My concern isn't the 2d8 buff to damage. the real problem is that it is auto damage.it has no save. now you have allowed it to be able to switch targets. switching targets means your more likely to get full duration for the damage on the spell. Making it free 2d8+ Spell level D8 for a full min. by switching targets you are less likely to have a creature be angry enough to try and force your concentration to drop. The no save damage + upcasting makes it prime for full caster multiclassing shenanigan's.
a couple of things to note I see no reason even an immune to fire character should be exempt from the disadvantage. this is a Raw interpretation although thematically it makes sense for an immune character to not be affected.
as a dm I would allow a save (probably DEX) for the damage from a heated weapon hitting you to see if it stays in contact long enough. NOt raw but I don't see the hit time long enough to be a raw guarantee either.
heated armor + grappling I would give for free because it still allows avenues of response from the grappled person.
IF I had a Battlerager with fire immunity and heat metal(from a different class) with a grappler build, I would give the damage free and might consider giving inspiration to the group.
While you're generally right that immunity to or avoidance of damage doesn't imply immunity to secondary effects, Heat Metalspecifically ties the disadvantage/dropping to damage, not being affected by the spell in general. "If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes the damage from it..."
If you have cast Heat Metal on a weapon you are holding (and willing to take the damage and try to hold onto it), can you use your bonus action on a future turn when you hit another creature with that weapon to pump the damage onto the creature (since it is momentarily in contact with your weapon)?
The only concern I have is that Heat Metal has you select a metal object which then hurts a creature in physical contact with it; then you can "cause this damage again" later. The bit about sight and the bit about physical contact are in two different sentences (which could be fixed with a semicolon - it doesn't carry any semantic meaning in English), with the physical contact sharing a sentence with the damage amount and type, but I don't see any credible claim that you can continue to Heat Metal if you can't continue to see it. Obviously other DMs might decide differently, but otherwise - e.g. at my table - you'd need to continue to see the metal for this to work. That's a nonissue with a greatsword, but will shut down hard e.g. using this trick on an arrowhead.
No, that's not a requirement of this spell, or concentration spells that let you continue to move/activate them in the future in general. The RAW is plenty restrictive enough on Heat Metal already without houseruling additional restrictions.
No, that's not a requirement of this spell, or concentration spells that let you continue to move/activate them in the future in general. The RAW is plenty restrictive enough on Heat Metal already without houseruling additional restrictions.
On what basis do you think that Heat Metal continues to require physical contact but does not continue to require visibility?
On the basis of its spell description? Casting a spell, and then any subsequent abilities that spell grants you later that round or on different rounds, are two different things?
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.
To cast the spell, you have to see the object you're choosing within range. There's requirements about where that object is, whether you can see it, whether it's metal, whether it's manufactured, as well as the usual Chapter 10 requirements like line of effect, components, spell slots, casting multiple spells in one turn, etc.
To use the spell effect, we just need to check whether the spell has ended (check duration and concentration), and "use a bonus action" to effect that same object and the creatures it's touching again. We don't care about range, re-checking whether it's metal or manufactured, whether we can see it, whether we have line of effect to it, don't need to use components, don't need to spend a spell slot, etc etc.
This isn't particularly unique? Do you disagree that that's generally how spells work? If so, that's going to require a "back to basics" discussion about ongoing effects and concentration that goes well beyond Heat Metal itself.
On the basis of its spell description? Casting a spell, and then any subsequent abilities that spell grants you later that round or on different rounds, are two different things?
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.
To cast the spell, you have to see the object you're choosing within range. There's requirements about where that object is, whether you can see it, whether it's metal, whether it's manufactured, as well as the usual Chapter 10 requirements like line of effect, components, spell slots, casting multiple spells in one turn, etc.
To use the spell effect, we just need to check whether the spell has ended (check duration and concentration), and "use a bonus action" to effect that same object and the creatures it's touching again. We don't care about range, re-checking whether it's metal or manufactured, whether we can see it, whether we have line of effect to it, don't need to use components, don't need to spend a spell slot, etc etc.
