3e grappling was so devestating when the DM threw large grapple-focused creatures at the party, so then everyone just got belts of free action). There’s a form of tactics in that kind of game, but not one I find interesting. If someone says they want to change the spell in some meaningful way, I am all for that.

To the idea of under-armor padding (or bone sword handles) preventing the heat of a heat metal spell from harming those touching the metal object seems out of line for the spells intention. It is a combat spell, used to harm people holding/wearing a metal object*. The sword handle or armor padding was already factored into the spell concept. Presumably the spell heat is supposed to radiate through said material. If there were some additional factors brought into play that might be a good reason why the spell doesn’t work, I might as a DM consider that to be clever thinking and a reasonable mitigating factor.
*ProsecutorGodot is correct that a whole suit of armor is one object for these purposes, but I don’t find that unintuitive at all. People consider a suit of armor to be one item, and magic often works in terms of anthropocentric understanding of things. Ex: Fly spell being able to affent one 150 lb person but not three 50 lb. goblins in a trenchcoat.

Overall, I think others have brought up good points about right when a spell one doesn’t like hits discussion not being a great time to suddenly decide that realism is of vital importance, particularly when the entire rest of this elfgame is not exactly a great example of realism (right down to the armors on the armor chart).


Again - I have not nerfed it, and I don't intend to do so. They can absolutely use the spell as written, and have.
…
Your question about heat metal directly contradicts the text of the spell, though. "Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast the spell." Physical contact, not close enough for microwaves to do damage. Someone with thick padding underneath their armor is not in physical contact with the metal. Someone with thin underclothes underneath their armor is not in physical contact with the metal. If we go by the spell as written, and the description of armor as written, people wearing plate armor are not in physical contact with the metal and would not be damaged by heat metal. Hence, the question of should it work on armor.
You can declare your position RAW all you want. If you are the only person you need to convince, you undoubtedly already have. This is not, however, a great way to convince others. There is enough vagaries in the wording of heat metal alone, much less the definitions of each metal armor, to make no single interpretation inarguable. In which case a compelling argument, rather than self-declaration, the advisable avenue forward.


There is no greater danger to immersion than players and DMs with high school equivalency science educations nitpicking flaws with select spells while ignoring them in others.
I hate to agree with this, as I think that nearly everyone on these boards is a middle-aged, overcompensated, underchallenged, former academic big deal (in high school or college), who perhaps a little overzealously want to showcase that they know something (be it introductory physics, medeival history, combat knowledge, etc.). We’re all a little bit ‘that guy.’ That said, yes, selective imposition of science rigor into a game world is of questionable value, particularly when other instances have been conveniently ignored.


My artificer used it like 3-4 times at max in the current campaign im in. Then all the enemies became immune to fire or are sneaky bastards that do rogue armor.
Given that the books mention the option of druid-specific non-metal specialty armor, it does seem really strange that studded leather* lost any reference to the studs being metal. I would have expected metal to be the default, with nonmetallic being in the same language related to other non-metallic options.
*outside of the issue of it its ahistoric nature, of which I’m sure we could get a good group of nerd together to try to out do each other in knowledge


It's the smug presumption of cleverness that gets to me.


GM: The door gives in after a few good kicks and you stumble into the room. Three Orcs have grabbed their weapons and move up to form a hasty defense.
Player (nasally): Are any of them wearing any meh-tal?
GM (sighs): Yes, they are wearing chain shirts of shoddy make.
Player (nasally smug): Then I cast Heat Meh-tal on them!

It's like they solved a huge puzzle that had the wisest sages stumped.
-DF
I… would spend less time worrying that someone else might be proud of themselves (/pleased that they got to use a spell they prepared).

[xyianth]

<Sigh.> One more time. I am absolutely, positively, no question NOT DOING THAT. They have used the spell as written several times against people in armor. It has happened, and I am sure that it will happen again. I don't know how to make it more clear than saying I let them use the spell as written, but when reviewing how a smart character would defeat it, it seems that by RAW, it shouldn't work on people in plate armor. After going through this, I asked a question.
By RAW, it absolutely works on people in plate armor. Plate armor is an object and people wearing it are touching it. If you make it not work on plate armor, you are nerfing it. But, I'll concede that you haven't actually done this yet so you haven't YET nerfed the spell. Happy?


Does this mean that it would make sense that someone could add a thin layer of cloth underneath their armor, that is not a part of the armor, that would block the heat metal? That seems like a reasonable answer, and would work for my NPC. I'm ok with that, and it would result in them trying to do heat armor to this NPC, while the NPC grins and shrugs it off as though it is nothing, or perhaps even plays it up like it is working. I can get behind that. Does it seem that way to you?
No, and if my DM did that I would walk away from the game. You can not reasonably expect me to believe that you can completely wear and benefit from any kind of armor without touching it directly. I don't care what explanations you give or what machinations you orchestrate, that is absurd.

It really is quite simple, players need to be made aware when options as presented are not going to work effectively when making choices. If you want a boss fight to include a scene where the boss shrugs off your player's action, so be it. Use legendary saves, lair actions, or magical protections to accomplish that. It isn't like there aren't options available in the RAW rules to let you do exactly that. Don't invent physical justifications for why a spell just doesn't work the way it was obviously intended to work. And before you argue that it wasn't obviously intended to work that way: just stop. Reading the spell's description at a casual level at the very least clearly suggests that it should be effective against metal armor. Plate armor is metal armor and you can't seriously suggest that it was intended to be excluded from the spell without some form of explicit in the spell language to that end.


Why would that be like trying to wear light armor over heavy armor? Does no one wear a cloak over their armor in your game world? Are pants and a shirt generally considered light armor? A wizard's robe? Any of that could cover the armor.
Have you ever actually seen a suit of armor? Or a cloak for that matter? There is a massive difference between completely covering an object to prevent it being targeted (which for the record is what you were suggesting) and merely wearing layers. You can absolutely wear a cloak or a shirt or whatever overtop your plate armor. That doesn't make the plate armor immune to being targeted by spells that target worn objects.


As to the paint, you are using real world logic here, thinking that seeing the paint means the same as seeing the object. You have to see the object, not the outline of the object, and paint clearly blocks that, so it should work. Wait, that leads to ridiculous outcomes when you completely ignore how things work in the real world? You don't say.
I... am at a loss for words. You are the one arguing that someone can't target/effect an object because it is painted and I am the one completely ignoring how things work in the real world? Wow.


Finally, you don't think telling the players that this NPC has armor that is magically immune to heat metal won't annoy them more than saying they cannot see the armor that is covered by clothing and it cannot be subject to heat metal, but if the clothing gets damaged it may open up a gap they can see and exploit?
Look, you know your players better than I do. Personally, I would much prefer to know that the DM is playing with the same rules that I read as a player. There are rules for making magic items. There are not rules for blocking a spell from functioning with cloth, or for creating tears/gaps in cloth to re-enable targeting of the object. (I am not saying it is disallowed, obviously theater of the mind combat allows all of this) If that level of tactical combat is normal for your games then sure, go with that. It is not normal in my games. I'd personally walk away from a game in which it was normal, as it sounds tedious as hell. But that is me, and you are free to do differently.

As a player, if my DM told me that my heat metal spell failed, I'd assume that the target had some form of protection against it. The form of that protection could be any number of things. I would simply switch tactics to something else. I would not try and figure out how to bypass that protection as I do not make or play one-trick characters. If my DM took the time to explain why my heat metal spell failed and then came up with the explanations you have suggested, I would be incredibly annoyed. Partially because it slowed down the game just to tell me in an extremely contrived way that you don't like heat metal, and partly because it indicates that this is likely to happen more often in the future and that I should just trade heat metal away as it is probably not going to be very useful anymore.

Honestly, if you want to make heat metal work that way in your game, go for it. If your players don't mind, all the better. I think I have made it abundantly clear that I would hate it, but I am not in your game, so my opinion is just that. Take it or leave it, that's up to you.

[Unoriginal]

A tangent: What about armor that isn't metal? Imagine a culture using bone, glass, or ceramics as material instead of metals. The PCs encounter an enemy with a ceramic breastplate. It is medium armor, so it fits the example in the text of the spell. But it isn't made of metal so it doesn't fit the theme of the spell. What should win here? RAW or RAI?

-DF

The text explicitly says that only metal is affected.

Same way that it's useless against a sword made of dragon bone. Or regular bone.

[ProsecutorGodot]

ProsecutorGodot is correct that a whole suit of armor is one object for these purposes, but I don’t find that unintuitive at all. People consider a suit of armor to be one item, and magic often works in terms of anthropocentric understanding of things. Ex: Fly spell being able to affent one 150 lb person but not three 50 lb. goblins in a trenchcoat.

Just to be clear, I was making more of a general statement about how some effects view things being "unintuitive", the prime example in recent times being how a corpse is both an object and a creature (that has died) depending on which spell you're targeting it with.

I think in this case it is as clear as it can be.

[Darth Credence]

The point is that you are nerfing the spell, adding requirements that aren't there. The spell doesn't require direct physical contact, unless you mean to say that wearing gloves when touching anything means I'm not touching them physically.

It's not clever wearing armor... Well, normally. Like you said people don't usually wear metal armor without anything under it.
Nor do weapons have metal handles (usually).

Yes, I absolutely mean to say that if you wear gloves while touching something you are not in physical contact with that object. That is one of the primary reasons to wear gloves, so that you do not come in physical contact with something you are trying to manipulate. I am not nerfing the spell, because the requirement for physical contact is already in it.


Seems weird to rule that Heat Metal shouldn't hurt you because you have padded wool between you and the metal. The spell does 2d8 fire damage, which is enough to kill a commoner twice over. I don't think it's preposterous to assume it's hot enough to damage you through the padding, regardless of how good of an insulator it is.

Either way, if we use the logic that "heat metal shouldn't harm you due to the protective wool padding" then why do most other fire effects still harm you? Is Heat Metal significantly different from Burning Hands or Hellish Rebuke? Why isn't the armor always offering you immunity, or at least resistance to fire damage? Why should it only offer such protection in this one instance?

I don't find this argument particularly compelling, personally. As Crawford says, D&D isn't a physics simulator and shouldn't be thought of as one. Spells do what they say, and it makes perfect sense to me that magical fire can ignore ordinary insulation. The spell is simply using metal as a conduit to deliver fire damage, and needs a certain amount of metal for the effect to function. That's why it doesn't work with light armors, and it shouldn't function with rings or earrings either. (At least not in my opinion.)

In physical contact with the object is part of the spell. If you surround someone in a metal box that doesn't actually touch them, but is a millimeter away from them everywhere, the spell as written would not give them any damage. This is trying to introduce real world physics in, which I have been assured repeatedly is not a good idea. Same with the idea that it wouldn't work with a ring or earring - the spell says it works on any manufactured metal object, so a ring would count and by the spell do the same damage.

I am fine with accepting that the padding that comes with the armor is part of the armor for the purposes of the spell. But if someone wears silk underwear beneath it so they do not have physical contact with any part of the armor, that seems to avoid the spell doing damage.


...
To the idea of under-armor padding (or bone sword handles) preventing the heat of a heat metal spell from harming those touching the metal object seems out of line for the spells intention. It is a combat spell, used to harm people holding/wearing a metal object*. The sword handle or armor padding was already factored into the spell concept. Presumably the spell heat is supposed to radiate through said material. If there were some additional factors brought into play that might be a good reason why the spell doesn’t work, I might as a DM consider that to be clever thinking and a reasonable mitigating factor.
*ProsecutorGodot is correct that a whole suit of armor is one object for these purposes, but I don’t find that unintuitive at all. People consider a suit of armor to be one item, and magic often works in terms of anthropocentric understanding of things. Ex: Fly spell being able to affent one 150 lb person but not three 50 lb. goblins in a trenchcoat.

Overall, I think others have brought up good points about right when a spell one doesn’t like hits discussion not being a great time to suddenly decide that realism is of vital importance, particularly when the entire rest of this elfgame is not exactly a great example of realism (right down to the armors on the armor chart).

