It effects creatures in contact with the metal, so a heated construct wouldn't take damage anyway. And if you have a problem with a spell, complaining to DDB won't help.
Animated armor, on the other hand, is clearly metal with an inexplicably low CR of 1 despite a ton of immunities and high AC.
I know the ruling is to preserve the integrity of the difference between objects and creatures (and possibly to protect metallic dragons from it) but still.
Eh, there is nothing inside the animated armor to be burned by it, and nothing about heat metal says it damages the metal being heated. There’s a big difference between the temps that cause a burn on your average creature and temps that structurally damage or change most metals.
Heat Metal is one of the most situational of all damage dealing spells in 5E. At no point was it ever one that you could rely on as your primary damage output option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Animated armor, on the other hand, is clearly metal with an inexplicably low CR of 1 despite a ton of immunities and high AC.
What I find amusing is that Animated Armor is immune to Heat Metal, but a Helmed Horror is not unless that's one of the immunities the creator built in.
Animated armor, on the other hand, is clearly metal with an inexplicably low CR of 1 despite a ton of immunities and high AC.
I know the ruling is to preserve the integrity of the difference between objects and creatures (and possibly to protect metallic dragons from it) but still.
Eh, there is nothing inside the animated armor to be burned by it, and nothing about heat metal says it damages the metal being heated. There’s a big difference between the temps that cause a burn on your average creature and temps that structurally damage or change most metals.
Oh? So if you hit it with a fire bolt, it would be immune? Where is that listed in its abilities, exactly?
So where did I say this? We are talking about heat metal, a spell that magically heats its target (a manufactured metal object) to damage other creatures, not fire bolt (or any other fire spell) which uses heat to directly damage its target. The armor that makes up AA is part of the creature, not an object. Don’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t speak Kotath
Animated armor, on the other hand, is clearly metal with an inexplicably low CR of 1 despite a ton of immunities and high AC.
What I find amusing is that Animated Armor is immune to Heat Metal, but a Helmed Horror is not unless that's one of the immunities the creator built in.
On the helmed horror, you can target the creatures weapons...AA has no weapons to target
Animated armor, on the other hand, is clearly metal with an inexplicably low CR of 1 despite a ton of immunities and high AC.
I know the ruling is to preserve the integrity of the difference between objects and creatures (and possibly to protect metallic dragons from it) but still.
Eh, there is nothing inside the animated armor to be burned by it, and nothing about heat metal says it damages the metal being heated. There’s a big difference between the temps that cause a burn on your average creature and temps that structurally damage or change most metals.
Oh? So if you hit it with a fire bolt, it would be immune? Where is that listed in its abilities, exactly?
So where did I say this? We are talking about heat metal, a spell that magically heats its target (a manufactured metal object) to damage other creatures, not fire bolt (or any other fire spell) which uses heat to directly damage its target. The armor that makes up AA is part of the creature, not an object. Don’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t speak Kotath
But if for some reason, the AA was holding a weapon, it would still be affected if the weapon was heated. It has absolutely nothing to do with any potential structural damage. You are changing your argument from that to which I responded.
The burning via a held object argument is not the same as the Firebolt argument either. Firebolt requires an attack roll, so whether it does damage depends on hitting (the right spot, or at least a right spot). There's something of an argument there why it might do damage to a largely metal creature whereas Heat Metal (no attack roll) doesn't, even if it's a stretch. That a metal construct takes damage ftom Heat Metal being cast on an amulet it's wearing takes that stretch to a whole other level.
That Heat Metal should work on constructs because they're (partly) made of metal, as the OP suggests, is not a good argument though. Spells that have one or more targets only work on certain types of targets, that's a general property of D&D magic. You can cast Magic Missile on a construct, but not on a pile of parts for such a construct (nor at the darkness, for that matter). That's just how magic works in D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Animated armor, on the other hand, is clearly metal with an inexplicably low CR of 1 despite a ton of immunities and high AC.
I know the ruling is to preserve the integrity of the difference between objects and creatures (and possibly to protect metallic dragons from it) but still.
Eh, there is nothing inside the animated armor to be burned by it, and nothing about heat metal says it damages the metal being heated. There’s a big difference between the temps that cause a burn on your average creature and temps that structurally damage or change most metals.
Oh? So if you hit it with a fire bolt, it would be immune? Where is that listed in its abilities, exactly?
So where did I say this? We are talking about heat metal, a spell that magically heats its target (a manufactured metal object) to damage other creatures, not fire bolt (or any other fire spell) which uses heat to directly damage its target. The armor that makes up AA is part of the creature, not an object. Don’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t speak Kotath
But if for some reason, the AA was holding a weapon, it would still be affected if the weapon was heated. It has absolutely nothing to do with any potential structural damage. You are changing your argument from that to which I responded.
