The spell should be updated to accommodate the new race.
There have been constructs in this edition as of the release of the core rules. Heat Metal has never affected them. We can discuss whether it should (though my answer is still going to be no, because it's magic and magic doesn't work that way in D&D 5E), but stating it should be updated because of constructs getting added later on is, with all due respect, silly. I'll repeat: it never affected constructs. Why should new constructs getting added to the game change that?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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. And if your only reason why it doesn’t work is the old wording of the spell, (insult removed). 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.
The thing is, “creature” is a game term with a game definition (technically its “monster” but the definition makes the two synonymous) just like “object” is. Animated objects are ”creatures” because the game says they are. And creatures created by the animate objects spell are considered creatures for the duration of the spell, btw
The spell should be updated to accommodate the new race.
There have been constructs in this edition as of the release of the core rules. Heat Metal has never affected them. We can discuss whether it should (though my answer is still going to be no, because it's magic and magic doesn't work that way in D&D 5E), but stating it should be updated because of constructs getting added later on is, with all due respect, silly. I'll repeat: it never affected constructs. Why should new constructs getting added to the game change that?
Also, creatures like Warforged are not constructs as defined by the game. They are humanoid
Warforged was just an example. Perhaps a bad one. I did give others. Not my entire point. My point is constructs are not creatures. They are items given life.
Warforged was just an example. Perhaps a bad one. I did give others. Not my entire point. My point is constructs are not creatures. They are items given life.
Constructs are creatures because the rules say they are. If you are a DM and want to change that that is your prerogative, but it’s not the RAW, nor RAI of the game that they are anything other than creatures
Warforged was just an example. Perhaps a bad one. I did give others. Not my entire point. My point is constructs are not creatures. They are items given life.
So something living can be an item? That's an uncommon way of defining things.
Are Reborn created entirely from body parts from (previously) living creatures "items"?
I’m aware of the rules. This is a forum. A conversation. Just telling me “It’s RAW” is a cop out.
But it’s not. How exactly do you want this conversation to go? We are talking about a game. Magic and spells don’t exist. Golems and Warforged don’t exist, the whole context is fictional. Any “in universe” explanation for why the rules work the way they do is a going to be made up out of whole cloth by the people posting, and are useless for anyone outside their own group. The only unifying concept is the Rules of the game as written, and as written, HM can’t target creatures, and constructs, including animated objects, are creatures
I’m aware of the rules. This is a forum. A conversation. Just telling me “It’s RAW” is a cop out.
It's not really a conversation if you're stating how things should be. Especially when the reasons you give come down to because that's how you think they should be - that's just as much of a cop out. You think constructs shouldn't be creatures. Others, including the designers, think otherwise and that makes them creatures by the RAW. Unless there's an actual point to raise here, what conversation should we be having?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What I’m hoping for in this conversation is opinions. Not a regurgitation of the rules. Was that not clear? Do you agree that a broom that someone casts animate object on is now a creature and no longer ignitable or not?
What I’m hoping for in this conversation is opinions. Not a regurgitation of the rules. Was that not clear? Do you agree that a broom that someone casts animate object on is now a creature and no longer ignitable or not?
My opinions were given in posts 10, 16, 17, and 20 of this thread. And the broom is a creature for the duration of the spell, because the spell calls it a creature. It is ignitable by effects that ignite creatures, but is not a target for HM (not that it would be anyway being a broom and all)
What I’m hoping for in this conversation is opinions. Not a regurgitation of the rules. Was that not clear? Do you agree that a broom that someone casts animate object on is now a creature and no longer ignitable or not?
Also, for the record, nothing about your OP seemed to invite a “conversation” at all. When you write an aggressive and confrontational OP, and later insult the people who disagree by calling them “sheep”, don’t complain when you get adversarial feedback instead of a “conversation”
Using heat metal on constructs seems like the perfect time for a DM to make a house call. No need for such a niche thing to be in the rules. That way leads to massive list of rules for DMs for memorize, which is lame and a pain.
IMHO, Heat metal, as a spell, doesn't damage any armor or weapon that is heated up, so I don't think it should affect constructs in the first place. Or, rather, help it out. Superheated grapple anyone?
Fair enough. Good answer. How about Reborn. Only half construct. Say someone gets a new mechanical arm. The arm is now off limits because it’s attached? Would it not hurt the part where it’s connected to?
Fair enough. Good answer. How about Reborn. Only half construct. Say someone gets a new mechanical arm. The arm is now off limits because it’s attached? Would it not hurt the part where it’s connected to?
The arm is part of the creature. Therefore, off limits.
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.
Reborn are designed to be either zombies or flesh golems (Frankenstein monsters). They're meat, not metal.
If someone gets a prosthetic arm of metal? Hm... Personally, I'd allow it. I see no functional difference between a metal arm and wearing heavy armor from a balance perspective.