Are parts of my posts not showing up to others? Are the bits where I say that I have not changed it from how it works in game, that my players have used it against people in metal armor as the book shows it, and that I have been asking the question because my look into it left me wondering if that is actually the right way to rule it, somehow not appearing?

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude to you, but I don't get why everyone keeps saying I am changing the spell, or changing it because I don't like it? I said I don't like it to be honest about my feelings, but asked the question separately from that. I've tried to be as clear as possible on this. I even agreed with the idea that the armor, including padding, is all one object, and accepted that makes the spell work on plate armor. And at no point have I actually changed the use of the spell in game - I am simply trying to deal with an NPC who knows the spell exists and is looking for a counter.


You can declare your position RAW all you want. If you are the only person you need to convince, you undoubtedly already have. This is not, however, a great way to convince others. There is enough vagaries in the wording of heat metal alone, much less the definitions of each metal armor, to make no single interpretation inarguable. In which case a compelling argument, rather than self-declaration, the advisable avenue forward.

Hold on here - in what way is "physical contact" as written in the spell description open for interpretation? Physical contact has a pretty clear meaning, and if you aren't touching something, you aren't in physical contact.


By RAW, it absolutely works on people in plate armor. Plate armor is an object and people wearing it are touching it. If you make it not work on plate armor, you are nerfing it. But, I'll concede that you haven't actually done this yet so you haven't YET nerfed the spell. Happy?

No, because you are still completely misunderstanding. I asked a question, about whether the way I had been ruling the spell was not actually correct. I accepted that all parts of the plate armor including the stuff you put on first before any of the metal is an object for the purposes of the discussion, and yet you still say I am nerfing the spell.



No, and if my DM did that I would walk away from the game. You can not reasonably expect me to believe that you can completely wear and benefit from any kind of armor without touching it directly. I don't care what explanations you give or what machinations you orchestrate, that is absurd.

It really is quite simple, players need to be made aware when options as presented are not going to work effectively when making choices. If you want a boss fight to include a scene where the boss shrugs off your player's action, so be it. Use legendary saves, lair actions, or magical protections to accomplish that. It isn't like there aren't options available in the RAW rules to let you do exactly that. Don't invent physical justifications for why a spell just doesn't work the way it was obviously intended to work. And before you argue that it wasn't obviously intended to work that way: just stop. Reading the spell's description at a casual level at the very least clearly suggests that it should be effective against metal armor. Plate armor is metal armor and you can't seriously suggest that it was intended to be excluded from the spell without some form of explicit in the spell language to that end.[/quote]

It's absurd because, in the real world that makes sense, right? So here we are, bringing in real world physics to deal with a magical question. So much for being told we shouldn't do that.

At no point did I argue it was not intended to work that way. I agree it was intended to work that way. But I also think that there can be ways to defeat a 2nd level spell, and it seems like the easiest way to do that is to look at the spell description, see that it says physical contact, and then come up with a way to not have physical contact. No one has in any way shown why a thin silk barrier does not do so, without bringing real world physics into play.



Have you ever actually seen a suit of armor? Or a cloak for that matter? There is a massive difference between completely covering an object to prevent it being targeted (which for the record is what you were suggesting) and merely wearing layers. You can absolutely wear a cloak or a shirt or whatever overtop your plate armor. That doesn't make the plate armor immune to being targeted by spells that target worn objects.

The spell doesn't target worn objects. The spell targets any object that you can see within range. If you cannot see the object, you cannot target it. How does completely covering it with other clothing not do so? Even if the outline is visible, you are seeing the clothes on top, or the paint, not the object.



I... am at a loss for words. You are the one arguing that someone can't target/effect an object because it is painted and I am the one completely ignoring how things work in the real world? Wow.

You may want to finish the rest of that. The point of that statement was that completely ignoring reality is a fool's game here, because it leads to ridiculous things like someone saying that painting over metal armor means it can't be targeted because you can't see it. Yes, I was calling out my idea as being ridiculous, because it was meant to be, to show that there needs to be some degree of logic to these things or you can paint yourself to make yourself immune to magic.


Look, you know your players better than I do. Personally, I would much prefer to know that the DM is playing with the same rules that I read as a player. There are rules for making magic items. There are not rules for blocking a spell from functioning with cloth, or for creating tears/gaps in cloth to re-enable targeting of the object. (I am not saying it is disallowed, obviously theater of the mind combat allows all of this) If that level of tactical combat is normal for your games then sure, go with that. It is not normal in my games. I'd personally walk away from a game in which it was normal, as it sounds tedious as hell. But that is me, and you are free to do differently.

As a player, if my DM told me that my heat metal spell failed, I'd assume that the target had some form of protection against it. The form of that protection could be any number of things. I would simply switch tactics to something else. I would not try and figure out how to bypass that protection as I do not make or play one-trick characters. If my DM took the time to explain why my heat metal spell failed and then came up with the explanations you have suggested, I would be incredibly annoyed. Partially because it slowed down the game just to tell me in an extremely contrived way that you don't like heat metal, and partly because it indicates that this is likely to happen more often in the future and that I should just trade heat metal away as it is probably not going to be very useful anymore.

Honestly, if you want to make heat metal work that way in your game, go for it. If your players don't mind, all the better. I think I have made it abundantly clear that I would hate it, but I am not in your game, so my opinion is just that. Take it or leave it, that's up to you.

I am pretty sure at this point that I will make it work such that any extraneous barrier blocks the spell from getting through.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, I absolutely mean to say that if you wear gloves while touching something you are not in physical contact with that object. That is one of the primary reasons to wear gloves, so that you do not come in physical contact with something you are trying to manipulate. I am not nerfing the spell, because the requirement for physical contact is already in it.

Several effects deal damage to the person who touches the effect's originato, like the Remorhaz's Heated Body ability.

Do you rule that wearing gloves/armor negates that?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes, I absolutely mean to say that if you wear gloves while touching something you are not in physical contact with that object. That is one of the primary reasons to wear gloves, so that you do not come in physical contact with something you are trying to manipulate. I am not nerfing the spell, because the requirement for physical contact is already in it.

Have we really reached "Nuh-uh, my sword is touching you, not me!" as an argument?

[Greywander]

When the obvious method of foiling the spell is already inherent to the armor, it makes me wonder if it should actually affect someone wearing that armor. If it does, then there really is no effective counter to it. Hence, question.
This is definitely a fair question, and I think I understand the purpose of this thread better now. It seems like the answer to the title thread is found here:

Keep in mind that physical contact doesn't mean direct- I'm still touching something even if I do it through gloves, for example. Like others have said if that's all it took to defeat Heat Metal it probably wouldn't be a threat to anybody.
So if you're wearing metal armor, even over padding, you'd still be in contact with it and thus affected by the spell. This would probably affect swords, too, but I'm less certain of other weapons, like an axe.

So how do we counter it? Well, the best way to find the answer to that question is to be the DM and throw a recurring enemy at the party that has Heat Metal. See what they do to counter that and take notes.

Really, the only obvious counter is to simply not use metal weapons or armor. Buy your armor at Armor4Druids (ironwood full plate can totally be a thing), and use a longbow or quarterstaff or something. Another possible counter is to throw a threatening-looking minion in metal armor at the party; if they take the bait, they'll cast Heat Metal on the minion instead of you. The minion doesn't even have to be strong, it just has to look strong. You could also look into acquiring fire resistance or immunity, though I believe you'd still have disadvantage on your rolls even if you take no damage.

Generally, counters are probably going to fall into a couple of broad categories:

Don't qualify as a valid target (i.e. don't wear/use metal).
Force them to cast the spell on someone else instead.
Force them to cast a different concentration spell instead, or wait to reveal yourself until they're concentrating on something else.
Mitigate the effects of the spell to limit it's usefulness.
Take out the caster before they cast the spell, or soon after.
Take measures to prevent the caster from concentrating on any spell.

[xyianth]

It's absurd because, in the real world that makes sense, right? So here we are, bringing in real world physics to deal with a magical question. So much for being told we shouldn't do that.

At no point did I argue it was not intended to work that way. I agree it was intended to work that way. But I also think that there can be ways to defeat a 2nd level spell, and it seems like the easiest way to do that is to look at the spell description, see that it says physical contact, and then come up with a way to not have physical contact. No one has in any way shown why a thin silk barrier does not do so, without bringing real world physics into play.
Because adding the thin silk barrier is 'bringing real world physics into play'. Once you open that door, you can't argue when others follow you right through it. If you want to ignore all real world physics, then let's do so. From a purely literary perspective, physical contact does not necessarily mean direct physical contact. After all indirect physical contact is still physical contact. Adding anything between you and an object you are wearing does not, from the pure meaning of wording, mean you are not in physical contact with the object.


The spell doesn't target worn objects. The spell targets any object that you can see within range. If you cannot see the object, you cannot target it. How does completely covering it with other clothing not do so? Even if the outline is visible, you are seeing the clothes on top, or the paint, not the object.
Purely for the sake of clarity, I will explain what I meant by that. In 5e, spells that target objects often have a disclaimer of some kind saying what special rules apply to objects that are worn. Some spells allow a save, some spells simply can't target an object that is worn, some spells (like heat metal) don't have this disclaimer. The absence of that disclaimer is generally considered to mean that the spell can target worn objects, and is all I meant to convey with that remark. As to whether you can see an object that is painted, I'm going to just let you be you on that one. We are well past the point of reasonable debate now, you made up your mind about this trick long before anyone posted anything here.


You may want to finish the rest of that. The point of that statement was that completely ignoring reality is a fool's game here, because it leads to ridiculous things like someone saying that painting over metal armor means it can't be targeted because you can't see it. Yes, I was calling out my idea as being ridiculous, because it was meant to be, to show that there needs to be some degree of logic to these things or you can paint yourself to make yourself immune to magic.

I might have misinterpreted your remark then. Generally, blue text is used to denote intentional sarcasm on these forums because it is very hard to interpret tone in written form. It somewhat sounds like we were both agreeing that taking certain logic to an extreme leads to absurd results. In the future, colorizing satire is helpful to clarify intent.


I am pretty sure at this point that I will make it work such that any extraneous barrier blocks the spell from getting through. I don't think anyone is shocked that you are going with the solution you convinced yourself of before anyone else responded. I honestly hope it works out great for you. At the end of the day, this is a game and there is no such thing as bad. wrong. fun.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note: if gloves stop physical contact, then you can't cast touch spells with gloves on. And you have to touch their bare skin, so no touch spells targeting people in full plate. In fact, someone in full plate has total cover from any outside effect.

Second note: I find this idea absurd.

[Greywander]

In fact, someone in full plate has total cover from any outside effect.
But I mean isn't that why plate was so effective historically?

[Gale]

In physical contact with the object is part of the spell. If you surround someone in a metal box that doesn't actually touch them, but is a millimeter away from them everywhere, the spell as written would not give them any damage. This is trying to introduce real world physics in, which I have been assured repeatedly is not a good idea. Same with the idea that it wouldn't work with a ring or earring - the spell says it works on any manufactured metal object, so a ring would count and by the spell do the same damage.

I am fine with accepting that the padding that comes with the armor is part of the armor for the purposes of the spell. But if someone wears silk underwear beneath it so they do not have physical contact with any part of the armor, that seems to avoid the spell doing damage.

...

Hold on here - in what way is "physical contact" as written in the spell description open for interpretation? Physical contact has a pretty clear meaning, and if you aren't touching something, you aren't in physical contact.


Personally, I disagree that "physical contact" is meant to suggest touching it with your bare body. It can mean that, but it doesn't definitively and univocally mean this. Rarely is language ever that precise, and the writers wouldn't intentionally use ambiguous prose if that was their intention. I believe you are in physical contact with the armor even if you have silk underwear beneath it, in the same way that when you hug someone you are in physical contact with them, even if both of you aren't naked, and there is no skin to skin contact. To argue against it would be needlessly pedantic, as well as simply incorrect.

It's fine if you don't accept this, but I don't think there is really any way to convince you otherwise. The spell clearly isn't written to suggest that a layer of clothing between armor and skin protects you from its effects. It's an unintuitive reading that inexplicably gives items with no listed stats or benefits, i.e. underwear, a huge buff.

