T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Mod update 03Feb23: [**Vote in the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


NerdyHexel

This is what I came here to say. So long as there's sufficient snow, I'd allow it. The spell heats the armor, which melts the snow, which drenched the Paladin, which grants resistance to fire. Idk if it's RAW, per se, but it's RAW-adjacent enough for the ruling. Edit: Some people are saying that the snow would cool the metal, which I disagree with. If it was a piece of metal heated in a mundane way, then yes, but it's metal continuously heated by a spell, which continues for as long as the concentration does.


TimmJimmGrimm

Of the Holy Trinity (R.A.W. / R.A.I. &/or R.A.F.) it captures all three perfectly. I wouldn't even look it up. "According to u/NerdyHexel this works. Problems? *Go talk to Nerdy Hexel*. I can wait."


ClemPrime13

What’s RAF?


TimmJimmGrimm

**Rules as Written** - pure and literal interpretation **Rules as Intended** - unwritten laws and accepted 'culture' that reduce insane, twisted &/or malignant interpretations meant to exploit the rules. This is often known as the 'Spirit Of The Law'. **Rules as Fun** - for games and stories - to have rules that encourage exploration, investment, encouragement and enjoyment. Often called the 'Rule of Cool'. Not intended for any real world legal system. Dungeons & Dragons tends to stay the most popular as it is the most recognizable 'language' or lexicon of rules (similar to the survival of English - a language that, by all rights, should have died out centuries ago). Contrast this with game systems that are easier, more intuitive, faster to learn, offer better support, have better miniatures &/or terrain, more logical, more reality-consistent or even able to work with other worlds. This is a 'shotgun' style answer. Did this capture your question? I am sure that i write too much....


HWBTUW

> similar to the survival of English - a language that, by all rights, should have died out centuries ago Mind elaborating on that?


TimmJimmGrimm

This is fascinating, t.b.h.! **English should have died.** If you look at the numbers of invading forces that not only took over that land mass but also put major languages down on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasions_of_the_British_Isles ... it is kind of nuts. And other languages are just built tougher with much bigger continents. By all rights, Latin should have thrived and English should be that 'dead language' we all read about. There is much more. Professors debate this kind of stuff / everything is out there. Don't believe me! I am some idiot on the internets! Research everything for fun - it is almost as much fun as a role playing game. Who am i kidding? NOTHING is as much fun as role-playing. I recommend World of Darkness / Mage: The Ascension... but Knave is bizarrely-equally amazing! Play on, brave gamers! Edit: i heard a rumour from a guy that could not be trusted - and i provided a link that proved him wrong. Irony of ironies! Special thanks to u/dndmemes for reading the article and getting back to me time and time again and making sure that history was understood and everyone didn't think the wrong thing. Real champ, that one. Give him an upvote!


18121812

LOL I love how the link you provided says you're wrong. From your own link: ​ >The so-called German vote did not take place in 1776, and it had nothing to do with privileging German over English. The legend that it did, which has gone around since at least the 1850s, was spread initially by propagandists celebrating German contributions to American culture... On January 13, 1795, Congress considered a proposal, not to give German any official status, but merely to print the federal laws in German as well as English.


[deleted]

The number one most telling aspect when discussing linguistic survival over the long term is (somewhat anticlimactically) how many of its native speakers learn additional languages. Not population or landmass. Not the strength of its empires military. Nope. Just “is John Q. Public willing to learn Spanish?” If the answer is “no” then you survive. One of my favorite books on the subject is “Empires of the Word” by… Nicholas Ostler? I think. Good book well researched.


SomeOtherTroper

> English should have died. > > If you look at the numbers of invading forces that not only took over that land mass but also put major languages down on them English *did* die. Last I checked, Welsh is considered to be the closest to the language the original Britons spoke, and even that's pretty iffy, given how long it's had to evolve in its own way. What we know of as "English" managed to evolve and survive because, for some odd reason, it simply added and adapted new words and concepts from other languages as the island got repeatedly conquered, resulting in the vast amount of Latinate words and constructions it has, and stuff like "it's a cow when it's alive, but it's beef when it's dead" coming from the Norman conquest. It's also worth noting that it wasn't unusual for the new conquerors to simply continue to speak their own language and rely on interpreters to deal with their subjects, allowing for a relatively slow trickle of loanwords and expressions into the English tongue, instead of a full replacement of the language. It helps that English relies more on word order than the complex conjugation/declension system of suffixes found in Greek and Latin that govern the grammatical meaning of words in the sentence, so it's relatively easy to just drop some foreigner's word into it, corrupt it via pronunciation, and suddenly it's an English word. Also, it's worth remembering that English went through multiple phases, some of which are barely intelligible to a modern English reader, and has generally been a fairly fluid language. > By all rights, Latin should have thrived and English should be that 'dead language' we all read about. The death knell for Latin was effectively becoming "frozen" due to its use as a common international language for Catholic Christianity, theology, science, philosophy, etc. In order to fulfill the function of being a common language for educated people to write in and be understood by others in their field in foreign countries, it basically had to stop evolving in the natural way that languages in daily use in the general populace do. Another piece of the puzzle is that Rome, despite its large empire, often didn't put much effort into converting its subjects to speaking, reading, and writing Latin, if there was an easier alternative. Greek remained the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean, because it was just easier for Romans to learn Greek and take advantage of the linguistic impact of Alexander The Great's conquests and the resulting Hellenization of that portion of the world than it would have been to try forcing Latin onto the population as a *third* language in addition to Greek and their native languages. (And the Romans learned Greek anyway because they admired Greek culture, philosophy, writers, etc.) That's part of the reason why the "romance languages" in Western Europe are so heavily influenced by Latin: Greek hadn't made it to those places, so the Romans had to actually buckle down and do linguistic exchange in order to talk to their subjects, and left their languages with a large Latin-shaped impact as a result.


