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.

[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. ("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.