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 take a Bonus Action on each of your later turns to deal this damage again if the object is within range.
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.
Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot. The damage increases by 1d8 for each spell slot level above 2.
* - (a piece of iron and a flame)
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 4, 2024This doesn't seem to have changed from the 2014 rules. Just wondering, it seems somewhat ambiguous:
If a creature succeeds on the Constitution save, and chooses not to drop the object, are they still subjected to the Disadvantage? I feel like they shouldn't, personally, otherwise it's a really strong spell against anyone wearing metal armor.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 5, 2024The 2014 version didn't have the bold part. I don't know the rules well, so I'm not sure if that's a change or a clarification. Other than that, it just looks like slightly different wording.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 6, 2024The range bit is a change and a needed nerf. The 2014 version of this spell was a death sentence for folks in metal armor. You could cast the spell with an action inflict 2d8 fire, no save. Then run far far away, teleport, wrap yourself in a wall of stone, whatever and every turn for the next 9 rounds they take 2d8 fire with no save. That is 20d8 fire for a 2nd level spell. Its even worse if you could Extend it. And yes they are at disadvantage so long as they took damage that turn.
This version is still nasty but at least they can run away.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Sep 22, 2024RIP "Cook and Book"! It's probably for the best, but it will be missed all the same.
The Animated Spellbook video from Zee Bashew hilariously demonstrating "Cook and Book":
(Animated Spellbook) D&D 5E HEAT METAL
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Oct 2, 2024Conjure Volley + Heat Metal = Rain of Molten Agony. Never go against Smokey the Druid and Snuffles the Ranger.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Oct 22, 2024Tip for when you get imprisoned and stripped of your gear: if you have the Produce Flame cantrip and can touch anything made of iron, you're still able to cast this spell.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Jan 17, 2025They have disadvantage even if they succeed the saving throw. There is no save from either the damage or the disadvantage, the save can only protect the victim from dropping the item. In practice, the drawbacks of holding a heated item are so severe, most intelligent creatures would probably chose to drop a heated weapon anyway. Which is why this spell is widely considered to have no real save.
For that same reason, this spell is extremely strong against enemies wearing metal armor.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Feb 16, 2025The wording of the spell both '14 and now: "If it doesn’t drop the object," implies that the disadvantage only applies if the condition that forces the drop (failing the con save) is fulfilled.
RAI may have it be that way via Sage Advice, but RAW I think the wording implies not.
Though I feel it would be a fair house rule to do it that way regardless.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Feb 21, 2025I think one could very sensibly argue that the wording "if it doesn't drop the object" applies, well, if it doesn't drop the object. If it succeeds on the save, it doesn't drop the object.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Jun 21, 2025How would this interact with someone with a metallic prosthetic or a construct?
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted Jun 24, 2025Since it specifically says you have to target an "object", strictly speaking it can't be used to target a Construct, since a Construct is a creature, not an object. I do think a lot of DMs might allow it, though, since it seems thematically valid. (Unless it's a non-metallic Construct like a Flesh Golem.)
However, I think a metal prosthetic would count as an object and be eligible.