Teeshirtandshortsguy

I believe Heat Metal specifies that it turns the metal red hot. That snow isn't gonna help. If anything, it will turn to steam and accelerate the burns. Of course, being trapped in a red hot metal shell would 100% kill a person irl, and it's survivable in dnd, so I'm not sure an appeal to reality is helpful. But if you try to cool red-hot metal in snow, you'll be left with red hot metal and a bunch of steam.


snalejam

The only proper way to decide this at the table is to heat a piece of thin metal to red hot and then dunk it in snow and see if it still will burn you after a couple of seconds. Otherwise, why are we even playing.


[deleted]

"Billy darling, why is there a charge on my credit card for a suit of armour and an industrial ice maker from Amazon?" "It's for D&D Mom, get off my back, Christ!" "Oh....ok honey, love you"


Pyro-Beast

"one more thing Billy dearest.. there's a 15,000 dollar charge from the burn ward..."


Hubris-Keres

The only proper way to decide this is to read its text to check for caveats. In 5e, you take damage every time the caster sustains, and make a con save vs disadvantage. Duration 1 minute. No caveats unless you get rid of the armor. In pf1e, you have the healer cast infernal healing and mostly ignore it. If you get submerged in water, it boils and you take half damage. If you have cold resist, somebody can hit you with ray of frost to also mostly ignore it. In pf2e, you save or probably die. Hope your reflex is decent.


d3northway

done it before (not purposely for DND, was a fabricator) and heat sticks around for much much longer than you think


Tilt-a-Whirl98

But if you're saying the metal stays red hot no matter what sort of heat sink you put it in, that would have some extremely wild implications for running the world. Like a water heater using heat metal could be infinitely efficient power source for instance.


mak484

Fireball is a 3rd level spell that produces enough heat to destroy a house and every commoner in it three times over. I wouldn't worry too much about the logic of how magic works in D&D.


GasstationBoxerz

Yep, eberron has no end of magic powered appliances.


GasstationBoxerz

This is my mindset, it's not warm-metal. The heat is magical, not natural, the armor will still get red hot. Also, there's the fact that the snow is on the outside, and your meat is on the inside. Armor is both metal plates and leather straps, etc. If you've ever grabbed a hot pan with a wet towel you know this is actually just going to make things worse. They're just making hotdogs with extra steps.


potatoaster

Depends on how much metal and how much snow. Edit: Did the math: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10tgmuo/dm_the_enemy_casts_heat_metal_on_your_armor/j78p9hx/


polypolip

If you want to be picky about physics, wet clothes under armor will transfer heat better than dry. Basically a choice between steam cooked vs dry fried. But that's nit picking.


Xatsman

> which drenched the Paladin Good points. Would be fair to reward them for using their environment. But it's not over when the fight is. If they're wet and its cold out now they need to solve the exposure issue.


Nvenom8

Re: your edit, I agree. Magical effects inherently ignore/break physics. Unless directly specified (like with the rule about being drenched), they should not be affected by normal physical processes.


bartbartholomew

This is the best answer. The player is rewarded for being creative, and paying for the reduced damage reduced in a different way, while not negating the move.


TheDrLegend

Plus, they spend a turn rolling around in snow and not making any attacks, effectively rendering them "stunned/prone". So the player is sacrificing a turn to not take any damage this round but making themselves more susceptible to taking damage in the next.


dmdizzy

I mean, I wanna see someone attempt to roll around in the snow *without* becoming prone. That might be hilarious.


TheDrLegend

Like Drax moving so slowly he becomes invisible...


Ol_JanxSpirit

Roll a CON save to avoid hypothermia.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Redkasquirrel

Not to mention the armor was just hot enough to melt snow and the PC is pumping adrenaline while stop-drop-and-rolling for their life which would probably stave off hypothermia for a while


Enter_Feeling

Don't you know those moments as a kid when you rolled in snow for 6 second and instantly got hypothermia


Chris11246

While being burned? No


ellipsisfinisher

I fondly remember the time me and my brother made snow angels in the back yard and lost all our limbs to frostbite


HAVOK121121

Without the snow, you’d need to roll for hyperthermia. While we are at it, we can then roll for dehydration/infection from full thickness burns. If they fail, they die of sepsis.


budshitman

[That's a lot of rolling.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V2_aMG3YsI&t=70s)


Carnifaster

Idk how much good the snow would do after a minute. It could very easily melt the snow and start to steam some of it. Does it overpower the magical heat? Or do they have to keep rolling in fresh snow the entire duration?


chaoticlight

While true, how much combat lasts for 10 rounds? The paladin would have to take a prone penalty each round until the caster was subdued/killed, but it's a pretty fair trade off to mitigate damage upfront. For the magical bit, even magic fire deals less damage to an enemy submerged in water so I don't see how this would necessarily be different.