Say someone gets a new mechanical arm. The arm is now off limits because it’s attached? Would it not hurt the part where it’s connected to?
Depends. How does it work? Is it more of a tool the character uses, or is it more something that magically replaces a body part? If the former, I'd count it as an item being wielded by a character; if the latter, I'd count it as part of the character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Fair enough. Good answer. How about Reborn. Only half construct. Say someone gets a new mechanical arm. The arm is now off limits because it’s attached? Would it not hurt the part where it’s connected to?
The arm is part of the creature. Therefore, off limits.
I'd call the metal arm a Wonderous Item myself. And therefore, metal equipment.
Based on the description of the prosthetic arm magic items (which don’t specify their material makeup btw), if it were metal, I’d allow them to be targeted. The ease of detachment and attachment indicates it isn’t “integrated” more so than “worn” or “donned”
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There have been constructs in this edition as of the release of the core rules. Heat Metal has never affected them. We can discuss whether it should (though my answer is still going to be no, because it's magic and magic doesn't work that way in D&D 5E), but stating it should be updated because of constructs getting added later on is, with all due respect, silly. I'll repeat: it never affected constructs. Why should new constructs getting added to the game change that?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The thing is, “creature” is a game term with a game definition (technically its “monster” but the definition makes the two synonymous) just like “object” is. Animated objects are ”creatures” because the game says they are. And creatures created by the animate objects spell are considered creatures for the duration of the spell, btw
Also, creatures like Warforged are not constructs as defined by the game. They are humanoid
Warforged was just an example. Perhaps a bad one. I did give others. Not my entire point. My point is constructs are not creatures. They are items given life.
Constructs are creatures because the rules say they are. If you are a DM and want to change that that is your prerogative, but it’s not the RAW, nor RAI of the game that they are anything other than creatures
So something living can be an item? That's an uncommon way of defining things.
Are Reborn created entirely from body parts from (previously) living creatures "items"?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I’m aware of the rules. This is a forum. A conversation. Just telling me “It’s RAW” is a cop out.
But it’s not. How exactly do you want this conversation to go? We are talking about a game. Magic and spells don’t exist. Golems and Warforged don’t exist, the whole context is fictional. Any “in universe” explanation for why the rules work the way they do is a going to be made up out of whole cloth by the people posting, and are useless for anyone outside their own group. The only unifying concept is the Rules of the game as written, and as written, HM can’t target creatures, and constructs, including animated objects, are creatures
It's not really a conversation if you're stating how things should be. Especially when the reasons you give come down to because that's how you think they should be - that's just as much of a cop out. You think constructs shouldn't be creatures. Others, including the designers, think otherwise and that makes them creatures by the RAW. Unless there's an actual point to raise here, what conversation should we be having?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What I’m hoping for in this conversation is opinions. Not a regurgitation of the rules. Was that not clear? Do you agree that a broom that someone casts animate object on is now a creature and no longer ignitable or not?
I agree it's a creature for the duration of the spell, yes.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
My opinions were given in posts 10, 16, 17, and 20 of this thread. And the broom is a creature for the duration of the spell, because the spell calls it a creature. It is ignitable by effects that ignite creatures, but is not a target for HM (not that it would be anyway being a broom and all)
Also, for the record, nothing about your OP seemed to invite a “conversation” at all. When you write an aggressive and confrontational OP, and later insult the people who disagree by calling them “sheep”, don’t complain when you get adversarial feedback instead of a “conversation”
Using heat metal on constructs seems like the perfect time for a DM to make a house call. No need for such a niche thing to be in the rules. That way leads to massive list of rules for DMs for memorize, which is lame and a pain.
IMHO, Heat metal, as a spell, doesn't damage any armor or weapon that is heated up, so I don't think it should affect constructs in the first place. Or, rather, help it out. Superheated grapple anyone?
Fair enough. Good answer. How about Reborn. Only half construct. Say someone gets a new mechanical arm. The arm is now off limits because it’s attached? Would it not hurt the part where it’s connected to?
The arm is part of the creature. Therefore, off limits.
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.
Reborn are designed to be either zombies or flesh golems (Frankenstein monsters). They're meat, not metal.
If someone gets a prosthetic arm of metal? Hm... Personally, I'd allow it. I see no functional difference between a metal arm and wearing heavy armor from a balance perspective.
Depends. How does it work? Is it more of a tool the character uses, or is it more something that magically replaces a body part? If the former, I'd count it as an item being wielded by a character; if the latter, I'd count it as part of the character.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'd call the metal arm a Wonderous Item myself. And therefore, metal equipment.
Based on the description of the prosthetic arm magic items (which don’t specify their material makeup btw), if it were metal, I’d allow them to be targeted. The ease of detachment and attachment indicates it isn’t “integrated” more so than “worn” or “donned”