This isn't particularly unique? Do you disagree that that's generally how spells work? If so, that's going to require a "back to basics" discussion about ongoing effects and concentration that goes well beyond Heat Metal itself.
My point is that grammatically, the spell text could be changed with no impact on grammar. Here:
When you cast the spell, a manufactured metal object of your choosing that you can see within range glows red-hot, and any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage. Until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action on each of your subsequent turns to cause this damage again.
Same again, grammatically, in case anyone gets hung up on commas:
When you cast the spell, a manufactured metal object of your choosing that you can see within range glows red-hot and inflicts 2d8 fire damage on any creature in physical contact with it. Until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action on each of your subsequent turns to cause this damage again.
If you want to argue that requirements at casting time are not still required on subsequent turns - which is fine; I'm absolutely not insisting they are still required - then why is physical contact still required? What makes physical contact different from visibility? Range is special in the same way total cover is special for these things - many rules only come up at casting time, per the spellcasting rules - but there's no general spellcasting rule that you need to see your target. My argument is that either you must require both visibility and contact or neither - there is no coherent rules argument that the spell treats them differently.
Physical contact was not a requirement of casting the spell. Its also not a requirement of using a bonus action in the future. What are you talking about?
If you have cast Heat Metal on a weapon you are holding (and willing to take the damage and try to hold onto it), can you use your bonus action on a future turn when you hit another creature with that weapon to pump the damage onto the creature (since it is momentarily in contact with your weapon)?
While you're generally right that immunity to or avoidance of damage doesn't imply immunity to secondary effects, Heat Metalspecifically ties the disadvantage/dropping to damage, not being affected by the spell in general. "If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes the damage from it..."
I read the second sentence as separate from the first conditional.
Part 1: 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.
Part 2: If it doesn't drop the object, it has disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until the start of your next turn.
So, i assumed if you were still holding or wearing a heated object you always had disadvantage but now I'm second guessing myself. part of my reasoning is when grouping both parts is things like returning weapons allowing you to drop it but then re-summon it to avoid the disadvantage.
Its certainly a strangely worded secondary effect. If I pass my Constitution saving throw (and thus, I'm not forced to drop it "if i can"), and choose not to drop it, do I take disadvantage? If I fail the Constitution saving throw, and must drop it if I can, can I choose not to anyway in exchange for disadvantage? It's a little unclear what exactly it's trying to say.... but my interpretation is:
Damage: automatic, no save.
Disadvantage: automatic if you continue to hold it, no save, or avoid completely if you drop it.
Drop it: your choice to avoid the disadvantage, or no choice (forced to) if you failed a constitution save.
While you're generally right that immunity to or avoidance of damage doesn't imply immunity to secondary effects, Heat Metalspecifically ties the disadvantage/dropping to damage, not being affected by the spell in general. "If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes the damage from it..."
I read the second sentence as separate from the first conditional.
Part 1: 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.
Part 2: If it doesn't drop the object, it has disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until the start of your next turn.
So, i assumed if you were still holding or wearing a heated object you always had disadvantage but now I'm second guessing myself. part of my reasoning is when grouping both parts is things like returning weapons allowing you to drop it but then re-summon it to avoid the disadvantage.
If you divorce all logical inference from your interpretation of RAW then you are correct in your assumption: The condition for not getting disadvantage is to drop your weapon. Once this has been done the condition is fulfilled and you can pick up your weapon the next second. However, if you apply a little logic to your rules interpretation, the weapon is likely burning hot until the start of your next turn as that is how long the disadvantage would have lasted for. So the answer depends on how divorced you are from logic in your rules interpretation.
Its certainly a strangely worded secondary effect. If I pass my Constitution saving throw (and thus, I'm not forced to drop it "if i can"), and choose not to drop it, do I take disadvantage? If I fail the Constitution saving throw, and must drop it if I can, can I choose not to anyway in exchange for disadvantage? It's a little unclear what exactly it's trying to say.... but my interpretation is:
Damage: automatic, no save.
Disadvantage: automatic if you continue to hold it, no save, or avoid completely if you drop it.
Drop it: your choice to avoid the disadvantage, or no choice (forced to) if you failed a constitution save.
Which is... weird.