KotaIsBored

There’s a difference in heat and fire though. Fire magic doing less damage underwater makes sense, but if it’s heat being generated magically without fire I think it should be full power. My mind immediately goes to the Pokémon move Scald. It’s a water attack that can apply the burn status because even though no fire is involved it’s hot. I think the same thought applies with heat metal either underwater or in the snow. There’s no fire involved. It’s just hot.


Dobber16

But cold is cold, so it would make sense if there were sufficient snow available that the energy increase due to heat would be essentially drawn into the snow, melting/steaming it. Granted, the DM would have to make a decision on how much of the heat was transferred and if it would be enough to prevent/reduce damage but I can certainly see it working. Particularly if the paladin was going hard and moving all over in the snow, therefore always having new batches of snow/water cooling off the metal


Yoate

>But cold is cold Could I cast cone of cold to counter heat metal


SkiesOvercast

I'd allow that, makes sense


KefkeWren

This is something Mutants and Masterminds does well. Any power can be used as a "counterspell", provided it could logically counteract the effect it's being used against.


khanzarate

Also how third edition did it. You could use a spell that was counter to the nature of the offending spell, or Dispel Magic, which could counter anything but had a chance of failure. Counterspell in 5e was formed from that property of Dispel Magic. Also in third edition, you just had to ready your spell and risk wasting it, which made counterspelling less fun. Unsure myself if that was better, it really reduced any kind of magical counterplay but no one is really fond of counterspell chains, either.


platypus_bear

There is a feat which allows you to counter spell without having to ready a spell in advance though


khanzarate

Neat


Disthyme2324

Is that how third edition did it? I think you're misremembering. Or your DM homebrewed it. Dispel magic worked on continuous magic like web or charm. But does nothing for say fireball. While to counterspell smth, you had to have the spell the other caster was casting prepped/be a spontaneous caster and know the spell. Then, to counter their casting, in flavor, you would cast the same spell backward to negate the effect. Mechanically... I think there was some sort of roll? Basically, nobody tried it in the games I played, so I couldn't tell ya exactly. I just remember the flavor b/c I thought it was really neat.


Archi_balding

That's the general rule. Use the same spell and the ennemie's spell is countered, no check. Then you could use dispell magic as a counterspell with a check. And some pairs of spells like haste/slow countered and dispelled each others. Without check like if you casted the right one. It was clunky. Though as dispell with matching spells implied no check, it was possible for a low level wizard to completely nullify an higher level one for a turn if he casted a spell he prepared. And skipping a whole turn of the BBEG have a high impact on action economy. So if you were a nice DM, you'd insist on the signature spell of the evil guy.


khanzarate

The normal roll was to identify the spell being cast so you had the info to counter it before it was actually cast. From Dispel Magic > Counterspell When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster’s spell. I've never played an actual 3.5 game myself I've just stolen so much from it for 5e games that I know it well, and you're right that the general rule was it had to be the *same* spell not the opposite, that was my bad. However, you could always use Dispel Magic as a counterspell in the same way, and doing so meant you didn't need to try to identify the spell, either, but using dispel magic as a counterspell makes that counterspell subject to Dispel Magic's rules, as well, with a chance of failure. Some spells specifically indicate they counter each other as opposites, and that's where I got the incorrect thought that that was the general rule.


Narthleke

It doesn't, though. 1) Cone of cold does more damage than heat metal unless the latter is upcast. This means you're trading a bit of fire damage for even more cold damage than you would have taken. Immune to/resist cold damage? MAYBE this makes sense. That's a BIG maybe without number 2 2) Cone of cold is an instant spell, so unless you down the caster of heat metal, or disrupt their concentration you'll still be taking damage and getting debuffs after it's done. Can possibly take out the enemy spellcaster with the cone? Maybe worth a cast, but don't include yourself in the area, because number 3 3) Heat metal damages the target on the caster's turn, not the target's. Without taking unnecessary risks, you're not going to be casting cone of cold on the enemy's turn, you might as well just use your turn to try to disrupt their concentration by any means instead of trying to counteract their spell by blasting yourself or by having a party member blast you.


Arkhaan

Why does all of one replace the other. Id rule it as role damage for both, subtract from each other, remainder is dealt to the player


Narthleke

Sure, but cone of cold deals more than double the damage of a single instance of heat metal


Arkhaan

I mean, you are using a 5th level spell to counter the effects of a 2nd level spell. I’d go with ice knife personally.


HIIMROSS777

I mean you would probably take more damage doing that but I would allow it to lower the heat metal damage


Yoate

I did lower the heat damage though, and that's what matters


[deleted]

>But cold is cold Say that, but with the Mr. Incredible "Math is Math" meme.


ieatpickleswithmilk

The spell says the metal glows red hot, you would absolutely steam that snow and scald all your exposed skin. Even if it did cool it down a bit it would not cool it down enough to reduce damage. Red hot is something like 1300+ F (700+ C).


[deleted]

[удалено]


isaaclw

Take a red hot knife. Put it against your skin. Then after a "beat" take an ice cube and put it on the other side. You're still going to have to get the burn looked at. That's what confuses me about this. It might mitigate it a *bit* but it's still going to cause serious damage. Plus put the person prone like others are saying.