I also have to say, I find it hard to believe that no part of the armor would be touching you unless you were exceedingly precise with how you designed the armor and layered your underwear. I'll admit I'm not intimately familiar with medieval armor; but a suit of plate is described as including both gauntlets and a visored helmet. Are you wearing silk underwear on your hands and head too?

[Zhorn]

Note: if gloves stop physical contact, then you can't cast touch spells with gloves on. And you have to touch their bare skin, so no touch spells targeting people in full plate. In fact, someone in full plate has total cover from any outside effect.

Second note: I find this idea absurd.
This, if a DM is going to insist on a silly ruling, as a player you should insist on that silly ruling being applied consistently across all areas that would apply under the same reasoning.
I really hate DM vs Player attitudes, but sometimes the quickest way to show someone how unfun it is for one side is to make it a pain in the backside for the other side also.
Talk first, of course always talk first, but if the ruling is put into action anyway, lean on it.

[Darth Credence]

Several effects deal damage to the person who touches the effect's originato, like the Remorhaz's Heated Body ability.

Do you rule that wearing gloves/armor negates that?

No, but touch spells do not say "physical contact". Heat metal is the only spell where I have seen those words used.


Have we really reached "Nuh-uh, my sword is touching you, not me!" as an argument?

Do you think that the point of gloves is not often to make it so you don't have to actually physically contact something while still being able to manipulate it?


This is definitely a fair question, and I think I understand the purpose of this thread better now. It seems like the answer to the title thread is found here:

So if you're wearing metal armor, even over padding, you'd still be in contact with it and thus affected by the spell. This would probably affect swords, too, but I'm less certain of other weapons, like an axe.


I fundamentally disagree with this. I absolutely think that physical contact means actually touching it. I have accepted, several times, that the spell says object, so touching any part of the 'object' such as the included padding counts as touching. But physical contact means actually physically touching something. Otherwise you have to start making rules on how much can be in the way and still be physical contact. If someone is leaning against a brick wall, and there is a metal plate attached on the opposite side, would heat metal affect the person leaning against the wall? If yes, what if the wall is the thickness of the Great Wall of China? If no, what if it is a millimeter thick?


Because adding the thin silk barrier is 'bringing real world physics into play'. Once you open that door, you can't argue when others follow you right through it. If you want to ignore all real world physics, then let's do so. From a purely literary perspective, physical contact does not necessarily mean direct physical contact. After all indirect physical contact is still physical contact. Adding anything between you and an object you are wearing does not, from the pure meaning of wording, mean you are not in physical contact with the object.

I did not bring it into play. I said why I hated the spell. I then said, ignoring that and looking at just the spell as written, I wonder if it should work because of the padding. And indirect physical contact is not physical contact - that modifier of 'indirect' changes it substantially.



Purely for the sake of clarity, I will explain what I meant by that. In 5e, spells that target objects often have a disclaimer of some kind saying what special rules apply to objects that are worn. Some spells allow a save, some spells simply can't target an object that is worn, some spells (like heat metal) don't have this disclaimer. The absence of that disclaimer is generally considered to mean that the spell can target worn objects, and is all I meant to convey with that remark. As to whether you can see an object that is painted, I'm going to just let you be you on that one. We are well past the point of reasonable debate now, you made up your mind about this trick long before anyone posted anything here.

And I will explain what I meant. The spell does not target "worn objects", it targets any object you can see, which includes worn objects. I absolutely agree that it can target a worn object - my quibble was with saying that it targets worn objects specifically.

I did not make up my mind beforehand. I, in fact, agreed with the general idea that the padding would not stop anything, when someone pointed out that the general idea in D&D is that the 'object' is every part of it, so the padding would still be touching the person.




I might have misinterpreted your remark then. Generally, blue text is used to denote intentional sarcasm on these forums because it is very hard to interpret tone in written form. It somewhat sounds like we were both agreeing that taking certain logic to an extreme leads to absurd results. In the future, colorizing satire is helpful to clarify intent.

I will attempt to use blue text in the future, but I would think it would be obvious when I said this:
"Wait, that leads to ridiculous outcomes when you completely ignore how things work in the real world? You don't say."


Note: if gloves stop physical contact, then you can't cast touch spells with gloves on. And you have to touch their bare skin, so no touch spells targeting people in full plate. In fact, someone in full plate has total cover from any outside effect.

Second note: I find this idea absurd.

Touch spells do not say that they have to have physical contact. The only place I have found that specific wording is in heat metal.


Personally, I disagree that "physical contact" is meant to suggest touching it with your bare body. It can mean that, but it doesn't definitively and univocally mean this. Rarely is language ever that precise, and the writers wouldn't intentionally use ambiguous prose if that was their intention. I believe you are in physical contact with the armor even if you have silk underwear beneath it, in the same way that when you hug someone you are in physical contact with them, even if both of you aren't naked, and there is no skin to skin contact. To argue against it would be needlessly pedantic, as well as simply incorrect.

It's fine if you don't accept this, but I don't think there is really any way to convince you otherwise. The spell clearly isn't written to suggest that a layer of clothing between armor and skin protects you from its effects. It's an unintuitive reading that inexplicably gives items with no listed stats or benefits, i.e. underwear, a huge buff.

I also have to say, I find it hard to believe that no part of the armor would be touching you unless you were exceedingly precise with how you designed the armor and layered your underwear. I'll admit I'm not intimately familiar with medieval armor; but a suit of plate is described as including both gauntlets and a visored helmet. Are you wearing silk underwear on your hands and head too?

Except that is what physical contact means. I really can't understand how this is an argument, but it appears that I am the only one on this side of it. As I said above - at what point does the thing blocking the physical contact become thick enough for you to decide that it isn't actually physical contact? If someone was at the top of a tall tower, and you did heat metal on the hinges of the door to the tower, does it damage the person at the top? There is an unbroken chain of contact from the heated metal to them. It has to stop somewhere, so where do you draw the line? Make a different call based on the real world properties of the things in between, or just say that the creature has to be in actual physical contact with the metal?

And yes, you do have a padded thing between your helm and head. And padded mittens or gloves under the gauntlets. But the point that I have come to is someone who is being exceedingly precise specifically to deal with this spell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But the point that I have come to is someone who is being exceedingly precise specifically to deal with this spell.

So basically you're being pedantic (well out of the norm) to shut down what you consider to be an overpowered spell. That's bad table dynamics in my book, because it's fundamentally dishonest. The real issue is that you don't like the spell's power. So fix that, don't be all super nit-picky (touch doesn't require touch? Really?) and hair-splitting.

I know that if a DM pulled this on me, I'd walk. Whereas if they just said "hey, heat metal is too strong. So here's what we're going to do--it doesn't affect armor", I'd be slightly annoyed but no big deal. It's a huge red flag for that they're not willing to consider the real issues at play and are trying to pull basically a snow job.

[ProsecutorGodot]

No, but touch spells do not say "physical contact". Heat metal is the only spell where I have seen those words used.
Well, heat metal isn't a touch spell... Do we need what "touching someone" means in the rulebook?


Do you think that the point of gloves is not often to make it so you don't have to actually physically contact something while still being able to manipulate it?
I think most people would say "I touch it with [X Object]" not "[X object] is touching it, not me"

[Darth Credence]

So basically you're being pedantic (well out of the norm) to shut down what you consider to be an overpowered spell. That's bad table dynamics in my book, because it's fundamentally dishonest. The real issue is that you don't like the spell's power. So fix that, don't be all super nit-picky (touch doesn't require touch? Really?) and hair-splitting.

I know that if a DM pulled this on me, I'd walk. Whereas if they just said "hey, heat metal is too strong. So here's what we're going to do--it doesn't affect armor", I'd be slightly annoyed but no big deal. It's a huge red flag for that they're not willing to consider the real issues at play and are trying to pull basically a snow job.

No, that is not what I am doing. For almost everyone, the spell works as written. I have one NPC that would find a method to foil the spell. At no point did I say that touch doesn't require touch. I said that heat metal is the spell with the words "physical contact" in it, so I think it means that it requires physical contact to work. By blocking the physical contact, they should block the spell from affecting them. My initial thought was that plate armor had this built in, I accepted the reasoning that it is all part of the "plate armor" object, and have gone to a different method.


Well, heat metal isn't a touch spell... Do we need what "touching someone" means in the rulebook?


I think most people would say "I touch it with [X Object]" not "[X object] is touching it, not me"

Sure, but I doubt most people would say that when they used tongs to pick something up, they were physically contacting the object. Because they aren't. Clearly some people would say that they are physically contacting the object when they pick it up with gloves, although I would hope they rethink that when someone says that they reached their gloved hand into the vat of acid to retrieve an object and realize that they did not actually have physical contact with the acid.

[Doug Lampert]

Personal opinion, Darth Credence is quite correct that if "physical contact" includes indirect contact, then that (potentially) opens a can of worms in terms of definitions. But it's not a problem for me. Attended objects in D&D land are DIFFERENT from unattended objects, there is magic in "having" something. If you have an attended object that is metal, then I'd rule that the metal is in physical contact with you for purposes of spells. Since the words physical contact are claimed to appear to be ONLY in the heat metal spell in the rules, this ruling has no knock on effects outside the spell.

But having made that ruling.... It does have very significant knock on effects for the spell: because, that means that heat metal works on almost anyone with clothing! Pre-modern buckles, buttons, hobnails on your footwear, eyelets for your lacings (and note that your sleeves are laced to your tunic at this time so being barefoot doesn't help), even fairly light leather armor historically could easily include a metal cap, whatever. You are in possession of SOMETHING made of metal that's not hidden in your purse, especially since it's explicit in my world that ordinary clothing includes a belt knife and that is an attended object, so you can heat it if you can heat other attended objects (which is the main point of the spell).

PCs are wearing fairly durable clothing, in a medievaloid tech that means they have metal in their clothing. Plus that belt knife, you are not eating dinner with your fighting dagger if you want to use it to actually, you know, fight sometimes.

So, the moment I rule that physical contact includes indirect contact, I'm falling into something effectively indistinguishable from "targets any character with gear". Nor does that really bother me. Heavy armor wearers don't need the extra disadvantage of a spell that ONLY works on them, and what do you know, there's actually no reason it should work only on them. If the spell is NOT too powerful when used on armor wearers, then letting it hit the casters too is perfectly fine and balanced too.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Sure, but I doubt most people would say that when they used tongs to pick something up, they were physically contacting the object. Because they aren't. Clearly some people would say that they are physically contacting the object when they pick it up with gloves, although I would hope they rethink that when someone says that they reached their gloved hand into the vat of acid to retrieve an object and realize that they did not actually have physical contact with the acid.

Alright I'm just gonna have to jump on the ship that's setting sail here. You didn't want to be convinced, you already know exactly what you want to do with heat metal and no matter how negative the reaction has been you won't hear it.

But I like giving things a final try, so I'll try to be concise:
Heat Metal treats a set of armor as a single contiguous object. Whatever padding you have on underneath is of no consequence, you are magically harmed. Physics do not apply, common sense does not apply. If we go over the game with a fine tooth comb of realism eventually you reach things that you must suspend your disbelief for or the entire game risks unravelling as you try to patch these holes.

These analogies are, in my opinion, thinly disguised distractions. I can't argue that someone wearing gloves should be harmed by acid (though depending on the kind of gloves or acid, I could make a case, we'll ignore that) because realistically that doesn't make sense. However Heat Metal doesn't have to be realistic, and I'm not going to let real life examples dictate how a magic spell works in a fictional world full of dragons that shouldn't realistically be able to fly.

As a final note, the definition of "physical contact" that you choose also influences how strictly you might rule, there is a legal definition that includes the use of devices or props and another that includes even indirect contact through clothing. I think plain English, rather than pedantry, would lead most to conclude that you are in physical contact with the heated metal even with padding you may have underneath.

Or to be even more concise: "I'm not touching the fire, my glove is" almost certainly still results in you getting burned.