The way I read it, the wording "drop it if you can" in the context of the failed saving throw means "if it's able to", not "if it wants to". It is about the ability to do so, not about choosing to do so. Otherwise the saving throw would be redundant. In my interpretation, the disadvantage applies even if you succeed on the saving throw. The success simply grants you a choice.
A clarifying question that would have to be addressed for my interpretation to make sense, is whether or not the affected creature has the ability to willingly drop the weapon if it succeeds on the saving throw. If it can't do that, it seems like succeeding the saving throw might often cause the worse outcome. However, if it can drop its weapon on its opponent's turn it might open up questions about what can and cannot be done on an opponent's turn. Dropping a weapon is already a very vague non-mechanic (is it a free action or is it included under no mechanic at all?).
Its certainly a strangely worded secondary effect. If I pass my Constitution saving throw (and thus, I'm not forced to drop it "if i can"), and choose not to drop it, do I take disadvantage? If I fail the Constitution saving throw, and must drop it if I can, can I choose not to anyway in exchange for disadvantage? It's a little unclear what exactly it's trying to say.... but my interpretation is:
Damage: automatic, no save.
Disadvantage: automatic if you continue to hold it, no save, or avoid completely if you drop it.
Drop it: your choice to avoid the disadvantage, or no choice (forced to) if you failed a constitution save.
Which is... weird.
The way I read it, the wording "drop it if you can" in the context of the failed saving throw means "if it's able to", not "if it wants to". It is about the ability to do so, not about choosing to do so. Otherwise the saving throw would be redundant. In my interpretation, the disadvantage applies even if you succeed on the saving throw. The success simply grants you a choice.
A clarifying question that would have to be addressed for my interpretation to make sense, is whether or not the affected creature has the ability to willingly drop the weapon if it succeeds on the saving throw. If it can't do that, it seems like succeeding the saving throw might often cause the worse outcome. However, if it can drop its weapon on its opponent's turn it might open up questions about what can and cannot be done on an opponent's turn. Dropping a weapon is already a very vague non-mechanic (is it a free action or is it included under no mechanic at all?).
I would say you are dropping it as a reaction, which is specifically allowed by the spell. The whole turn based structure does have a lot of flaws. If you shove someone off a cliff do they just hang there in mid air until their turn?
Turns are 6 seconds long, though, not 6 seconds times the number of people in the encounter. It is not 'You take your 6 seconds then wait 6 seconds while your opponent does their thing.' You are all theoretically acting in the same 6 seconds. Ideally, everyone would plot what they intend to do on their turns and it would be played out simultaneously on a second by second basis or something. There are some great board games that have such models (Star Fleet Battles, Sniper, Patrol, likely many others as well). But that is a lot slower play.
So casting Heat Metal either grants disadvantage or robs the of their reaction? Personally I wouldn't have them spend their reaction as that is neither specified in the spell nor the spell's intent as I understand it. That interpretation would make the spell even more powerful than the regular interpretations.
I was convinced I read a general rule somewhere that stated that you fell to the ground immediately with no hang time. I cannot find a statement saying so however. But if you use the variant rules on falling you still have no hang time, but might not land right away. At the end of the day, falling is an environmental thing so I'd say it happens outside the initiative order.
As a DM i have two rules when players ask me to be creative with spells.
It needs to make sense.
It must not be more powerful then an already existing spell.
That being said, i would not allow Heat Metal as a way to increase weapon damage, since any other comparable spells (Hex, hunters mark, Divine Favor, Elemental weapon, spirit shroud) do less damage. As for the grapple bonus, i would most likely allow it. You spend a spell slot and your bonus action to cause damage. You also invoke disadvantage and damage on the one doing the grapple. I would change the con save to hold the metal object into a str check to break the grapple though.
I certainly would not require a reaction to drop the weapon, that’s piling one more unwritten strength onto the spell. Just let the victim drop it, it takes no meaningful time to do that, and it isn’t purely “free” because on their turn they’ll have to use an interaction to pick it back up.
I ask if the spouses/hand-lockers/grapplers are threated as a manufactured metalic object.................