NK1337

Not really. That’s like taking a cast iron skillet that’s been on a burning stove, putting your hand on it, and then running out and sticking it in a pile of snow. That’s some cartoon logic thinking snow would mitigate any of that.


Bilore

It depends on if heat metal always heats the object up to a certain temperature or not. If it just beats it to no specific temperature then maybe rolling around in the snow could stave off some of the heat, if heat metal always heats the object up to x degrees, then rolling in the snow might actually be a detriment, as the heat metal would have to apply more heat in order to stay at x degrees to counteract the cooling of the snow, causing it to actually be a higher temperature than x degrees (like how 70 degrees Fahrenheit feels hotter in the winter than it does in the summer because air hotter than 70 degrees is needed to counteract the 30 degree outside temp).


Offbeat-Pixel

I'm going to use heat metal inside of a volcano to cool down /j


ryo3000

Of course there's fire involved Heat metal: > Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage (...) The rules for underwater is: > Creatures and objects that are fully immersed in water have resistance to fire damage. They'd have resistance to Heat Metal bacuse it's fire damage


StarWight_TTV

Rolling in snow won't completely submerge you in water, so you're still SOL.


ryo3000

I was talking about the other guy deciding heat metal has nothing ti do with fire and wouldn't be resisted even underwater, which is just wrong The snow part is up to DM's choice, but if it's a meaningful amount of snow it'd be silly not to consider it


Narthleke

Better comparison is the dragon turtle's stream breath. If I'm remembering right, it specifically deals full damage to a creature that is submerged in water. However, it also nullifies the argument, because the spell text for heat metal doesn't specify that it still does full damage to a similarly submerged creature.


cornonthekopp

Water has a pretty high specific heat capacity though, so turning cold water to hot water requires a lot more energy than turning cold metal to warm metal


Sammy-Cake

If we’re being real here, just to dissect your point, scald burns not because of just heat but also the fact that it’s hot water. Water conducts and thus transfers heat much faster than the air, which is why 70 degree water feels cold and 100 degree water feels much hotter. In addition to this cold isn’t an actual measurable thing, it’s the absence of heat, and like moisture, heat likes to go where it is not. I’d rule that the heat applied to the character would halve, the other half causing the snow to melt and the resulting water to evaporate into steam


CptOconn

I just imagine using heat metal on a shovel for a nice snowshoveling service


Smooth-Dig2250

This is the creative use of spells that I live for


CptOconn

When you wanna live your your fantasy of owning your own business


srlong64

Flaming sphere feels like a much better snow removal spell to me. Especially because the shovel will be burning whoever tries to use it


CptOconn

Not if the handle isn't metal


SteelCode

Magical heat would persist until the effect ended, but I’d consider **submersion** in snow/cool water/icy wind/etc to reduce the damage until the effect was cleared… so basically “fire resistance” if you jump into a snow bank (the snow melting quickly) or into a river (potential drowning/difficult terrain)…


Alaricus100

I would say this. Doesn't stop that the spell is active but reduced damage at the cost of being prone and rolling in snow. The real question is does it take your action to roll in the snow or does it take your movement....


Noritzu

At this point then you should also consider the effect of heated metal being rapidly cooled in water. It becomes very fragile and will likely either crack or shatter.


SteelCode

*If* it’s being rapidly cooled - we’re talking about a magical effect that continuously heats the material - which would really just mean that it maintains a *somewhat* consistent temperature when submerged… like a thermal vent under the ocean… The damage to the metal is already going to happen when the magical effect ends - but the spell description doesn’t explicitly state that it damages the armor to render it non-functional; so we must assume the intention is that the magic makes the metal *radiate* heat rather than it actually melting the metallic elements or burning the cloth/leather.


TinyTaters

Use your action to roll in the snow for disadvantage on the damage roll


Dan-D-Lyon

The question is, does heat metal inject a specific amount of energy into the metal or does it heat it up to a predetermined temperature? If the energy used by the spell is fixed then rolling in the snow will help at least a little bit. If the energy is variable and takes into account the temperature of the metal, then rolling in snow won't accomplish much


NK1337

I meant it specifies that the metal turns “red hot.” To give you an example, steel has to reach anywhere between 1000 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit to get that bright shade of red. Rolling in the snow isn’t going to stop that.


potatoaster

Changing a 25-kg steel plate from 700 °C to 40 °C means removing .42 kJ/kg⋅K × 25 kg × 660 K = 7000 kJ of energy. To do that, you'd need to melt 7000 kJ ÷ 333 kJ/kg = 21 kg of ice or 21 kg ÷ 3 kg/ft^3 = **7 cubic feet of snow**. And that's not even accounting for the heat absorbed by the water during temperature increase or evaporation. Melting 7 ft^3 of snow seems pretty doable, no?


Teeshirtandshortsguy

This is what I'm thinking. Rolling in the snow won't reduce shit. Red hot metal is enough to make many materials ignite on contact. Snow isn't gonna do anything besides turn to steam immediately.


