Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 05:39 PM	In the "Heat Metal" spell description it says: If cast underwater, heat metal deals half damage and boils the surrounding water. In the "Wilderness, Weather, and Environment" portion of the SRD it says: Boiling water deals 1d6 points of scalding damage, unless the character is fully immersed, in which case it deals 10d6 points of damage per round of exposure. So does this mean a fighter swimming in full plate (unrealistic situation, but one that demonstrates my point well; we'll say it was a trap and he fell into a pit of water) that gets "Heat Metal" cast on him takes 10d6 points of scalding damage per round, in addition to half the damage from the heated metal? This seems like a decent spell suddenly just got over-powered in certain situations (although I suppose one might argue all spells could be found to fall in that category, this is certainly a situation that is more easily manufactured). All you need is a trap that is a pit of water, some small metal balls, and something that can replicate a level 2 druid spell- in exchange you get 10d6 damage per round, plus any extra damage if the metal happens to touch the trap recipient. If all this is true, "Heat Metal" even specifies the water only boils around the metal piece, so you could still be underwater with them when this occurs and remain unscalded (if you keep your distance). Am I misinterpreting this spell or is this all RAW (although feel free to share what you think the RAI would be in this situation, assuming RAW)?
tarkin 03-28-07, 05:47 PM	You are misinterpating the rules. It CLEARLY says how much damage it does: 1/2 damage. This over-rides the general rule about being immersed in boiling water. Similarly, if a spell says "you take no damage from this", then that means you take no damage, even if normally you would.
Thiez 03-28-07, 05:53 PM	"If cast underwater, heat metal deals half damage and boils the surrounding water." It says the damage caused by HEAT METAL is halved, I don't see anything about damage from boiling water.
Rhuxley 03-28-07, 05:59 PM	Well given that the fighter isnt fully imersed, it would maybe do +1d6 per round.
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 05:59 PM	"If cast underwater, heat metal deals half damage and boils the surrounding water." It says the damage caused by HEAT METAL is halved, I don't see anything about damage from boiling water. My question was, what purpose does boiling water serve exactly? So I found this little ditty (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#heatDangers). It clearly states: Boiling water deals 1d6 points of scalding damage, unless the character is fully immersed, in which case it deals 10d6 points of damage per round of exposure. Just as "Heat Metal" clearly states it causes boiling water, just as I clearly stated my reasons for bringing up this concern above. You are misinterpating the rules. It CLEARLY says how much damage it does: 1/2 damage. This is not true; it CLEARLY states that "If cast underwater, heat metal deals half damage and boils the surrounding water", not "1/2 damage". This over-rides the general rule about being immersed in boiling water. Similarly, if a spell says "you take no damage from this", then that means you take no damage, even if normally you would. Alright, this is more to my point. However "Heat Metal" specifies: If cast underwater, heat metal deals half damage and boils the surrounding water. Emphasis mine. Wouldn't the "and" also mean you take half damage and boil the water? And, if not, could it be interpreted that you take half damage from the boiling water (since the source is not specified)? I just don't see why the spell would specify "and boils the surrounding water" unless there was some benefit to it.
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 06:01 PM	Well given that the fighter isnt fully imersed, it would maybe do +1d6 per round. I assumed a fighter in full plate falling into a pit of water laid as a trap would probably be deep enough to immerse the fighter, I've never heard of a water trap that only had enough water to go to the waist, short of an electric-aligned one. Sorry, I guess I should've been more clear.
tarkin 03-28-07, 06:01 PM	No it does not say that "the damage from Heat Metal is halved". It says "If cast underwater, heat metal deals half damage and boils the surrounding water. " The word deals means all the damage done by this spell. Not 'part of the damage', all the damage. It is like saying "I deal out 1/2 as many cards to you." That does not mean I deal out 1/2 as many cards to you then I go ahead and deal 5 more. Any additional damage must come from something besides the spell. The boiled water is from the spell, it is included in the "deals". Really, how hard is it understand that spells that deal damage TELL YOU HOW MUCH DAMAGE THEY DO!!!. They do not expect you to try and caculate it out further, by looking up obscure phrases in other parts of the books. Normally this 2nd level spell does a total of 8d4 points of damage, spread out over 6 rounds. You want it to add on 10d6 (that could argueably not have the save for the rest of the spell). But instead of WoTC expressely stating that extra damage that is more than the base damage, you think they hid it away by putting the 10d6 section in an entirely different part of the book? Can you even say that with a straight face? Without smirking just a little bit? Stop looking for the cheat, the super powerfull error that WoTC wrote into and trying to abuse it. Instead try to actually play the game.
