"so you cast heat metal... On the friendly paladin's sword?"
By - last_train_to_space
Clint McElroy went through a whole campaign without learning what all but 1 spell did.
I cast Zone of Truth!
***Audience explodes into cheering!***
he was a hilariously bad cleric and i love it.
No, but you can cast Flame arrow on the Ranger's quiver before combat.
Ahh yes. I'll use true strike on the ranger to help him hit with those arrows.
One player wanted to cast it on our Minotaur Fighter so he could do grapple checks with advantage. And our DM allowed it, because she was a relatively new player and didn't want to punish her for falling into the true strike trap.
To be fair, in 3e, true strike was just +20 to hit on your next attack.
Yep. Loved it. Used to pair it with Ray of Enfeeblement because that was just an attack roll, no saving throw.
DM: "The fjord is so cold, you take 2d6 cold damage each round you're submerged unless you have a special rule against it."
Tiefling Paladin with Sailor background: "What if I get someone to cast *heat metal* on my armor first?"
Ex-cannibal Druid: "You do realize that it is one of the most efficient murder tools in my toolbox"
Paladin: "But I'm fire resistant! it *should* level out"
I mean…the logic is fairly sound…
Armor becomes brittle as hell due to the extreme temperature change and shatters on next hit.
Don’t say that…just allow the paladin to find out later!
I’m imagining it now: “the goblin hits you with his club…hey by the way, do you have unarmored defense for some reason?
If you've got heat-resistant gloves, that actually could be a valid tactic.
Not unless you guys are being pretty liberal with your interpretation of the spell wording or your Paladin is like holding the sword to the enemies skin. The damage only triggers on your turn or when you cast it, not any time it touches a creature.
>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.*
the paladin has to grapple the enemy and hold their sword to their throat and the caster can then do 2d8 damage. although then you could wonder why the paladin couldn't slit the enemies throat if he can hold his sword there for a whole turn.
good old fashioned torture :)
New to dnd, couldnt you hold the action to cast the spell when the paladin hits the enemy technicly?
If the spell didn't specifically say that you have to reactivate as a bonus action *on your turn* then probably.
I think RAW readying an action requires it to be an action and not a bonus action, but I can't imagine a way for that to be broken unless you're getting multiple bonus actions every round so I'd allow it, but more stringent DMs might not.
Yeah sounds right to me. I don't think you can hold a bonus action though so you'd only get use out of it on the initial hit.
Yeah, not most optimal, but hey, cool points!
I cast chill touch to freeze my enemy!
DM: a ghastly hand grabs your enemy from beond the grave.
Player: ? What?... heu...
"the cold embrace of death's hand seeks to rest upon your shoulder"
"WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON!?"
A funny trope could be where the wizard only wrote down the spell name not what it does, and so every time they cast the spell, it gives them a little info about what they just cast. I’ll I think that would be funny
One of my favorite MUDS did something like this. Some of the most powerful spells had their descriptions written in a made-up language until you learned them and cast them. So you'd do a bunch of work to research and translate "Chaos Flame" thinking it would be badass, then all it does is cast Dancing Lights.
I had a wizard cast Sleep centered on himself once, even after an "Are you sure?"
He was the only one affected due to Fey Ancestry and the HP roll.
What were they hoping to accomplish?!
"It's centered on me so it doesn't include me!"
A nice relaxing nap
Didn't realize it affected all creatures
*Disapproving Drake* 🖐️ Not bothering to read spells
*Approving Drake* 👉 Reading spells is metagaming
Reading the spell and understanding what the spell does are two things.
Right, Mr. "I cast fireball into a backalley surrounded by wooden houses" Wizard?
Yeah. About that. Yes, he read the spell. Yes, he understood that it ignites things. He did not factor in that environment is a valid target in DnD and not excluded by pyrotechnics.
This is how I learned firsthand that Faerie Fire wasn't a damaging spell.
It's certainly not a waste of a spell though, and still helps a lot offensively!
It made Strahd unable to go invisible and was more or less MVP spell
Not with that attitude
....until you turn three hits into eight, one of which is a crit....
What did they think it was going to do?
Hitting them with a hot sword will deal extra fire damage right?
Alternatively, it'd help the Paladin stop an enemy from bleeding out, by letting him cauterise the wounds!
I mean it could work
if they didnt swing but touch someones body
Well you there’s your problem. How’re they gonna read their spells if they can’t read in the first place
I think my favorite misinformed player was this one that though a Cleric's Turn Undead transformed the cleric into a zombie.
I think I want to run a d&d game now where no one reads there abilities and we just use the name.
To be fair, they can't read.
Funny enough the Paladin class already gets a spell to reach a similar effect as what the player probably intended. Not crazy strong for it's level, but Elemental Weapon is still cool!
In 3.5, my DM let my war cleric cast heat metal on his sword for extra fire damage, as long as my cleric had fire-proof gloves
It was pretty fucking awesome
I would allow someone to do that in my 5e game as a way of honoring that rule of cool
I mean if he has fire proof gloves it only makes sense. Is it even rule of cool at that point? Like who would deny you that?
Most i can think of is maybe the sword would start melting and deteriorate the more you use it, eventually becoming unusable.
In 5e, it specifically states that the caster must use their bonus action if they want to deal the fire damage. Clearly for balancing purposes, clearly not fun
I mean, we've heated the metal, but it doesn't get hot enough to deal damage unless the caster makes it hot enough to do the damage?
Not sure, but if a player decides to cast it on an ally's metal weapon, I'll roll with it
It says you use the bonus action to deal the damage **again**, since you deal damage upon casting as well. Presumably this is less of "making it hot enough to deal damage" and more supposed to represent the caster mantaining the spell, as it assumes that you'll use it on an enemy and not on an ally who's immune to fire damage.
It might not specifically mention that you'd be able to deal damage with a melting sword if you're immune to fire damage, but that's because the spell didn't account for this situation, not because it ouright forbids it. Regardless of spells, It only makes sense that when a melting heap of iron hits someone, it'll deal fire damage.
I'm just pointing out that using it in this goes against both RAW and RAI. I'm clearly still allowing it, but there's not really a justification for that
That's the thing though, i don't think it's technically against RAW. Like, the RAW states that it deals damage in these situations, but it doesn't say it can't deal damage on other situations.
This is mostly just up for the DM, but my point is not everything has stats specifically telling you what they can and can't do. You're expected to use common sense.
There's already a spell that lets you turn a weapon into a burning weapon - the aptly named Elemental Weapon
A 3rd Level spell slot, for 1d4 damage, and not usable on magic weapons? Sounds awful
I'll stick with our traditional Rule of Cool Heat Metal
Oh my god, I remember one time our cleric wanted to cast this spell but didn’t read the casting time was 10 minutes... we were in the middle of combat
I was DMing a oneshot and the bard asked me if she can cast Heat Metal on the Barbarian's Maul. The only metal part was the head since the handle was wood. So as long as she had concentration, I ruled that the Barbarian dealt 2d6 fire damage on top of his usual (basically a concentration Flame Tongue Maul). The manticore got cookee hard bc the Barbarian made a crit as his weapon became molten steel. Twas rad. Obviously I dunno if this is RAW I just ruled it logically on the spot.
I cast darkness
pretty sure that's how it used to work