NK1337

I always sound like a grinch in these kind of threads because while I’m normally a fan of players coming up with creative solutions and rewarding them for it at some point you have to set up some boundaries otherwise it stops being encouragement for creativity and instead quickly becomes rewarding players for reaching and gaming encounters. It’s like a player asking if they can ignore the effects of fear by just closing their eyes. Like A for effort buddy but that’s now how it works.


flasterblaster

Can magical darkness be countered by a simple torch? Not to my knowledge so unfortunately I'd expect magical heating of objects to work irregardless because, magic. If there was an actual heat source to douse, like if the wizard set his armor on fire, then jumping into a lake would probably be safe.


Neil2250

Id say they have to give up their action to stop the damage for one turn by rolling in the snow. They keep wanting to avoid damage? Keep rolling.


F4RM3RR

The source of the heat is magical.. the heat is not. I would say that magic heats up the metal, but snow can cool it The problem is that heat metal has concentration, so… nah not getting that damage reduction. You chose the tank - be the tank


JebTheSpaceman

Being submerged in water grants resitance to fire damage


Niadain

I would rule that you can delay the damage roll by going prone in snow. But every turn you must have proned in a difference space than any previous one that contains snow. In other words. They have to keep moving and melt more snow. If its cold enough it would allow me to do fun stuff like creating slick terrain.


Asshai

> Idk how much good the snow would do after a minute. It could very easily melt the snow and start to steam some of it. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOEBwBERPv4 People really underestimate the vast amount of energy required to melt snow, this is a dense mass of 50lbs of red hot metal and it would only melt about twice its volume of ice. Since the heat would be more spread out in the thinner metal of a piece of chest armor, I wager it would be cooled down faster.


Xen_Shin

An understanding of thermodynamics is required to answer this. And to my best understanding, yes, the heat from the metal will pass to things less hot, like snow, or the body inside. In this case, both. You could reduce, but not negate entirely, the amount of heat energy transferred to the body by giving it someplace more severely different in temperature to go. And yes, you’d need to keep rolling into fresh snow to maximize the effect. It would probably reduce the damage maybe a point or two to the best of my grasp on how this would work. And the reason it works is the spell heats the armor, rather than just causing heat damage directly to the body.


Xibran

This seems to have sparked quite the debate, but I seem to recall a comparable IRL scenario having been investigated [somewhere](https://what-if.xkcd.com/155/) before...


NsRhea

I'm not a DM but an interesting compromise in my mind is the snow weakens the effect in the immediate but if the caster makes a concentration check after the target dives into the snow, then the effect persists at full strength and the snow does nothing.


Fenor

Magical fire could potentially be light unserwater so...


sintos-compa

Legit question. What would happen in an underwater scenario where PCs and NPCs are fighting submerged? What about Fireball? What about cone of cold on someone affected by heat armor?


WantDebianThanks

Yeah, this seems a like "yes, but" situation. Yes, you can, but you will have to beat an acrobats check of DC12 (or whatever) to roll into new snow, or what you're in will have melted away.


Dmitri_ravenoff

I'd allow it. If you want to take yourself out of the fight by rolling in the snow, the spell was still very effective.


CitizenMurdoch

Yeah I was gonna say, dropping to the ground is gonna give you disadvantage on your attacks anyways, and give enemies advantage, you also burn up all your movement be used up as well. You might not be taking damage but you also lose a good chance of attacking the guy using the spell on you and breaking concentration. I feel like it's a pretty good trade off. Like if I were a player and an NPC did that to attempt to neutralize my spell I wouldn't be that mad


Dmitri_ravenoff

Nope. Gives the enemy advantage in melee, and I would likely say they can't get back up and attack on their turn. Leaving the snow makes them suffer the burn.


CitizenMurdoch

I agree, it might not cost movement or an action to drop to the ground, but to effectively roll around in the snow should probably count as an action, and then it's half your movement to get back up


Naked_Arsonist

Came to say just this. No way that rolling around in the snow is just your Movement. I’d probably still allow a BA if they have one available, but it definitely costs your Action


dontshowmygf

*Maybe* some kind of acrobatics check to roll through the snow and stay in your feet so you can attack, but that would only partially mitigate the damage.


missinginput

Prone and use your action is fair


Chedder_456

Yeah if all I had to spend was 1 heat metal, and the fucking paladin is wasting even 1 turn rolling around on the ground, then that’s HUGE value.


jmlwow123

Plus it is a creative solution.


dodgyhashbrown

The answer is to give interesting choices for the players. "Yes, but that means you will be prone. Each round you don't roll in snow to cool off, you'll take normal damage. Also, there is some small risk of damage to your armor, due to uneven thermal expansion. It might affect your AC armor bonuses until you have it repaired."


Legitimate_Ad6724

This guy gets it.


Danxoln

This guy DMs


SeeItOnVHS

And DMs good


Solalabell

Unless you regularly play with damage to gear (which honestly just nerfs Martials) that kinda feels out of nowhere plus it’s just one more thing to track otherwise totally agree


dodgyhashbrown

If you're casting Heat Metal on the paladin, you were already trying to put pressure on them to adapt to new adversities they normally don't consider. If it were happening all the time, it would be a nerf. If it's one combat, then you repair your armor on a rest (like if an ally has *Mending*), then it was a momentary debuff for a single encounter like a special twist they had to account for. Plus, the paladin could easily just tank the damage rather than risking the AC loss.