[Greywander]

PCs are wearing fairly durable clothing, in a medievaloid tech that means they have metal in their clothing. Plus that belt knife, you are not eating dinner with your fighting dagger if you want to use it to actually, you know, fight sometimes.
(a) That belt knife is in a sheathe, right? As a general rule, I'd expect you to be able to cast Heat Metal on a weapon that is being wielded, even if you can't see the metal part of it (unless the wielder is specifically hiding the metal part), as long as you can see part of the weapon, but a weapon that is properly sheathed hides the metal part and isn't a valid target for Heat Metal. I realize this is somewhat inconsistent with regards to "do you need to see the metal part of it or not," I just don't think that's as significant from a mechanical standpoint as "is it being wielded or not?" I'm not sure how something like an axe just hanging off the belt should be treated.

(b) It's worth noting that studded leather isn't considered metal armor. Then again, who knows what the heck studded leather is supposed to be. Brigandines are definitely metal; in fact they're a type of plate cuirass. The leather or cloth isn't even meant to hide the plates, it's just there to give something for the plates to attach to (though hiding them is a secondary benefit). But studded leather should at least have the rivets that are presumably the "studs", and those are metal. And yet it isn't considered metal armor. This tells us that there's probably a minimum amount of metal you need. You probably could cast Heat Metal on something like a belt buckle, but it might not produce any effect (no damage or disadvantage to the wearer). Good for roleplay value, but of questionable tactical value.

To the OP, I suggested a couple of avenues to explore to counter Heat Metal, have you considered one of those? Armor made from dragon scales or ironwood isn't metal, and there are any number of ways you could leverage the concentration requirement against the caster, either by making them concentrate on something else or by breaking their concentration. Separating the caster with Heat Metal from the rest of the party might also be a valid strategy. You could even try to get them to exhaust their spell slots, either by throwing fodder at them or setting up puzzles that require spells to solve. Heat Metal is also only single target, so throwing hordes at them will make it ineffective.

[Darth Credence]

We can certainly stop here. I got the answer I needed - plate armor counts as one object in its entirety, so the padding underneath is irrelevant to the spell working. I'm going with that, having been convinced of it early on in the thread. I will not, however, ignore that the spell says physical contact, and therefore will allow for using something else to block physical contact to work. Everyone else can be convinced that this is wrong and attempting to use real world logic on magic, but as I see it as following the letter of the spell because magic, that is where I am going.

But to your final statement. I have gloves that allow me to handle burning hot things. I have picked up and rearranged hot coals in my smoker in order to get excess ash out of the way. I was certainly in contact with the coals for over a minute, and at no time did I get in any way burned. Welders use gloves every day to keep their hands from getting burned. In the same manner, I have worked in fire suits that have allowed me to interact with limestone being turned into cement for a short time without any effects. The statement that "I'm not touching fire, my glove is" is absolutely valid in the real world, as long as you have the right gloves. And most of those gloves are made of thick leather with an inner lining of cotton, so they are by no stretch out of the realm of possibility for the world. They can probably buy a set from the local blacksmith.

ETA: Greymander, I saw your list of counters, and they are certainly all worthwhile in terms of how people would deal with the issue. But I don't think they deal with the specific issue I am talking about. I have an NPC that attempts to be prepared for any problem. One of these problems would be heat metal. He could clearly get some non-metal armor, but metal armor is almost always better unless you get into exotic things that I have not planned for in my campaign. If he has dragon scale armor, there needs to be a reason for it, and I don't have one for this character. If there was nothing else, he would start to look into specialty armors, but he's the kind of guy that would hire someone to cast heat metal to determine what will and will not foil it.
If all I wanted to do was to have better strategies for everyone to deal with heat metal, then your list is great. But what I want is a unique to one person solution, and when I initially went through the rules, the physical contact requirement struck me as the best way. I had to change when I was convinced that the padding with the armor should not be separated to something else.

[Tanarii]

(b) It's worth noting that studded leather isn't considered metal armor. It isn't? I've heard some people say this before in Druid debates, but I've certainly always ruled it counts as metal armor for Druids, based on the description in the PHB:
Studded Leather. Made from tough but flexible leather, studded leather is reinforced with close-set rivets or spikes.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It isn't? I've heard some people say this before in Druid debates, but I've certainly always ruled it counts as metal armor for Druids, based on the description in the PHB:
Studded Leather. Made from tough but flexible leather, studded leather is reinforced with close-set rivets or spikes.

I suppose, since its non-specific, there's no reason the rivets or spikes need to be metal. The same could be said about Ring Mail actually, the word "metal" is noticeably absent. Every other medium or heavy set of armor is specific in whether it has metal in it.

[Tanarii]

I suppose, since its non-specific, there's no reason the rivets or spikes need to be metal. The same could be said about Ring Mail actually, the word "metal" is noticeably absent. Every other medium or heavy set of armor is specific in whether it has metal in it.As far as I know because of the way they work, rivets have to be metal. OTOH I'm hardly an expert on ancient riveting technology.

[BerzerkerUnit]

As far as layers of protection go I might allow blacksmith's gloves (specifically, not just any leather) to offer a round of protection from heat metal, basically long enough for them to drop something without taking damage. As for padding under armor, again, I might give them a round to run over and bop the caster to try and break concentration since the spell is otherwise a death sentence for a plate wearer.

That said, after a round, your wool padding is going to insulate well indeed, absorbing the heat, retaining it as it vaporizes the sweat it's absorbed and keeping it all right next to your skin, which will blister. Then you'll move and the scorched carbonizing wool touching the superheated metal will crumble and be mashed into your melting flesh. Assuming you survive the encounter, removing the padding will require removing large swaths of your skin presenting brutal infection opportunities. Normal healing magic wouldn't work to replace the skin, you'd need some manner of regeneration.

Altogether, if you look at some of the disease rules, Filth Fever, Slimy Doom, and Flesh Rot all seem like reasonable analogs for the kind of suffering you'd experience after an encounter that forces you to flense a wide area of skin without the ability to heal it quickly... I guess you could have level 2+ slots burned by a cleric every hour or so to Lesser Restoration any infection away, or try and keep a Paladin on Standby for emergencies...

OR, we can just assume it works as described, let it deal its fire damage as noted in the spell description, manage our peeves reasonably, and call it a day.

[ProsecutorGodot]

As far as I know because of the way they work, rivets have to be metal. OTOH I'm hardly an expert on ancient riveting technology.

I'm sure they probably were metal, spikes are the more likely "non-metal" alternative. Bone is a likely alternative, seems easy enough to explain it away with whatever huge beast has dense bones that make good armor being around.

[Mellack]

It seems inconsistent to me that the same spell that you allow to cook food when cast on a metal pot does nothing to a person inside a suit of armor if they are wearing silk undies. It should either transfer heat to all of the material inside such as when cooking, or not.

[Keltest]

As far as I know because of the way they work, rivets have to be metal. OTOH I'm hardly an expert on ancient riveting technology.

Its hard to say because studded leather is a bit of an anachronism to begin with. If you had leather and you had metal, there were better ways to combine the two than with rivets.

[Willie the Duck]

Its hard to say because studded leather is a bit of an anachronism to begin with. If you had leather and you had metal, there were better ways to combine the two than with rivets.

Called it (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24952448&postcount=51).
Anyways, yes studded leather is ahistoric, wouldn't actually be good armor, and undoubtedly exists in 5e strictly because it has been part of the game since 1e. I think PG is right that the 'spikes' interpretation is the one most likely to be non-metal. All in all, the 5e armor chart has so many problem spots for someone who cares about armor accuracy, that this doesn't even seem to me to be one of the bigger issues.

[xyianth]

I find it funny that we are on page 3 of this discussion and no one has linked a sage advice answer: link (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/06/08/heat-metal-i-have-a-cleric-that-has-been-using-it-to-add-to-his-damage-by-casting-it-on-his-weapon/)

If you assume that most weapons don't have metal handles, this kind of speaks directly to what constitutes heat metal's physical contact according to JC.

[DwarfFighter]

Is it also funny that the linked tweet is kinda irrelevant to the discussion? Related to the topic, true. But still irrelevant.

-DF

[StoneSeraph]

We can certainly stop here. I got the answer I needed - plate armor counts as one object in its entirety, so the padding underneath is irrelevant to the spell working. I'm going with that, having been convinced of it early on in the thread. I will not, however, ignore that the spell says physical contact, and therefore will allow for using something else to block physical contact to work. Everyone else can be convinced that this is wrong and attempting to use real world logic on magic, but as I see it as following the letter of the spell because magic, that is where I am going.

But to your final statement. I have gloves that allow me to handle burning hot things. I have picked up and rearranged hot coals in my smoker in order to get excess ash out of the way. I was certainly in contact with the coals for over a minute, and at no time did I get in any way burned. Welders use gloves every day to keep their hands from getting burned. In the same manner, I have worked in fire suits that have allowed me to interact with limestone being turned into cement for a short time without any effects. The statement that "I'm not touching fire, my glove is" is absolutely valid in the real world, as long as you have the right gloves. And most of those gloves are made of thick leather with an inner lining of cotton, so they are by no stretch out of the realm of possibility for the world. They can probably buy a set from the local blacksmith.

ETA: Greymander, I saw your list of counters, and they are certainly all worthwhile in terms of how people would deal with the issue. But I don't think they deal with the specific issue I am talking about. I have an NPC that attempts to be prepared for any problem. One of these problems would be heat metal. He could clearly get some non-metal armor, but metal armor is almost always better unless you get into exotic things that I have not planned for in my campaign. If he has dragon scale armor, there needs to be a reason for it, and I don't have one for this character. If there was nothing else, he would start to look into specialty armors, but he's the kind of guy that would hire someone to cast heat metal to determine what will and will not foil it.
If all I wanted to do was to have better strategies for everyone to deal with heat metal, then your list is great. But what I want is a unique to one person solution, and when I initially went through the rules, the physical contact requirement struck me as the best way. I had to change when I was convinced that the padding with the armor should not be separated to something else.

That still doesn't solve your impending conflict. You're going out of your way to target a player for a choice that you allowed them to make in the first place.

Forgive me if the following is incorrect, but when you say that you "will allow for using something else to block physical contact," you're not making that allowance for your players, but you're instead making that allowance for yourself to justify cheating the player.

[Captain Panda]

I will not, however, ignore that the spell says physical contact, and therefore will allow for using something else to block physical contact to work. Everyone else can be convinced that this is wrong and attempting to use real world logic on magic, but as I see it as following the letter of the spell because magic, that is where I am going.


This has nothing to do with realism. It has been pointed out often enough in this thread already, but your reading is just incorrect. Wearing wooly underpants or gloves is not intended to block the spell. If you try to argue that to your players, unless they're new, they're just going to get annoyed. No one is going to be convinced. That is true whether or not it's realistic.

Here's a short list of spells that are dramatically more powerful and frustrating to deal with at the table than heat metal:

Spike growth: No ranged attack? No flight? Congratulations, your monster just got bent over a barrel.
Suggestion: "I'm so much nicer than your boss, uwu, he never gives you vacation days. Come kill him wiff us pwease."
Phantasmal Force: More broken because of what a lot of guides falsely claim it can do than because of what it can actually do, but still.
Conjure Animals: Oh boy, this one causes so many DM tableflip moments.
Spirit Guardians: The best way to eliminate large swarms of low power mooks in the game.


You may want to view this as an opportunity to grow as a DM and deal with a slightly frustrating spell. The game has a lot of those, and more as the PCs progress in level. Arbitrarily nerfing them is not a recipe for happy players having fun at your table, and heat metal is far from an overpowered spell. It's a niche spell where it is highly effective against some targets and useless against most. Hell, after level five as a druid I don't think I've ever used it, because it just gets so thoroughly outclassed by other options and you can only concentrate on one thing.

Just exercise caution before throwing around the nerfbat or ban hammer, and exercise even more caution than that if you're going to house rule that spells don't work because of things that everyone else at the table is going to find questionable, at best.

[Doug Lampert]

(a) That belt knife is in a sheathe, right? As a general rule, I'd expect you to be able to cast Heat Metal on a weapon that is being wielded, even if you can't see the metal part of it (unless the wielder is specifically hiding the metal part), as long as you can see part of the weapon, but a weapon that is properly sheathed hides the metal part and isn't a valid target for Heat Metal. I realize this is somewhat inconsistent with regards to "do you need to see the metal part of it or not," I just don't think that's as significant from a mechanical standpoint as "is it being wielded or not?" I'm not sure how something like an axe just hanging off the belt should be treated.