If it's a YES, then why not use those on incapacitating the target, to later cast Heat metal ????
Noone saw this use of those objects ????
I'm assuming this is a messy translation from a non-English language, so I'll try to rephrase and you can tell me if I'm understanding correctly. Are you suggesting a PC should place manacles/handcuffs on an opponent, and then use the spell on the handcuffs?
They certainly can, but there's no rules for how to put handcuffs on an unwilling creature. Usually you do it after the opponent has been defeated, or you scare them into letting you do it. I would imagine that most DMs would invent a rule that would resemble the rule for grappling, just with a different outcome.
In any case, we're getting pretty far from the topic.
---
If you accept the notion that damage doesn't necessarily equate to injury, as the PHB implies, then it would follow that hitting with a weapon attack doesn't necessarily mean the weapon comes into physical contact with the opponent. (I have my own opinions on this, but I digress.) This might be enough to end the debate on its own, but let's proceed for the sake of argument.
Additionally, even if it does make contact, there's nothing to suggest that it does (or doesn't) remain in contact long enough for you to use your bonus action to "flare" the spell. There's just no timing implied by either the attack or the spell. It's completely up in the air. As such, we can't confidently say that a character can, or can't, flare the spell when they land an attack. (However, I would argue that they probably can't.)
When you flare the spell, the damage happens. It doesn't necessarily remain hot enough to deal damage after that. In fact we know it definitely stops being that hot by the start of the next turn, at the very latest. Perhaps it stays hot until the end of your turn, perhaps it doesn't -- the clarity is lacking. As such, we can't confidently say that a character can, or can't, flare the spell on their own sword, then attack, and expect to deal bonus damage.
So there are, as I see it, 3 distinct steps at which this tactic relies entirely upon the DM's ruling. 1: Does a hit mean physical contact? 2: Can you flare the spell after you hit? 3: If you flare the spell before you hit, does it help? I think if we're going to have a chance at "solving" this, we have to tackle each step individually. But I don't think we can really solve any of the steps perfectly, so it's always going to be a DM call.
In cases like this, I think it's best to just ask the DM, in the moment of play, "can I do this, accepting that it doesn't necessarily set a precedent for the way you rule it in the future?" And then moving on with play. Because while we might find it kind of amusing to discuss for several pages, I think it's not what most players are coming to the table for.
For what it's worth, if it was me, I would rule that you can flare it when you hit.
If you accept the notion that damage doesn't necessarily equate to injury, as the PHB implies, then it would follow that hitting with a weapon attack doesn't necessarily mean the weapon comes into physical contact with the opponent. (I have my own opinions on this, but I digress.) This might be enough to end the debate on its own, but let's proceed for the sake of argument.
This is a good point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My concern isn't the 2d8 buff to damage. the real problem is that it is auto damage.it has no save. now you have allowed it to be able to switch targets. switching targets means your more likely to get full duration for the damage on the spell. Making it free 2d8+ Spell level D8 for a full min. by switching targets you are less likely to have a creature be angry enough to try and force your concentration to drop. The no save damage + upcasting makes it prime for full caster multiclassing shenanigan's.
a couple of things to note I see no reason even an immune to fire character should be exempt from the disadvantage. this is a Raw interpretation although thematically it makes sense for an immune character to not be affected.
as a dm I would allow a save (probably DEX) for the damage from a heated weapon hitting you to see if it stays in contact long enough. NOt raw but I don't see the hit time long enough to be a raw guarantee either.
heated armor + grappling I would give for free because it still allows avenues of response from the grappled person.
IF I had a Battlerager with fire immunity and heat metal(from a different class) with a grappler build, I would give the damage free and might consider giving inspiration to the group.
While you're generally right that immunity to or avoidance of damage doesn't imply immunity to secondary effects, Heat Metal specifically ties the disadvantage/dropping to damage, not being affected by the spell in general. "If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes the damage from it..."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The only concern I have is that Heat Metal has you select a metal object which then hurts a creature in physical contact with it; then you can "cause this damage again" later. The bit about sight and the bit about physical contact are in two different sentences (which could be fixed with a semicolon - it doesn't carry any semantic meaning in English), with the physical contact sharing a sentence with the damage amount and type, but I don't see any credible claim that you can continue to Heat Metal if you can't continue to see it. Obviously other DMs might decide differently, but otherwise - e.g. at my table - you'd need to continue to see the metal for this to work. That's a nonissue with a greatsword, but will shut down hard e.g. using this trick on an arrowhead.
