Should heat metal work against 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.

Relevant links:
Reductio Ad Absurdum (plus a second source that goes into further detail)
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?

[Zhorn]

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

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

[Unoriginal]

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

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.

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.

[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.

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]