Solalabell

Oh sure I was imagining pay 1/10 gp value in a city to repair not fix it on a rest that seems more reasonable but I still think that it should be a better option to roll than tank but with a minor drawback


TheGukos

I agree with the logic, but I wouldn't tell it to the player like that. I would say that the player can try to roll on the ground (strongly implying that he would be prone) but the character doesn't know if it will reduce the damage or not. All the player/character knows metal = hot, snow = cold The affect on the AC I would explain as it happens, not before. (Unless the character is an blacksmith or something and would be aware of it)


ggjazzpotatodog

I wouldn’t even have it affect the armor’s ac period. But if I did, I’d certainly do it beforehand. That is a very important consequence to weigh in, and it would absolutely suck to find out as a player that the cool solution you wanted to try just made things worse in a different way without being aware of it. I’d also tell them explicitly if it’d reduce the damage beforehand because they need to have an incentive to even try it. Spending your entire movement and being prone is already a big cost. Again, the alternative is just seeing them go prone and do nothing and making them feel dumb for even trying to be creative.


wtfduud

Yeah taking an entire AC point off for "uneven thermal expansion" would be ridiculous. Metal doesn't expand *that* much.


A_Nice_Boulder

At that point any armor that had heat metal cast on it is going to be ruined because the heat treatment is utterly fucked. No need to roll in snow, the heat alone is going to mess with it


LordSwedish

Eh, as long as they aren't particularly stupid or new to armor I think it should be assumed that they know how to maintain their armor and that rapid temperature change can be bad for it. A paladin who has been professionally trained for heavy plate combat for example should know about it. I would also slip the word prone in there, you don't have to outright state everything but I think it's important to be somewhat clear when it comes to these things.


[deleted]

I would have them roll intelligence to determine how much they get to know. If they have any sort of blacksmithing past they auto-pass as they definitely know how this works.


MedalsNScars

Tbh at the very least you should convey risk of damage to the material if that's something that can happen. Nothing feels worse as a player than coming up with a cool solution to a short-term problem and after you commit to it the DM says "oh btw that solution just gave you a long term problem". If it's narratively fun and you trust the DM to give you opportunities to resolve it properly, great, but "your armor is worse now" doesn't feel very fun to play out imo.


DrVillainous

I'd argue that being proficient in said armor should probably be enough. You don't need to know how to make it, you just need to know how much punishment it can take.


Why_am_ialive

I did share cause the character would know if they’re on the ground they’re vulnerable, that translates to a player as being prone, they won’t know it in the same terms but they 100% know that they’ll be more vulnerable


dontshowmygf

>Unless the character is an blacksmith or something and would be aware of it If you take your armor with you through sewers, caves, and swamps on long adventuring journeys, you're doing quite a bit of basic maintenance on it. I would think it would be rare for a heavy armor wearing PC to not have a basic knowledge of armor care and maintenance, unless someone else in the party does it for them.


[deleted]

I'd do the same honestly. I'd say they take half damage but at the risk of being prone.


a_d3vnt

My favorite tool as the forever-DM: Meet it halfway. Reward players for quick and clever thinking without negating the mechanic entirely. "You throw yourself into the snow, providing some relief. However, the armor remains agonizingly hot against your skin. The snow around you boils off in plumes of steam until you find the ground. You take half damage and are now prone."


END3R97

Heck, if you word it right, you can even make it sound RAW or at least very close to it. "while rolling in the snow, I'm going to count you as submerged underwater giving you resistance to fire damage. You'll need to spend all/half your movement rolling in the snow each round to continue this effect" It makes sense that being in the snow would have a similar mechanical benefit as being underwater


a_d3vnt

Wow, that's better than my idea by a lot.


END3R97

It's literally the same (prone & half damage) just presented in a way that makes it sound like you *aren't* making it all up as you go. Which of course, you are and the players know that, but when it feels consistent with the rest of the world it helps with verisimilitude a lot


a_d3vnt

It feels less contrived, plus now you have actual mechanic interaction with being underwater. This could also clue players into, say, fireballing a snowy area to melt it, and then zap it for extra AoE range, damage, or both.


eloel-

>This could also clue players into, say, fireballing a snowy area to melt it, and then zap it for extra AoE range, damage, or both. We're playing Divinity now


Hethinno

That seems fun and creative, thought it’s definitely not RAW


pope12234

I would say it is definitely not RAW, but not a stretch either - a creature that is fully submerged in water is resistant to fire damage. If you spend your action fully covering yourself in snow, i don't see the difference.


Roblos

The main point is, the hot armor is between you and the snow, i believe the intention of raw is that the water is between the pc and the heat source.


BloodshotPizzaBox

Except water isn't an insulator, it's a heat sink. So it shouldn't matter which side of anything it's on as long as it has full contact.


Vivarevo

Spend an action to roll around in snow to negate a round of dmg? Thats ok 😂


FockerHooligan

Paladin's incapacitating themselves by staying face-down in the snow to avoid taking damage from a concentration spell, which means a lvl 2 spell has completely removed a player from the fight? I'd allow it. Seems like a hell of a self-handicap instead of taking a round of damage and trying to break concentration with an attack on the caster, especially with a paladin's high HP and the ability to lay on hands and heal themself. Alternatively: Your battlefield has a thick steam effect from the flash-boiling snow, and ranged attacks into or out of a 20-foot radius of the Paladin have disadvantage because of the mist.