Any sheathed knife I've ever seen, you can see metal. The end of the hilt, the guard, various other pieces. And if you have a belt to hang that axe on, you probably have a buckle for the belt.

If a guy has equipment in a medieval setting and has not gone to a LOT of trouble to avoid visible metal, it is quite nearly ABSURD to claim that you can't see any metal anywhere on him.

And we've established in this very discussion, that no one thinks ordinary clothing/insulation should protect you from heat metal. Hence, all characters with gear are vulnerable. And I can't see why anyone would object to caster types being as vulnerable to a spell as non-caster types.

[Darth Credence]

That still doesn't solve your impending conflict. You're going out of your way to target a player for a choice that you allowed them to make in the first place.

Forgive me if the following is incorrect, but when you say that you "will allow for using something else to block physical contact," you're not making that allowance for your players, but you're instead making that allowance for yourself to justify cheating the player.

OK, I guess we aren't done. Yes, the last statement was incorrect. About as incorrect as it is possible to be. If your reading of my previous comments is that I am setting out to screw over a specific player, or even players in general, then we have a fundamental miscommunication that I don't know how to solve.


This has nothing to do with realism. It has been pointed out often enough in this thread already, but your reading is just incorrect. Wearing wooly underpants or gloves is not intended to block the spell. If you try to argue that to your players, unless they're new, they're just going to get annoyed. No one is going to be convinced. That is true whether or not it's realistic.

Here's a short list of spells that are dramatically more powerful and frustrating to deal with at the table than heat metal:

Spike growth: No ranged attack? No flight? Congratulations, your monster just got bent over a barrel.
Suggestion: "I'm so much nicer than your boss, uwu, he never gives you vacation days. Come kill him wiff us pwease."
Phantasmal Force: More broken because of what a lot of guides falsely claim it can do than because of what it can actually do, but still.
Conjure Animals: Oh boy, this one causes so many DM tableflip moments.
Spirit Guardians: The best way to eliminate large swarms of low power mooks in the game.


You may want to view this as an opportunity to grow as a DM and deal with a slightly frustrating spell. The game has a lot of those, and more as the PCs progress in level. Arbitrarily nerfing them is not a recipe for happy players having fun at your table, and heat metal is far from an overpowered spell. It's a niche spell where it is highly effective against some targets and useless against most. Hell, after level five as a druid I don't think I've ever used it, because it just gets so thoroughly outclassed by other options and you can only concentrate on one thing.

Just exercise caution before throwing around the nerfbat or ban hammer, and exercise even more caution than that if you're going to house rule that spells don't work because of things that everyone else at the table is going to find questionable, at best.

Let me ask you a few questions. If someone is standing on dirt, but is inside a metal cylinder that comes within one millimeter of the person, and heat metal is cast on the cylinder - does the person take damage? Why or why not?
If someone is leaning against a brick wall of unknown thickness, and a metal plate is attached to the other side of the wall and heat metal is cast on the metal plate - does the person take damage? Why or why not?
Would bone armor, that many have said is a way to get around this, that has some gold inlays for decoration, be subject to the spell? Why or why not?

And thank you very much, but I absolutely know how to run those spells. You may note, based on every comment I have posted to this thread, that I am not actually nerfing or banning anything. I am, in fact, allowing the players to use the spell exactly as intended for everyone except one NPC who makes it his mission to find ways to nullify spells. Yes, I hate the spell. I think it is a ridiculously stupid spell. I don't think it is difficult to run, or difficult to deal with as a DM, and at no time did I say that I did. I reviewed the text, and the way I read it, it seemed that plate armor would be inherently protected. I accepted the logic that the plate armor is all one thing, and therefore magic makes it work. But the idea that there is no way to put a separate blocking barrier in place to prevent the damage is saying that it will work against someone leaning against a brick wall of indeterminate thickness. Doug Lampert came up with a reasonable explanation for how to rule whether something is touching enough, and it has the effect of making heat metal work on a lot more things, and I like that he came up with a viable solution. {Scrubbed}

[Gale]

This has nothing to do with realism. It has been pointed out often enough in this thread already, but your reading is just incorrect. Wearing wooly underpants or gloves is not intended to block the spell. If you try to argue that to your players, unless they're new, they're just going to get annoyed. No one is going to be convinced. That is true whether or not it's realistic.

I agree. It should be obvious enough by now that most people wouldn't agree that padding or cloth layered under your armor would protect you from the effects of heat metal. I can understand his perspective on the matter, even if I disagree, but it seems foolish to run with this ruling in your games when you know it's controversial. It may not start an argument, but it's hard for me not to imagine that the players won't feel cheated when they cast heat metal, find it doesn't work, then have you later explain to them that this character is exploiting a debatable technicality in the spell's description to avoid being affected by it.

That's not good Dungeon Mastering, in my opinion. The game and its world should be easily comprehensible to your players. They should never feel as if they've been tricked, or lawyered out of having their abilities work as expected. If you want to introduce a reason why a particular character is immune to heat metal then you should do so in a way that's agreeable to everyone at the table, even if it's not your preferred method. Having the armor be made of bone, dragon hide, or even bronzewood, would achieve a similar effect, while offering a clear and present explanation for why Heat Metal will not work against this opponent. (Bronzewood is typically only found in Eberron, but it wouldn't be unusual to introduce it or a substitute into your games.)

You could even give him a special suit of "Armor of Fire Resistance" that has the added benefit of being immune to the Heat Metal spell. No one is going to argue that his magical armor shouldn't protect him from the spell; and they get a nice reward when they defeat him. I would consider having his armor stand out in some way to indicate its fire resistant, maybe with some draconic symbols etched along it that explains its powers. That way players at least have an opportunity to identify that this enemy is immune to the spell, rather than being blindsided by it and feeling like they got cheated out of a spell slot.

[Segev]

If someone is standing on dirt, but is inside a metal cylinder that comes within one millimeter of the person, and heat metal is cast on the cylinder - does the person take damage?DM call, but likely! It's going to be based on whether the DM thinks the cylinder is sufficiently close to burn the guy inside it. I think it likely most DMs would say "yes."


If someone is leaning against a brick wall of unknown thickness, and a metal plate is attached to the other side of the wall and heat metal is cast on the metal plate - does the person take damage? Why or why not?Well, first off, the DM should know the thickness. But provided it's not a particularly thin wall, I suspect the DM will rule it does not, unless the wall itself is going to get superheated or even destroyed. This has as much to do with the narrative role of a "wall" as it does anything else, but the more specific you get about the wall, the more easily a judgment can be made. This is actually why Sanderson's Law works so well for creating magic systems.


Would bone armor, that many have said is a way to get around this, that has some gold inlays for decoration, be subject to the spell? Why or why not?Again a DM call. I'd probably rule "not" if the inlays are small and shallow enough. As a DM, I'd have to make a determination as to whether the inlays go all the way through and/or how deep they are, and how big they are. It would greatly depend on what I was picturing the armor to look like.

[StoneSeraph]

OK, I guess we aren't done. Yes, the last statement was incorrect. About as incorrect as it is possible to be. If your reading of my previous comments is that I am setting out to screw over a specific player, or even players in general, then we have a fundamental miscommunication that I don't know how to solve.

As you like. That said, if you can't solve it with a faceless mook like me, I sincerely wish you the best of luck in solving it with your players.

[Keltest]

If we're still playing the realism argument, I know from experience that metal heated to a glow will absolutely burn you through clothing not specifically constructed to protect from heat. It will, in fact, do so even without physical contact if you are standing within a couple of inches of it for a bit.


Source: the bald spots on my legs where I got burned by a blast furnace.

[Darth Credence]

DM call, but likely! It's going to be based on whether the DM thinks the cylinder is sufficiently close to burn the guy inside it. I think it likely most DMs would say "yes."

So your call as a DM is that one does not have to be in physical contact with something for a spell specifically requiring physical contact to work? And you think most DMs would agree with that call?


Well, first off, the DM should know the thickness. But provided it's not a particularly thin wall, I suspect the DM will rule it does not, unless the wall itself is going to get superheated or even destroyed. This has as much to do with the narrative role of a "wall" as it does anything else, but the more specific you get about the wall, the more easily a judgment can be made. This is actually why Sanderson's Law works so well for creating magic systems.

I note that this is not an answer. The reason the wall thickness was not specified is that we could have anything from a fraction of an inch to a mile thick, and if the answer changes at any point along that continuum, it means that at some point there is too much insulation. If that point can be reached, then it can be reached in other ways.


Again a DM call. I'd probably rule "not" if the inlays are small and shallow enough. As a DM, I'd have to make a determination as to whether the inlays go all the way through and/or how deep they are, and how big they are. It would greatly depend on what I was picturing the armor to look like.

So now we have one object, with metal, that there is something non-metal between it and the skin, and you would say that it can block the spell. This seems incredibly inconsistent if you are on the side that plate armor does not inherently protect since the padding is in between the metal and the person in the same way that the bone is in between the gold and the person.

I appreciate that you took a stab at answering the questions. They way you answered them makes me more confident that what I am doing is just fine, because if other DMs are all over the place with how they rule this spell, then my call is not outlandish.

[Willie the Duck]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

That the only thing you can conclude is that others are being disingenuous/are pretending something in their responses just indicates how far apart you are from most everyone else. Let me explain how this looks to me, and I think many others (and other people, correct me if I have your position wrong). This looks like someone coming up with a 'but officer, I'm clearly not parked illegally -- as you can see, it is my cars tires, not the car, that is on the pavement of the no-parking zone' argument. Others do not agree with this interpretation. The entire rest of the thread is the arguments thereof, so I will not redo them here-- but my point is that they disagree with the argument, not that they dislike the implications thereof and that's the real secret reason for their continued disagreement. People have pointed out that, in their mind, this isn't a compelling argument (within-analogy, the tires are clearly part of the car, at least for purposes of parking enforcement). When this is pointed out to you, you have responded with arguments which I will summarize as, 'but where does that end?' You clearly think that this is an argument in favor of your position. I don't think anyone else agrees. It might be an argument for a certain level of overall ambiguity, but that doesn't actually favor one or another interpretation, only that there is some ambiguity. Regardless, people are disagreeing with you due to disagreement on the merits of the argument, not some kind of sour grapes, or fear of the consequences of your position, if it be true (believe me, we are all well aware that the game rules could result in nonsensical results. three+ editions of nonsensical vision rules have primed us for that possibility).

[JoeJ]

So now we have one object, with metal, that there is something non-metal between it and the skin, and you would say that it can block the spell. This seems incredibly inconsistent if you are on the side that plate armor does not inherently protect since the padding is in between the metal and the person in the same way that the bone is in between the gold and the person.

Based on my reading of the spell, the thickness of any intervening material doesn't matter if the metal object is being worn or carried. It doesn't protect. If it's not being carried or worn, the DM has to decide, probably on a case-by-case basis, how much insulation is necessary to block contact.

[xyianth]

At this point, the OP has gotten the answers they sought. Neither the OP nor the rest of us are going to be swayed into changing our position on this topic. Let's just end it and be civil to each other. Ultimately, the OP and the players at their table will decide what works/doesn't work for them. We don't have to agree, but we should respect their choice to run their game as they see fit.

[Captain Panda]

This looks like someone coming up with a 'but officer, I'm clearly not parked illegally -- as you can see, it is my cars tires, not the car, that is on the pavement of the no-parking zone' argument.

A perfect summary of my thoughts on the argument.

[deljzc]

I would say the solution is not try to find loopholes in how the spell works, but rather just adjust the spell's power to correct any issues.

I agree that the spell is overpowered against a specific subset of targets (i.e. martials wearing metal armor). You are looking at 2d8 damage (guaranteed) for up to 10 rounds of combat when cast on any metal armor (there is no way to doff the armor in time to avoid damage for the full 10 rounds). Since the target can't "drop" the armor, it is looking at CON save (I assume against caster's spell level bonus) every turn or disadvantage on attacks/saves, which means if you fail early, each subsequent save attempt is made with disadvantage. Plus the caster can keep this up just with concentration and bonus action, allowing a SECOND damage spell to be added to the damage output starting in round 2. AND the spell can be upcast. 3d8 each round for level 3, 4d8 each round for level 4.....