No, that's not a requirement of this spell, or concentration spells that let you continue to move/activate them in the future in general. The RAW is plenty restrictive enough on Heat Metal already without houseruling additional restrictions.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
On what basis do you think that Heat Metal continues to require physical contact but does not continue to require visibility?
On the basis of its spell description? Casting a spell, and then any subsequent abilities that spell grants you later that round or on different rounds, are two different things?
Heat Metal:
To cast the spell, you have to see the object you're choosing within range. There's requirements about where that object is, whether you can see it, whether it's metal, whether it's manufactured, as well as the usual Chapter 10 requirements like line of effect, components, spell slots, casting multiple spells in one turn, etc.
To use the spell effect, we just need to check whether the spell has ended (check duration and concentration), and "use a bonus action" to effect that same object and the creatures it's touching again. We don't care about range, re-checking whether it's metal or manufactured, whether we can see it, whether we have line of effect to it, don't need to use components, don't need to spend a spell slot, etc etc.
This isn't particularly unique? Do you disagree that that's generally how spells work? If so, that's going to require a "back to basics" discussion about ongoing effects and concentration that goes well beyond Heat Metal itself.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
My point is that grammatically, the spell text could be changed with no impact on grammar. Here:
When you cast the spell, a manufactured metal object of your choosing that you can see within range glows red-hot, and any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage. Until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action on each of your subsequent turns to cause this damage again.
Same again, grammatically, in case anyone gets hung up on commas:
When you cast the spell, a manufactured metal object of your choosing that you can see within range glows red-hot and inflicts 2d8 fire damage on any creature in physical contact with it. Until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action on each of your subsequent turns to cause this damage again.
If you want to argue that requirements at casting time are not still required on subsequent turns - which is fine; I'm absolutely not insisting they are still required - then why is physical contact still required? What makes physical contact different from visibility? Range is special in the same way total cover is special for these things - many rules only come up at casting time, per the spellcasting rules - but there's no general spellcasting rule that you need to see your target. My argument is that either you must require both visibility and contact or neither - there is no coherent rules argument that the spell treats them differently.
Physical contact was not a requirement of casting the spell. Its also not a requirement of using a bonus action in the future. What are you talking about?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No.
I read the second sentence as separate from the first conditional.
Part 1: 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.
Part 2: If it doesn't drop the object, it has disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until the start of your next turn.
So, i assumed if you were still holding or wearing a heated object you always had disadvantage but now I'm second guessing myself. part of my reasoning is when grouping both parts is things like returning weapons allowing you to drop it but then re-summon it to avoid the disadvantage.
Its certainly a strangely worded secondary effect. If I pass my Constitution saving throw (and thus, I'm not forced to drop it "if i can"), and choose not to drop it, do I take disadvantage? If I fail the Constitution saving throw, and must drop it if I can, can I choose not to anyway in exchange for disadvantage? It's a little unclear what exactly it's trying to say.... but my interpretation is:
Which is... weird.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am sort of inclined to make the disadvantage also depend on the save, but..
If you divorce all logical inference from your interpretation of RAW then you are correct in your assumption: The condition for not getting disadvantage is to drop your weapon. Once this has been done the condition is fulfilled and you can pick up your weapon the next second. However, if you apply a little logic to your rules interpretation, the weapon is likely burning hot until the start of your next turn as that is how long the disadvantage would have lasted for. So the answer depends on how divorced you are from logic in your rules interpretation.
The way I read it, the wording "drop it if you can" in the context of the failed saving throw means "if it's able to", not "if it wants to". It is about the ability to do so, not about choosing to do so. Otherwise the saving throw would be redundant. In my interpretation, the disadvantage applies even if you succeed on the saving throw. The success simply grants you a choice.