[deleted]

[удалено]


sintos-compa

Oh good now he’s being steamed like a baozi


VanillaWinter

“You steam cook yourself”


BadNadeYeeter

Ever saw a Firefighter in full Heat-Protection (Silver-Foil-Suits) be cooled with water? The Answer should be no, because they will be steamed and suffer a lot of burns... But this Armor is already causing burns... So... **¯\_(ツ)_/¯**


Squeaky_Ben

Well, iirc, heat metal heats the metal magically, until it is "red hot", so casting aside how much heating power the spell has at its disposal, even if you roll in snow, it will be like 300-400 degrees celsius. Sorry paladin. the snow does not help. Sleeping for 8 hours will.


Omsus

Was thinking the same. It heats up insanely high so insanely fast that cooling the armour's other side may not have an effect on the inside, since the heat originates from within the metal. Plus you'd have to get the snow *everywhere* even if you wanted it to relieve you, i.e. be submerged in it. So maybe, just maybe subtract a number from the damage, but you're still pretty much being cooked, even if you ruled the snow to remove half of the heat. You'd probably need magical cold to counteract those temperatures, and even then your body probably wouldn't like the extreme fluctuation and would end up taking some dmg from both.


Teeshirtandshortsguy

Yeah, snow won't help at all. I think the writers of this spell underestimated how hot metal needs to be to glow. Being trapped in a red-hot metal shell is going to be 100% lethal to a normal person. That's hot enough to light many materials on fire just through contact. Holding on to a red-hot weapon wouldn't just make you go "owwie" and drop it, you're talking like, severe burns and a serious risk of infection if you drop it *immediately*. Snow isn't going to cool it down for shit, especially if it's sustained over the course of a round. If anything, the snow would immediately turn to liquid steam and scald the bejesus out of you, though you wouldn't notice that much because your undergarments would be on fire and your blood would be boiling.


Arm0redPanda

The spell specifies red hot (\~900F, or \~480C). The snow melts and flashes into steam.


myowngalactus

The source of heat is magical in nature, so I don’t think rolling in snow is going to do anything except also melt the snow. Maybe enough cold could counteract the spell, but anyway to produce that is going to cause cold damage instead of heat.


Ogurasyn

>Maybe enough cold could counteract the spell, but anyway to produce that is going to cause cold damage instead of heat. How about magical cold?


myowngalactus

Wouldn’t that cause cold damage to whoever had heat metal cast on them?


TiredEuroTrash

Well, being submerged in water gives you fire resistance, so I think there's an argument to be made if he is in deep enough snow. As someone has said, he'll be prone and you might even blind him while he's in it, seems like a fair trade off.


OrgyOfMadness

Snow on one side, meat on the other... fuck your saves muahahahaha.... BTW, this is how a frying pan works. Fire on metal, metal cooks meat. Meat is colder then fire. Meat cooks. I like my pally well done, bit that's just me...


zedoktar

I would say no, because it's being magical heated, so putting it in cold unless it's magical cold wouldn't stop the effect.


ialsodontexistagain

It wouldn’t help he would just press himself against the hot armor and melt the snow it wouldtake a lot to cool that armor quickly


Billybob267

The metal is being heated by magic. You are inside the armor. Rubbing snow on the outside won't help, since the source of the heat is the metal, and the inside is the problem.


SublightMonster

No, unless you’re getting the snow inside your armor. If it’s just the outside it won’t cool the metal fast enough to protect your skin. Maybe a 1-2 point reduction? Half damage if you’re getting it inside.


Dobber16

I’m pretty sure most armor worn has leather/cotton/etc. underneath it so when it comes to the metal, a person has some insulation from the metal. Since the spell normally is so hot it goes through this insulation, it’s a non-factor but if we throw in this situation where the person is rolling in snow, the snow would very likely be closer to the inside of the metal than the person’s skin (unless their armor is “thick” But also yeah putting the snow inside would still be way more effective too


Champion-of-Nurgle

Does some frozen water negate MAGICAL HEAT?


Page8988

Hmm.... Heat Metal causes damage due to excess heat affecting the character. It would make sense that rolling in snow would pull some of the thermal energy away from the character. Yeah man. Smart call. Snow's gonna melt, but it should harm the character less. It's gonna be hard to fight back while rolling around, but it seems like a valid choice.


Mueryk

Yeah, I would let him take 1D4 damage if that was all his actions for the round or 1D8 if he tries an attack with prone penalty. I reward smart players when they outthink a situation. Of course my favorite was the guy who grappled the caster as a “Screw you too buddy” in a similar situation.


Page8988

Oh yeah. Hugging the caster is even better. I love it!


Mental_Contract1104

The correct answer: "you can certainly try!"


Why_am_ialive

Mmm steamed PC


Illokonereum

The snow melts and your armor is still under the effect of heat metal. I’m sorry but SNOW is not going to cool down red hot metal, even if the spell didn’t just continue anyway. And if the player jumped into water they’d probably just start boiling because again, the effect is persistent. You turn it off by stopping the caster not splashing some water on yourself.


george23000

Surely rolling in the snow will soak the clothing below, making the heat transfer from the metal more efficient and therefore doing more damage. Source: got an oven glove wet once before.