I’m not changing my argument. If the AA was holding the sword, the AA could be damaged if the sword was targeted. The sword would be unharmed, because the spell doesn’t specify the object is damaged. But there is no sword, and assuming your DM lets you target the AA at all, as the “object“ targeted it would take no damage because the targeted object is not slated to take damage, and there is no part of the AA that isn’t the armor itself. If you want to know why? Magic and the rules, that’s the why
If a player were interested in using it on metal targets, I would probably let them, but it would be a con save instead of automatic. When using it like this, I would probably either remove the disadvantage or make the save happen every round.
Good points all. My point is that the Heat Metal spell was made before Warforged were even a thing. Then they were introduced, a race made at least partially of metal. The spell should be updated to accommodate the new race. Same with Reborn. Just doesn’t make any sense why it wouldn’t work. [REDACTED] Not even sure I agree with the idea that constructs count as “creatures”. Apparently if you give a broom sentience (Animate Object spell) it just becomes a creature? How about Carpet from Aladdin? Would that be a creature now too by the same reasoning? So now, because these to items are given life, fireball just won’t ignite them anymore? Also, good morning.
Notes: Redacted text to ensure the post remains respectful.
Heat metal should work on constructs. Metal doesn’t stop being metal because it’s given “life”. The end.
It effects creatures in contact with the metal, so a heated construct wouldn't take damage anyway. And if you have a problem with a spell, complaining to DDB won't help.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Did they adjust the spell? I thought it was always only objects that could be targeted.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I bet this guy is a player who just so happened to fight a warforged recently and tried to heat metal it but couldn't because of RAW.
A warforged wearing armor with Integrated Protection would be very dead, though.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Sounds like. But it's not like it ever affected any of the constructs in the Monster Manual unless they were using a weapon or armor.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Flesh and clay golems are 0% metal, and stone golems are at best slightly metallic.
And Iron Golems like being on fire.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Eh, there is nothing inside the animated armor to be burned by it, and nothing about heat metal says it damages the metal being heated. There’s a big difference between the temps that cause a burn on your average creature and temps that structurally damage or change most metals.
Heat Metal is one of the most situational of all damage dealing spells in 5E. At no point was it ever one that you could rely on as your primary damage output option.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
What I find amusing is that Animated Armor is immune to Heat Metal, but a Helmed Horror is not unless that's one of the immunities the creator built in.
So how hot does the metal construct become? To do damage to the construct you'd have to reach melting temperature I suppose.
This logic is probably contradicted by constructs not being immune to fire or something, but they should be immune to most things.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
So where did I say this? We are talking about heat metal, a spell that magically heats its target (a manufactured metal object) to damage other creatures, not fire bolt (or any other fire spell) which uses heat to directly damage its target. The armor that makes up AA is part of the creature, not an object. Don’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t speak Kotath
On the helmed horror, you can target the creatures weapons...AA has no weapons to target
The burning via a held object argument is not the same as the Firebolt argument either. Firebolt requires an attack roll, so whether it does damage depends on hitting (the right spot, or at least a right spot). There's something of an argument there why it might do damage to a largely metal creature whereas Heat Metal (no attack roll) doesn't, even if it's a stretch. That a metal construct takes damage ftom Heat Metal being cast on an amulet it's wearing takes that stretch to a whole other level.
That Heat Metal should work on constructs because they're (partly) made of metal, as the OP suggests, is not a good argument though. Spells that have one or more targets only work on certain types of targets, that's a general property of D&D magic. You can cast Magic Missile on a construct, but not on a pile of parts for such a construct (nor at the darkness, for that matter). That's just how magic works in D&D.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I’m not changing my argument. If the AA was holding the sword, the AA could be damaged if the sword was targeted. The sword would be unharmed, because the spell doesn’t specify the object is damaged. But there is no sword, and assuming your DM lets you target the AA at all, as the “object“ targeted it would take no damage because the targeted object is not slated to take damage, and there is no part of the AA that isn’t the armor itself. If you want to know why? Magic and the rules, that’s the why
If a player were interested in using it on metal targets, I would probably let them, but it would be a con save instead of automatic. When using it like this, I would probably either remove the disadvantage or make the save happen every round.
Assuming the DM lets you target the AA, a creature, means assuming the RAW are not followed and at that point anything might go.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It’s a common misconception though that I see from a lot of players that anything that is manufactured metal can be targeted, part of a creature or no
Good points all. My point is that the Heat Metal spell was made before Warforged were even a thing. Then they were introduced, a race made at least partially of metal. The spell should be updated to accommodate the new race. Same with Reborn. Just doesn’t make any sense why it wouldn’t work. [REDACTED] Not even sure I agree with the idea that constructs count as “creatures”. Apparently if you give a broom sentience (Animate Object spell) it just becomes a creature? How about Carpet from Aladdin? Would that be a creature now too by the same reasoning? So now, because these to items are given life, fireball just won’t ignite them anymore?
Also, good morning.