Arguably, there is very little to counter this spell.

1. Break the concentration of the caster (but that only effects the damage AFTER round 1)
2. Move out of range (60') or out of sight of the caster (this might need more clarification, as the caster could ready a "move" to maintain distance and/or sight lines).
3. Do something to counter the effects (jump in water, have a spellcaster cast something to counter the heat, etc. - although these are all open to DM rulings)

The way the rules work, this spell is specifically a killer against metal armor. Casting it on a weapon is kind of pointless (as they can drop and/or change weapons). But there is no way to take off armor in RAW quickly enough to stop this damage during combat for the full duration of the spell (1 minute).

Hmmm.... I see the dilemma.

I think the spell needs nerfed a bit because it is TOO powerful in one specific situation. It kind of throws off all other options.

[Captain Panda]

AND the spell can be upcast. 3d8 each round for level 3, 4d8 each round for level 4.....


The munchkin in me screeches in rage and despair at the idea of wasting a 4th level slot on heat metal. Heat metal is a decent 2nd level spell. It's on the low end of okay as a 3rd level spell. As a 4th level spell it belongs in the trash can.


It kind of throws off all other options.

None of this is meant as a personal attack, but that idea is just so wrong it makes my brain ache.

No. No it does not. It deals a bit of damage to one target and imposes disadvantage. Why do people think this spell is so amazing? The target is probably still alive, it only works in limited conditions, it takes your concentration, and there are better options that don't have such specific requirements at 2nd level, let alone at 3rd and 4th. 2d8 is not damage that sets the world on fire. Are you going up against literally just one target who is undone by 2d8 fire damage? This just boggles my mind. People act like this spell is so wildly powerful that it needs nerfs. This spell is okay at best.

If you're a druid with 3rd level slots and you cast 3rd level heat metal instead of conjure animals, speaking purely in terms of optimization, you are just doing it wrong unless you are specifically against a target wearing metal, with ranged attacks or flight, that has immunity to nonmagical weapon attacks. If you have a target that can't fly and isn't immune to nonmagical attacks, summon some critters. If you're a wizard or bard, you have 3rd level slots that can end a fight against a group of targets, why would you waste your concentration doing piddling damage to just one?

And at 4th level, Jesus, this spell. 4d8, oh boy, 18 whole damage. That's almost like one sharpshooter shot from the fighter... not quite, but you know, almost. Or you could cast polymorph, greater invisibility, wall of fire, summon elementals who can each cast heat metal themselves...

Yeah, I don't get it.

[xyianth]

The munchkin in me screeches in rage and despair at the idea of wasting a 4th level slot on heat metal. Heat metal is a decent 2nd level spell. It's on the low end of okay as a 3rd level spell. As a 4th level spell it belongs in the trash can. snip Yeah, I don't get it.

I'm pretty sure the spell isn't normally considered overpowering when upcast or put in comparison to level 3+ spells. In fact, that may just be the best balancing move I've heard: simply elevate it to a 3rd level spell and be done. I know that personally, something like 75-80% of all my playtime has been within the level 1-4 range for characters. And during this period, 3rd-4th character level is when heat metal is just one of the best spells available. Not the best, but one of the best, and the usual interpretation makes it biased against martial characters; though I like the ideas mentioned in this thread about allowing it to work against casters that simply have bits of metal in their clothes solely as a way to make casters fear the spell too. In my games, I just ban the spell and be done with it, but that doesn't work for everyone.

[Segev]

So your call as a DM is that one does not have to be in physical contact with something for a spell specifically requiring physical contact to work? And you think most DMs would agree with that call?



I note that this is not an answer. The reason the wall thickness was not specified is that we could have anything from a fraction of an inch to a mile thick, and if the answer changes at any point along that continuum, it means that at some point there is too much insulation. If that point can be reached, then it can be reached in other ways.



So now we have one object, with metal, that there is something non-metal between it and the skin, and you would say that it can block the spell. This seems incredibly inconsistent if you are on the side that plate armor does not inherently protect since the padding is in between the metal and the person in the same way that the bone is in between the gold and the person.

I appreciate that you took a stab at answering the questions. They way you answered them makes me more confident that what I am doing is just fine, because if other DMs are all over the place with how they rule this spell, then my call is not outlandish.

I actually am being consistent. Not "all over the place." 5e is all about "rulings, not rules" and you gave we cases where I gave my judgment and reasoning on where I would probably draw the various lines.

If you're having a character in metal armor, insulation doesn't prect him any more than a millimeter of air. Bone armor is not metal armor. The metal inlays may or may not be significant enough to change it to "metal armor." That is where the judgment call comes in: how much metal is there and does it come close enough to the wearer to count?

If you're saying normal armor underlayers are enough insulation to count, one wonders why the spell even bothers listing metal armor as a worn target of the spell that can do damage. If you want this character immune to it, either give him non metal armor or make the undergarment somehow special, a prize worth having for its immunity to heat and perhaps its comfort-granting properties.

[JoeJ]

If you're a druid with 3rd level slots and you cast 3rd level heat metal instead of conjure animals, speaking purely in terms of optimization, you are just doing it wrong unless you are specifically against a target wearing metal, with ranged attacks or flight, that has immunity to nonmagical weapon attacks. If you have a target that can't fly and isn't immune to nonmagical attacks, summon some critters. If you're a wizard or bard, you have 3rd level slots that can end a fight against a group of targets, why would you waste your concentration doing piddling damage to just one?

Heat Metal gives more predictable results. If you're not good at thinking on your feet, deciding how to best use whatever animals show up can be a significant challenge.

[Greywander]

I think part of the issue here is that some people are arguing from a simulationist standpoint (e.g. how much insulation is enough), while others are arguing from a gamist standpoint (e.g. insulation is irrelevant if the metal object is being worn or carried). Normally I lean toward the simulationist side, but perhaps because Heat Metal is such a headache when treated that way and raises so many unanswered questions, I think it's better to use a gamist interpretation first and find a simulationist justification for why it works that way after the fact.

Something interesting I noticed is the use of the phrasing, "If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes damage from it". This implies that it is possible to be holding or wearing an object with Heat Metal cast on it without taking damage from it, but gives no indication of what methods could be used to prevent the damage. I also have to retract what I said earlier, because it seems fire immunity would indeed prevent you from rolling with disadvantage. Perhaps fire immunity is the only way to prevent damage, but it simply doesn't say.

Personally, here's how I'd rule on a couple of the questions that have been raised:

A held weapon or worn armor will cause damage, period; no amount of padding or insulation will help. Similarly, touching an object even with gloves on will still hurt you.
A custom magic item designed to specifically counter Heat Metal (and likely similar mundane effects) could be worn under your armor to protect you. This is an exception to the previous ruling above.
If another object, such as a thin wall, is between you and the metal object, you take no damage since the wall and the metal object are different objects and you're only touching the wall. However, subject to DM fiat in edge cases, e.g. if the "wall" is just a sheet of thin cloth.
An object is primarily composed of a single material. Studded leather is leather and thus not metal, even if it includes metal parts. An axe is metal, even if the handle is wood.
As an extension of the above, most clothing is not metal, even if it includes metal buttons, buckles, or other parts. Clothing is also usually considered a single object.
Magic rings would be valid targets, because they are a distinct item from "clothing" and are made of metal. Gloves worn over the rings will prevent them from being targeted as they can no longer be seen.
Heat Metal may work differently depending on if you're in combat or not. For example, you could cast it on someone's belt buckle, and they might react as if they have been burned, but will take no actual damage. Heat Metal used outside of the specific rules won't confer the combat benefits but could be used for roleplay or puzzle-solving.

I realize this won't line up with everyone's interpretation of the spell. I think it's better to have simple and clear rules about how it works, otherwise you'd need an entire book just to document every possible niche case and how to handle it. It's magic, so it doesn't need to be "realistic", and the rules of the game don't always line up with the simulated fantasy world.

As for a custom magic item, it would need to specifically say that it blocks Heat Metal. Something like a Fireproof Cloth shaped into clothing and worn under your armor or sewn into your gloves. In addition to countering Heat Metal, it would generally allow you to touch really hot objects without hurting yourself, and might also adapt you to hot climates. However, if you go swimming in lava or take a dragon's fire breath, it wouldn't help you. This sounds like it might be a common or uncommon magic item, and probably doesn't require attunement. Or you could have it grant fire resistance and bump it up in rarity and/or require attunement.

Edit:
Something else I noticed is that there's no size restriction on the metal object. Something like the Death Star is a single object made of worked metal, and would qualify as a valid target.

[Zhorn]

Something interesting I noticed is the use of the phrasing, "If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes damage from it". This implies that it is possible to be holding or wearing an object with Heat Metal cast on it without taking damage from it, but gives no indication of what methods could be used to prevent the damage. I also have to retract what I said earlier, because it seems fire immunity would indeed prevent you from rolling with disadvantage. Perhaps fire immunity is the only way to prevent damage, but it simply doesn't say.
Overthinking it
It's in the spell text


Heat Metal
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.
It is possible for a caster to continue to hold concentration on the spell, and choose to NOT use their bonus action on inflicting damage, thus allowing a creature to hold/wear the targeted object while not taking subsequent damage beyond the initial casting.

[JoeJ]

Overthinking it
It's in the spell text


It is possible for a caster to continue to hold concentration on the spell, and choose to NOT use their bonus action on inflicting damage, thus allowing a creature to hold/wear the targeted object while not taking subsequent damage beyond the initial casting.

Yep. And also, the damage is specifically of the fire type, so immunity to fire damage will prevent it.

[micahaphone]

Something else I noticed is that there's no size restriction on the metal object. Something like the Death Star is a single object made of worked metal, and would qualify as a valid target.


Now you just need to get the caster within 60 feet of the hull and a space suit so they can step outside of a cockpit to cast. Because thick gloves (that you're proficient in) don't impede casting, but a thick pane of glass would.

[Greywander]

Overthinking it
It's in the spell text

It is possible for a caster to continue to hold concentration on the spell, and choose to NOT use their bonus action on inflicting damage, thus allowing a creature to hold/wear the targeted object while not taking subsequent damage beyond the initial casting.
Whoops, you're right, I forgot about that.


Yep. And also, the damage is specifically of the fire type, so immunity to fire damage will prevent it.
Yes, this is interesting because it's not very common. Most damage spells with a rider effect don't care if the target is immune to the damage dealt, the rider takes effect regardless. For example, Ray of Frost will still slow down creatures immune to cold damage.

[rel]

But ignoring that, and just going by the spell. It states that anyone in physical contact with the metal takes damage. Someone in plate armor is not in physical contact with the armor. The armor is touching the padding between the armor and the person, and the person is touching the padding. Wool is a very good insulator, and is probably what the padding is made of. So since the armor is not in contact with the person, heat metal really shouldn't do anything if it is done to the armor, right? For that matter, if someone is wearing gloves (let's say leather) then the weapon being heated probably shouldn't matter. I have personally picked up red hot coals from a bbq and moved them around with leather gloves, so I know that they do protect for a reasonable amount of time.

It seems that heat metal on someone's armor or weapon would be better for stopping others from grappling them or make the weapon do more damage, rather than be offensively used against others.

This probably isn't the intention of the spell but it isn't necessarily an unreasonable ruling.

Whether it is reasonable or not depends on whether you habitually ignore the rules in favor of making rulings that make sense or generally follow the rules in favor of consistency.

Would a creature subjected to an enlarge effect fall through a weak floor? Would the PC's have any trouble taking their 10 foot pole up a spiral staircase?
would the PC with the over stuffed backpack have to roll to find items that are stored somewhere inside?
If a creature falls of a ledge do they risk breaking fragile items like potions?
Can the fighter ready an action to stab the giant in the hand when it goes to punch her from well outside her reach?
can the wizard keep out of reach of a shambling zombie by running benny hill style around a barrel?
can you grab hold of a spirit weapon to stop it from stabbing you?