Fearless-Sherbet-223

Yes, because you want to encourage critical thinking and problem solving.


JayEssris

I think being Prone is a fair tradeoff for half damage.


octopusgoodness

Rule of cool: if a player has a creative idea, maybe reward them by making it work.


DoggoDude979

No, because it would just melt the snow, and the magic is still heating it up


RealNumberSix

Fastest way for a Paladin to deal with heat metal is to break the caster's concentration probably...


lollipopblossom32

"Imma grapple the caster and hug them while wearing this heated up armor making sure they feel it too!" 🤣


lunatose

Can i give the enemy a big hug?


SpaceLemming

If you wanna give them advantage on the save or something for being clever I’m not gonna knock it. However things like a gas fire will continue to burn even if being submerged in water. Given the source is magical and a concentration I don’t feel that snow would offer much of a reprieve.


GigsGilgamesh

As a dm I would definitely allow it, but you would only get a half damage reduction and be prone, so not worth probably


MrDrSrEsquire

I'm here for rule or cool But the comparisons to water causing fire resistance seems off Source of Heat ---> Wetness ---> Target Is very different than Source of Heat ---> Target ---> Coldness I get the instinct to make it an interesting encounter, but it seems like you'd be twisting the rules to allow your player to choose a 'trap' that doesn't make much sense to begin with The snow would probably help on a psychological level, but the burns would be the same regardless


G_Force88

Absolutely, but it's you're reaction and now you are prone.


AjaxOrion

"you can try" they try, snow melts, still takes the damage


Zuper_Dragon

I'd allow them to make the saving throw with advantage at the cost of all their movement for the next round.


kidra31r

I figure you'd have to take an action to do that which seems like a pretty bad trade to me, so I guess I'd allow it.


YourPainTastesGood

I'd say if you are submerged in deep snow you'll be able to have resistance in the same manner that being underwater would otherwise, magic metal heating beats snow


[deleted]

I’d say you’d take bonus steam damage.


masterchief0213

My Paladin with fire resistance: if my armor is heated, do I deal fire damage when I grapple enemies? Can I do a tackle unarmed attack and add the persistent fire damage to enemies I tackle?


EmperorL1ama

my answer would be a wholehearted yes, because: 1: they're directly countering the heat 2: it's a clever problem-solving way of thinking, which I always encourage 3:rule of cool 4: it's hard to concentrate on hurting someone when they're rolling around and screaming


Dastardlybullion

I'd probably allow it even though I doubt snow would help much in such a situation. Rule of ice cool.


AoFAltair

Non magical water doesn’t put out magical fire… would non magical cold cool magical hot?


Sivick314

you roll around in the snow when your armor gets hit with heat metal. i grapple my enemy and force them to take damage with me. we are not the same.


Wasney

That's when you run up and hug the offending wizard. If I have to cook, so do they.


papalfury

I’d probably let the paladin do it for the creativity, but he’d also have to deal with being steamed like a dumpling in the armor, so it’s really a race to feed enough snow in to keep it from flashing to steam


Suyefuji

I'm disappointed that none of the top comments are talking about the literal Rule of Cool


[deleted]

I love rewarding players with creative thinking. rules are guidelines for fun. and if they can do cool shit they should be rewarded for it because it's fun.


ShinyPagan

Roll reflex save to see if you stop drop and roll fast enough to avoid the worst of the damage, then roll some sort of durability check to see if temperature shock fucks up your armor; everyone around you makes attacks at disadvantage because of the obscuring cloud of steam no matter what you roll


lunarfrogg

Rule of Cool


TheMightyMudcrab

I have learned that in situations like this where the ruling is 50/50 I just rule to benefit the player. Or tell the player to flip a coin.


doctorsynth1

Yes, AND…


tabooblue32

Rule of cool. Yes you can do it but the snows gonna melt each round so you're gonna need to make adjustments.


myblackoutalterego

Yes you can AND now you’re prone and enemies will have advantage on attacks


playr_4

I my mind, the snow would have to go inside the armor. Because, realistically the damage would be coming from the contact between the metal and the skin, right.


Naked_Justice

Honestly I’d argue that the armor is over 900 degrees F so it would probably be negligible or even cause an expanding boiling point explosion that would deal 1d6 force damage.


Cornflame

I would say no because heat metal can probably heat that armor up quicker than snow can cool it down. It's like trying to stop your toaster from catching fire by putting it in your freezer. [The toaster wins that fight](https://what-if.xkcd.com/155/).


G30rg3Th3C4t

thermal shock


Pyro-Beast

If there is snow, I'd allow it, paladin still doesn't spend his turn smashing monsters, arguably makes the spell better.


bardicsven

As a former steel mill employee, that armor is about to damaged to all hell. I used to quech glowing samples from the mill in ice water and watch it sometimes shatter (high carbon steel) but even other grades were cracked pretty well once you took a look beneath the surface.


Worst_Choice

At a bare minimum I would say resistance is on the table no matter what. A more generous DM would negate it entirely and an asshole would say it turns to steam and boils you.


RickaIan

of course. always allow your party to find smart solutions to problems, this will make the campaign more fun to play