A clarifying question that would have to be addressed for my interpretation to make sense, is whether or not the affected creature has the ability to willingly drop the weapon if it succeeds on the saving throw. If it can't do that, it seems like succeeding the saving throw might often cause the worse outcome. However, if it can drop its weapon on its opponent's turn it might open up questions about what can and cannot be done on an opponent's turn. Dropping a weapon is already a very vague non-mechanic (is it a free action or is it included under no mechanic at all?).
So casting Heat Metal either grants disadvantage or robs the of their reaction? Personally I wouldn't have them spend their reaction as that is neither specified in the spell nor the spell's intent as I understand it. That interpretation would make the spell even more powerful than the regular interpretations.
I was convinced I read a general rule somewhere that stated that you fell to the ground immediately with no hang time. I cannot find a statement saying so however. But if you use the variant rules on falling you still have no hang time, but might not land right away.
At the end of the day, falling is an environmental thing so I'd say it happens outside the initiative order.
As a DM i have two rules when players ask me to be creative with spells.
That being said, i would not allow Heat Metal as a way to increase weapon damage, since any other comparable spells (Hex, hunters mark, Divine Favor, Elemental weapon, spirit shroud) do less damage. As for the grapple bonus, i would most likely allow it. You spend a spell slot and your bonus action to cause damage. You also invoke disadvantage and damage on the one doing the grapple. I would change the con save to hold the metal object into a str check to break the grapple though.
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]I certainly would not require a reaction to drop the weapon, that’s piling one more unwritten strength onto the spell. Just let the victim drop it, it takes no meaningful time to do that, and it isn’t purely “free” because on their turn they’ll have to use an interaction to pick it back up.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I ask if the spouses/hand-lockers/grapplers are threated as a manufactured metalic object.................
If it's a YES, then why not use those on incapacitating the target, to later cast Heat metal ????
Noone saw this use of those objects ????
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
I'm assuming this is a messy translation from a non-English language, so I'll try to rephrase and you can tell me if I'm understanding correctly. Are you suggesting a PC should place manacles/handcuffs on an opponent, and then use the spell on the handcuffs?
They certainly can, but there's no rules for how to put handcuffs on an unwilling creature. Usually you do it after the opponent has been defeated, or you scare them into letting you do it. I would imagine that most DMs would invent a rule that would resemble the rule for grappling, just with a different outcome.
In any case, we're getting pretty far from the topic.
---
If you accept the notion that damage doesn't necessarily equate to injury, as the PHB implies, then it would follow that hitting with a weapon attack doesn't necessarily mean the weapon comes into physical contact with the opponent. (I have my own opinions on this, but I digress.) This might be enough to end the debate on its own, but let's proceed for the sake of argument.
Additionally, even if it does make contact, there's nothing to suggest that it does (or doesn't) remain in contact long enough for you to use your bonus action to "flare" the spell. There's just no timing implied by either the attack or the spell. It's completely up in the air. As such, we can't confidently say that a character can, or can't, flare the spell when they land an attack. (However, I would argue that they probably can't.)
When you flare the spell, the damage happens. It doesn't necessarily remain hot enough to deal damage after that. In fact we know it definitely stops being that hot by the start of the next turn, at the very latest. Perhaps it stays hot until the end of your turn, perhaps it doesn't -- the clarity is lacking. As such, we can't confidently say that a character can, or can't, flare the spell on their own sword, then attack, and expect to deal bonus damage.
So there are, as I see it, 3 distinct steps at which this tactic relies entirely upon the DM's ruling. 1: Does a hit mean physical contact? 2: Can you flare the spell after you hit? 3: If you flare the spell before you hit, does it help? I think if we're going to have a chance at "solving" this, we have to tackle each step individually. But I don't think we can really solve any of the steps perfectly, so it's always going to be a DM call.
In cases like this, I think it's best to just ask the DM, in the moment of play, "can I do this, accepting that it doesn't necessarily set a precedent for the way you rule it in the future?" And then moving on with play. Because while we might find it kind of amusing to discuss for several pages, I think it's not what most players are coming to the table for.
For what it's worth, if it was me, I would rule that you can flare it when you hit.
This is a good point.