If these examples or similar situations are likely to come up in your game then the heat metal ruling is fine, expected even.

If everything has been strictly RaW up to this point and your first and only change is to the spell heat metal then it doesn't seem so reasonable. Seems like personal gripe with the spell rather than an ongoing quest for verisimilitude.

[Bardon]

OK, I guess we aren't done. Yes, the last statement was incorrect. About as incorrect as it is possible to be. If your reading of my previous comments is that I am setting out to screw over a specific player, or even players in general, then we have a fundamental miscommunication that I don't know how to solve.



Let me ask you a few questions. If someone is standing on dirt, but is inside a metal cylinder that comes within one millimeter of the person, and heat metal is cast on the cylinder - does the person take damage? Why or why not?
If someone is leaning against a brick wall of unknown thickness, and a metal plate is attached to the other side of the wall and heat metal is cast on the metal plate - does the person take damage? Why or why not?
Would bone armor, that many have said is a way to get around this, that has some gold inlays for decoration, be subject to the spell? Why or why not?

And thank you very much, but I absolutely know how to run those spells. You may note, based on every comment I have posted to this thread, that I am not actually nerfing or banning anything. I am, in fact, allowing the players to use the spell exactly as intended for everyone except one NPC who makes it his mission to find ways to nullify spells. Yes, I hate the spell. I think it is a ridiculously stupid spell. I don't think it is difficult to run, or difficult to deal with as a DM, and at no time did I say that I did. I reviewed the text, and the way I read it, it seemed that plate armor would be inherently protected. I accepted the logic that the plate armor is all one thing, and therefore magic makes it work. But the idea that there is no way to put a separate blocking barrier in place to prevent the damage is saying that it will work against someone leaning against a brick wall of indeterminate thickness. Doug Lampert came up with a reasonable explanation for how to rule whether something is touching enough, and it has the effect of making heat metal work on a lot more things, and I like that he came up with a viable solution. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I think the bolded section states the main issue here. You're trying to find a way to invalidate a player's specific action against your special NPC. So the rules apply to everyone but that NPC. Dude, you're wasting so much time on this when you could just give him an upgraded potion of fire resistance or the like. It satisfies your requirement that this NPC can't be damaged by Heat Metal but it's a one-off so the players can't get their hands on it or use the same technique. It also gives them an RP hook to find out where he got that cool potion and which genius alchemist brewed it up...

[DwarfFighter]

I am, in fact, allowing the players to use the spell exactly as intended for everyone except one NPC who makes it his mission to find ways to nullify spells.

I think you are getting an unnecessary amount of pushback on this, mostly because "makes-sense" defenses against the spell are completely at odds with the effects it is supposed to have: Making stuff so hot they damage the intended victim. As you've pointed out, people generally don't make skin-contact with the metal material of objects they hold and wear. Metal is cold and uncomfortable, padding and wrapping negates that discomfort, and makes "contact" a bit blurry - it's not skin contact, but it's also not mere proximity, so...

So there isn't really any way for that NPC to achieve his goal of Heat Metal immunity if he limits himself only to mundane and sensible countermeasures, because the spell specifically ignores that doesn't work at all if you make allowances for them. As the GM, however, you can have the PC go beyond the mundane into the exotic:

Your NPC can have developed bespoke padding made out of exotic materials, e.g. the fur of an ice wolf, or the beard of a salamander, that allows him to specifically ignore the effects of Heat Metal or renders him immune to fire damage in general. Or he has magical tattoos or a pact of protection with a demon. As the GM you're not limited to the tools in the player's toolbox, and this might be one of those times you will want to get creative.

You can even be a bit lazy and simply state that he is immune without giving any reason to the PCs - after all, how would they know? Of course, this would go over with the players a bit better if there were any hints that this NPC might have certain countermeasures in play, and if they had a chance to learn a bit about what to expect before a confrontation, or pick up some sort of explanation later.

-DF

[Valmark]

That the only thing you can conclude is that others are being disingenuous/are pretending something in their responses just indicates how far apart you are from most everyone else. Let me explain how this looks to me, and I think many others (and other people, correct me if I have your position wrong). This looks like someone coming up with a 'but officer, I'm clearly not parked illegally -- as you can see, it is my cars tires, not the car, that is on the pavement of the no-parking zone' argument. Others do not agree with this interpretation. The entire rest of the thread is the arguments thereof, so I will not redo them here-- but my point is that they disagree with the argument, not that they dislike the implications thereof and that's the real secret reason for their continued disagreement. People have pointed out that, in their mind, this isn't a compelling argument (within-analogy, the tires are clearly part of the car, at least for purposes of parking enforcement). When this is pointed out to you, you have responded with arguments which I will summarize as, 'but where does that end?' You clearly think that this is an argument in favor of your position. I don't think anyone else agrees. It might be an argument for a certain level of overall ambiguity, but that doesn't actually favor one or another interpretation, only that there is some ambiguity. Regardless, people are disagreeing with you due to disagreement on the merits of the argument, not some kind of sour grapes, or fear of the consequences of your position, if it be true (believe me, we are all well aware that the game rules could result in nonsensical results. three+ editions of nonsensical vision rules have primed us for that possibility).

Pretty much all this.

[Droppeddead]

Again - I have not nerfed it, and I don't intend to do so.

Well, you do. By saying that you can negate the damage simply by wrapping a thin piece of leather around a metal object that is glowing "red-hot". The heat would, both magically and physically, be enough to damage anyone holding that object.


Cover the armor so it cannot be seen, therefore it cannot be a target of the spell. Or paint it, such that the paint completely covers all of the metal. These seem to be clearly within RAW, but I'm sure it would be hated by anyone who uses the spell.

Uhm, no. That is not have anything works. Things don't turn invisible just because you paint them. That's a rather silly notion, isn't it? Not to mention that it wasn't that unusual that armour was painted and covered in cloth. By the same weird logic you would be unable to target a mummy completely wrapped in bandages with certain spells because you can't "see" them and a casters bare skin has to touch the bare skin of the target for touch spells (which would be really awesome for people in plate armour). Naturally, logic and common sense dictates that this isn't the case.


A tangent: What about armor that isn't metal? Imagine a culture using bone, glass, or ceramics as material instead of metals. The PCs encounter an enemy with a ceramic breastplate. It is medium armor, so it fits the example in the text of the spell. But it isn't made of metal so it doesn't fit the theme of the spell. What should win here? RAW or RAI?

RAW is that it has to be metal armour so that's the easy answer. :) I can definitely see certain cultures using bone armour, for example. :)


Keep in mind that physical contact doesn't mean direct- I'm still touching something even if I do it through gloves, for example. Like others have said if that's all it took to defeat Heat Metal it probably wouldn't be a threat to anybody.

Yeah, this. Touch spells would be worthless in colder climates if this wasn't the case. And people could be pretty much immune to certain types of magic just by wearing clothes that covers up your whole body.



But having made that ruling.... It does have very significant knock on effects for the spell: because, that means that heat metal works on almost anyone with clothing! Pre-modern buckles, buttons, hobnails on your footwear, eyelets for your lacings (and note that your sleeves are laced to your tunic at this time so being barefoot doesn't help), even fairly light leather armor historically could easily include a metal cap, whatever. You are in possession of SOMETHING made of metal that's not hidden in your purse, especially since it's explicit in my world that ordinary clothing includes a belt knife and that is an attended object, so you can heat it if you can heat other attended objects (which is the main point of the spell).

PCs are wearing fairly durable clothing, in a medievaloid tech that means they have metal in their clothing. Plus that belt knife, you are not eating dinner with your fighting dagger if you want to use it to actually, you know, fight sometimes.

The medievalist in me is just going to point out that metal eyelets is a very modern invention and that metal buttons and hobnails were quite uncommon. Buttons were often made from fabric. When buttons (and buckles, btw) were made of metal it was often pewter which means that you can't have it glow "red-hot" as per the spell. Lacing sleeves to your tunic is a ren faire make-belief and per the rules leather armour does not include a metal cap. In short, there wasn't really that much metal in clothes. I do like the inclusion of a free belt knife in the basic clothing kit, though. :)

[GloatingSwine]

Well, you do. By saying that you can negate the damage simply by wrapping a thin piece of leather around a metal object that is glowing "red-hot". The heat would, both magically and physically, be enough to damage anyone holding that object.

Ah, but the object isn't "glowing red hot" in the way it would be in the real world.

If your hand was even 1mm away from the object but not touching it, you would take no damage from it at all, because the spell requires you to be in physical contact with the object.

If the property "in physical contact" is transitive though (ie being in physical contact with a thing which is in physical contact with the object counts as being in physical contact with the object so touching it with glove causes you to still take damage) with no upper limit (none is stated in the spell) then Heat Metal is actually an armageddon class spell because as soon as anyone anywhere in the world casts it then all not-currently flying creatures in the world take 2D8 fire damage. Because they are all in contact with an object which has had Heat Metal cast on it via transitive contact through the ground.

So in order for the spell not to be a nonsense, there must be some level of intermediate matter which causes the spell to not cause damage.

[Segev]

Ah, but the object isn't "glowing red hot" in the way it would be in the real world.

If your hand was even 1mm away from the object but not touching it, you would take no damage from it at all, because the spell requires you to be in physical contact with the object.

If the property "in physical contact" is transitive though (ie being in physical contact with a thing which is in physical contact with the object counts as being in physical contact with the object so touching it with glove causes you to still take damage) with no upper limit (none is stated in the spell) then Heat Metal is actually an armageddon class spell because as soon as anyone anywhere in the world casts it then all not-currently flying creatures in the world take 2D8 fire damage. Because they are all in contact with an object which has had Heat Metal cast on it via transitive contact through the ground.

So in order for the spell not to be a nonsense, there must be some level of intermediate matter which causes the spell to not cause damage.

The argument about being 1 mm away not counting as touching it and therefore doing no damage is disregarding the spirit and principles even of 3.5, let alone 5e. "Touching" is very obviously shorthand because trying to define a 1/rn-based equation for damage based on distance r is not fun for a game. This is especially so in 5e where "rulings, not rules" is the guiding philosophy. "Is this close enough to count as touching?" not only is something left to the DM to adjudicate, but is reasonable to expect to change based on all sorts of factors that contribute to what the DM thinks is realistic, fun, and narratively satisfying.

Focusing on precise wording as if it proves a seemingly ridiculous effect is supposedly obviously intended because "magic" is the wrong way to view any 5e mechanic. There are atoll ways to get to similar conclusions (AoEs stop where they say they do for balance reasons, for instance), but the reasons are not based on milimeter-precise measurements and "magic" so much as a certain amount of precision in the simulation being lost in the name of a game that doesn't become hours of math for every single fireball.

[Droppeddead]

Ah, but the object isn't "glowing red hot" in the way it would be in the real world.

So where in the PHB can I read about how things glowing red hot differ from the real world? Page and paragraph, please.


If your hand was even 1mm away from the object but not touching it, you would take no damage from it at all, because the spell requires you to be in physical contact with the object.

Sure, but if I'm wearing a glove and touch the object I am still touching it.


If the property "in physical contact" is transitive though (ie being in physical contact with a thing which is in physical contact with the object counts as being in physical contact with the object so touching it with glove causes you to still take damage) with no upper limit (none is stated in the spell) then Heat Metal is actually an armageddon class spell because as soon as anyone anywhere in the world casts it then all not-currently flying creatures in the world take 2D8 fire damage. Because they are all in contact with an object which has had Heat Metal cast on it via transitive contact through the ground.

Don't be silly, there is nothing in any statement that suggests that. That is botha non sequitur and a strawman argument. Especially since air is also matter that is in touch with something. And even with your, frankly, ridiculously exagerated interpretation of the word, there is still a range limitation on the spell.


So in order for the spell not to be a nonsense, there must be some level of intermediate matter which causes the spell to not cause damage.

The common sense limitation is quite obvious in this case. If you're holding it, you're touching it. If you're wearing it, you're touching it. There. Problem solved. B)

[Democratus]

So where in the PHB can I read about how things glowing red hot differ from the real world? Page and paragraph, please.

Paragraph 1, Page 5.

This is a game about a world of make-believe and fantasy. Everything in it is fantasy, and the rules for how things behave are specified within the rules.

I agree with everything else you wrote in that post. But I did have to take exception that one must assume real-world physics apply anywhere in D&D. :smallsmile:

[GloatingSwine]

So where in the PHB can I read about how things glowing red hot differ from the real world? Page and paragraph, please.

You don't need the PHB, it's right there in the spell wording. This is a glowing red hot object that has no effect unless you are in physical contact with it at which point it causes a level of damage instantly fatal to normal humans.


Sure, but if I'm wearing a glove and touch the object I am still touching it.

But it is possible for you to be wearing a glove sufficiently thick that, although "touching" the object your actual hand is further away from it than it would be if you were holding your unprotected hand near it. In the former case you would take damage, in the latter case you would not.


Don't be silly, there is nothing in any statement that suggests that. That is botha non sequitur and a strawman argument. Especially since air is also matter that is in touch with something. And even with your, frankly, ridiculously exagerated interpretation of the word, there is still a range limitation on the spell.

So are you still touching the item if you wear two gloves on the same hand? Three? Four? How many interposing objects between you and the item count as still "touching" it? If it's infinite then surely anything you are touching is also touching the item and anything touching them is also touching it. Why does the transitive property of you "touching" the item transfer through some interposing objects but not others?

This is a deliberate argumentam ad absurdam to show that the spell is, in fact, not actually well explained or designed because it can produce silly results almost no matter what ruling you make about how it works.

[Keltest]

You don't need the PHB, it's right there in the spell wording. This is a glowing red hot object that has no effect unless you are in physical contact with it at which point it causes a level of damage instantly fatal to normal humans.



But it is possible for you to be wearing a glove sufficiently thick that, although "touching" the object your actual hand is further away from it than it would be if you were holding your unprotected hand near it. In the former case you would take damage, in the latter case you would not.



So are you still touching the item if you wear two gloves on the same hand? Three? Four? How many interposing objects between you and the item count as still "touching" it? If it's infinite then surely anything you are touching is also touching the item and anything touching them is also touching it. Why does the transitive property of you "touching" the item transfer through some interposing objects but not others?

This is a deliberate argumentam ad absurdam to show that the spell is, in fact, not actually well explained or designed because it can produce silly results almost no matter what ruling you make about how it works.

I dont think "Im being silly on purpose, therefore the spell is badly worded" is as strong an argument as you think it is.

[GloatingSwine]

I dont think "im trying to produce a silly argument on purpose that i know is silly on the face of it to show that the spell is badly worded" is as strong an argument as you think it is.

Argumentam ad absurdam is a well established tool. Pushing the limits of a concept to see whether and where it breaks down.

[Unoriginal]

Just wanted to say:

If you want to have a bad guy look awesome by figuring out a counter for spells, why not just have them wear an armor not made of metal?

You could use any substance from diamondwood to Grell alchemical plastic.

[Keltest]

Argumentam ad absurdam is a well established tool. Pushing the limits of a concept to see whether and where it breaks down.

Im not aware that reducto ad absurdum is particularly respected as a way to prove a point due to the inherent absurdity. Youre just asking a stupid question and complaining when you get a stupid answer (or playing a stupid game and complaining about the stupid prize, if you prefer).

[Amnestic]

But it is possible for you to be wearing a glove sufficiently thick that, although "touching" the object your actual hand is further away from it

Not according to the rules, no, you can't. If your DM wants to allow you to do so then that's their prerogative, though I'd assume double gloving would impose some sort of penalty because it would make using your weapon a great deal more difficult.

[StoneSeraph]

If you want to have a bad guy look awesome by figuring out a counter for spells, why not just have them wear an armor not made of metal?


Pssh, sure, that's the obvious way out. My bad guy is so unique and special, he wears DM Plot Armor.

[Segev]

Argumentam ad absurdam is a well established tool. Pushing the limits of a concept to see whether and where it breaks down.


Im not aware that reducto ad absurdum is particularly respected as a way to prove a point due to the inherent absurdity. Youre just asking a stupid question and complaining when you get a stupid answer (or playing a stupid game and complaining about the stupid prize, if you prefer).

Argument ad absurdum is useful when you can demonstrate that an argument LEADS to absurdity, and therefore should not be trusted.

However, what we actually have here is the question of the heap: add a poker chip to another poker chip haphazardly. Is that a heap? What if you add a third? A fourth? How many chips until it's a heap? What's the exact number?

How about repeating the process with rice?

The reason this argument about "layers of gloves" doesn't work is because there is a fuzzy line that cannot be exactly defined by a precise number of layers where you're no longer wearing a glove so much as have a strangely-shaped shield. The DM will be the one to make the determination as to what is "enough" to constitute you no longer touching things.

[rel]

So are you still touching the item if you wear two gloves on the same hand? Three? Four? How many interposing objects between you and the item count as still "touching" it?

This sort of magic makes most sense if you go with what feels right; What an average person would expect to happen, their off the cuff answer given with no more than a seconds thought. They see Gandalf heat Aragorns sword red hot, Aragorn drops it and in the moment, it makes sense.

With that in mind, my ruling (assuming the game I was running was one in which spells and other effects were expected to be variable and ruled upon, see my previous post) would be:

tongs are fine, you take no damage.

really heavy protective gloves, the kind you can't even fight in (or bundled cloth or layered gloves) would grant resistance.

regular gloves, the wooden grip of your sword or the callouses on your hands from your chef background are not very helpful maybe 1 damage off if I like your argument.

[LudicSavant]

Im not aware that reducto ad absurdum is particularly respected as a way to prove a point due to the inherent absurdity.

Well then, time to be made aware! The "inherent absurdity" is not a flaw in the reductio ad absurdum argument, it is the point.



Reductio Ad Absurdum: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments that use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.


Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards.

Note, however, that it is possible to use reductio ad absurdum incorrectly, such as the Appeal to Extremes example given here. But this does not diminish the validity of correct usage.


Appeal to Extremes: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes. Note that this is not a valid reductio ad absurdum.

Note that I have not read the preceding arguments in this thread and thus am a neutral party who does not know whether reductio ad absurdum has been used correctly in this thread or not. I just wanted to point out that reductio ad absurdum is a kind of valid argument because I am a compulsive math and logic nerd. https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png

Relevant links:
Reductio Ad Absurdum (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Reductio-ad-Absurdum) (plus a second source (https://iep.utm.edu/reductio") that goes into further detail)
Appeal to Extremes (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Extremes)

[Imbalance]

Side curiosity: what are the rules regarding gloves, and where can I find them?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Side curiosity: what are the rules regarding gloves, and where can I find them?

There are none unless they're magic items. Or non-magic helmets. Or non-magical boots. That's all well below the abstraction level of the game. Like everything this thread has dealt with.

At least that I know of.

[Imbalance]

There are none unless they're magic items. Or non-magic helmets. Or non-magical boots. That's all well below the abstraction level of the game. Like everything this thread has dealt with.

At least that I know of.

Sooooo, is the assertion that wearing gloves offers any protection whatsoever a RAI assumption or "plain English" interpretation?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sooooo, is the assertion that wearing gloves offers any protection whatsoever a RAI assumption or "plain English" interpretation?

It's entirely a "realism" interpretation, mingled with some (as far as I can tell) very nit-picky parsing.

But I'll admit to my biases.

[Nifft]

Pssh, sure, that's the obvious way out. My bad guy is so unique and special, he wears DM Plot Armor.

Sufficiently spiky or skull-adorned plot armor should count as "metal".

[Unoriginal]

Sufficiently spiky or skull-adorned plot armor should count as "metal".


Heat Metal can be used to improve CHA (Performance) checks, provided it is the appropriate music genre.

[Segev]

Heat Metal can be used to improve CHA (Performance) checks, provided it is the appropriate music genre.

Does heating the metal also make it heavy, in this case? :smallbiggrin:

[Zhorn]

Does heating the metal also make it heavy, in this case? :smallbiggrin:

Considering the spell text specifies it causes the object to "glow red-hot", one could argue it would be light instead :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

Does heating the metal also make it heavy, in this case? :smallbiggrin:

Well it makes the metal incandescent, so it can be said it's gleam metal.

[Droppeddead]

Paragraph 1, Page 5.

This is a game about a world of make-believe and fantasy. Everything in it is fantasy, and the rules for how things behave are specified within the rules.

I agree with everything else you wrote in that post. But I did have to take exception that one must assume real-world physics apply anywhere in D&D. :smallsmile:

Except that I'm not assuming real-world physics per se and the quoted paragraph doesn't say that you have to make up how everything in the fantasy world works. Or are you arguing that water isn't wet in D&D land? ;)


Argumentam ad absurdam is a well established tool. Pushing the limits of a concept to see whether and where it breaks down.

Sure. But in this case it more of an appeal to extremes by the way of a strawman. No-one is arguing what you claim that people are arguing. But to answer the (again strawman argument) of "isn't the everything touching everything" then the simple answer would be no. If it feels weird that two things are touching then they aren't. Simple as that. ;)

[Democratus]

Except that I'm not assuming real-world physics per se and the quoted paragraph doesn't say that you have to make up how everything in the fantasy world works. Or are you arguing that water isn't wet in D&D land? ;)


Water is definitely not wet in D&D land.


Component pouches work just fine when underwater.
Spells with verbal components are entirely unaffected underwater.
There are no rules for backpacks filling with water while submerged and being very heavy when exiting the water.
No rules for any affect on your clothing, scrolls, documents, powders, etc.


What water does is give you disadvantage with most melee attacks and stop ranged attacks from working. That's pretty much it. :smallsmile:

[Droppeddead]

Water is definitely not wet in D&D land.


Component pouches work just fine when underwater.
Spells with verbal components are entirely unaffected underwater.
There are no rules for backpacks filling with water while submerged and being very heavy when exiting the water.
No rules for any affect on your clothing, scrolls, documents, powders, etc.


What water does is give you disadvantage with most melee attacks and stop ranged attacks from working. That's pretty much it. :smallsmile:

Nothing of what you said has anything to do with water not being wet. And arguing that "it doesn't say that it's wet in the rules, therefor it is not" is not really a valid argument. Just because there are no rules for something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. There are no rules for laughing, blinking, farting sitting on chairs, chopping vegetables or anything of the like either. That doesn't mean that those things don't occur in D&D land.

[Democratus]

Nothing of what you said has anything to do with water not being wet. And arguing that "it doesn't say that it's wet in the rules, therefor it is not" is not really a valid argument. Just because there are no rules for something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. There are no rules for laughing, blinking, farting sitting on chairs, chopping vegetables or anything of the like either. That doesn't mean that those things don't occur in D&D land.


That's exactly what it means. D&D is a proscriptive rule set. Only things that it specifically says are actually in the game. And only things that it specifically say exists - do exist.

The things you listed are narrative descriptions, but are not in the game unless your table house rules that they are. My game doesn't have farting or chopping vegetables. If someone decided to do that, I would make a ruling on what the result was. But that ruling would be specific to my table - not part of the D&D core rules.

[Segev]

That's exactly what it means. D&D is a proscriptive rule set. Only things that it specifically says are actually in the game. And only things that it specifically say exists - do exist.

The things you listed are narrative descriptions, but are not in the game unless your table house rules that they are. My game doesn't have farting or chopping vegetables. If someone decided to do that, I would make a ruling on what the result was. But that ruling would be specific to my table - not part of the D&D core rules.

And yet, the game does tend to assume that your ruling will be based on real life experience, not a claim that the rules don't cover it so nothing happens.

[rel]

And yet, the game does tend to assume that your ruling will be based on real life experience, not a claim that the rules don't cover it so nothing happens.

At a lot of tables, nothing would happen in any of those water examples, often because the rules don't cover it.

And there's nothing wrong with playing a game like that.

There's also nothing wrong with playing a game where your character falls in a river and all their scrolls get blanked.

Problems occur when the players think they are playing different styles of game or when a situation arises that runs counter to the games style.

[Nifft]

There's also nothing wrong with playing a game where your character falls in a river and all their scrolls get blanked.

[nethack flashbacks intensify]