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 06:10 PM	No it does not say that "the damage from Heat Metal is halved". It says "If cast underwater, heat metal deals half damage and boils the surrounding water. " Your trouble is you're thinking only in terms of the spells direct damage; when cast underwater it deals two things, one of which you've established: deal half damage. However the second effect, and the one I'm asking about, is the boiling property. How does this factor in? The word deals means all the damage done by this spell. This is not true; it means all the direct immediate damage done by the spell, which again is more of a bend since the spell does sustained damage. The only immediate effect by this spell is either: 1) If you are not in water it warms your metal. and 2) If you are underwater it boils the water around the metal. Not 'part of the damage', all the damage. It is like saying "I deal out 1/2 as many cards to you." That does not mean I deal out 1/2 as many cards to you then I go ahead and deal 5 more. Any additional damage must come from something besides the spell. Again not true, because of the secondary effect. The boiled water is from the spell, it is included in the "deals". Really, how hard is it understand that spells that deal damage TELL YOU HOW MUCH DAMAGE THEY DO!!!. They do not expect you to try and caculate it out further, by looking up obscure phrases in other parts of the books. This is not a game called "secret rules lawyering", where you 'win' by remembering particular phrases and combining them into secret super-powerfull combos. I'm not sure why you are getting so hostile about this, I'm simply asking a question. I am not trying to manipulate the rules to my advantage, as I have stated in almost all my posts I am simply trying to figure out what purpose the "boils surrounding water" would have in the spell description of "Heat Metal". If you are uncompromising in your view, I would appreciate if you left my thread, because, while you were initially helpful, now you have clearly deteriorated in your manners. The fact is you're wrong about the points you're using to support the "half damage fact". Heat Metal does not deal damage; it heats metal. As a result of this heated metal it can do damage, but this is not the point of the spell. Please re-read the spell description if you wish to continue posting in this thread.
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 06:21 PM	Just so the point of this thread isn't misinterpreted by what Tarkin said, my questions are thus: 1) I want to know what the point of the boiling water caused by the "Heat Metal" spell does. Does this follow the normal rules for boiling water or is this wording there entirely for cosmetic purposes? 2) Is there any errata or any other data about boiling water out there? Any other spells that cause it or information in any of the books? 3) Is all of this legit rules-wise, but a better compromise would be "X" (You can fill that one in). I am not trying to twist the rules for extra damage (I will probably never even use this spell underwater for my entire DnD career or even discuss it outside of this thread). I am not trying to point my finger at something I "discovered" and say, "OMG another reason why RAW is bad." My reasons are above, thank you.
CrazyMarv 03-28-07, 06:34 PM	It is like saying "I deal out 1/2 as many cards to you." That does not mean I deal out 1/2 as many cards to you then I go ahead and deal 5 more. Actually, it's kind of like someone telling you to deal 10 cards to anyone who sits at the table across from you, but if they have a blue shirt only deal half the cards and slap them across the face. It sounds like what you are saying is that they'd get half the cards, but the slap to the face wouldn't hurt. If I have some guy tied up in a metal pot full of water and cast Heat Metal on the pot, I'm going to apply the damage from him sitting in boiling water and half the damage from the heated pot, not half the damage from the heated pot and nothing at all from the water boiling around him. If they didn't want the water to boil they would have said that the water gets warm and the heated metal does half damage. It says right in the description it can create boiling water, why wouldn't the boiling water do what boiling water does?
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 06:41 PM	Actually, it's kind of like someone telling you to deal 10 cards to anyone who sits at the table across from you, but if they have a blue shirt only deal half the cards and slap them across the face. I then say other stuff and make a good point. *groans horribly* Can we please stop the card references? It was a horrible point to begin with and now it feels like I'm stuck in a room full of people who only want to talk in puns. In all straight-facedness though, your example was EXACTLY the perfect way of conveying what I'm trying to get across. I think what everyone is opposed to though, is the fact that it could potentially deal 10d6 damage per round, which is a big deal for a second level spell. However that doesn't mean you can ignore the spells effects (its still RAW), it just means they probably need to be fixed (as per RAI).
Another Gnome 03-28-07, 06:42 PM	Half ot the thermal energy created by the spell goes to damage the character wrapped in the metal. The rest is absorbed by the surrounding water. If you cast heat metal on a fighter in full plate already swimming in boiling water, then the damage from boiling water would apply separately (and in which case I might argue the spell deals full damage). But in cold water, at least in a body of water large enough to submerge a guy in full plate to begin with, the increase of water temperature in immediate surroundings is neglible because the water simply can't remain at boiling temperature as a simple result of heat conducting. We may be breaking several laws of physics to begin with when it comes to spells and you're free to ignore that reasoning, but even sticking to RAW, the spell says "boils the surrounding water" not "turns the surrounding water into boiling water". Thus, seeing as... 1. The spell says how much damage it deals. 2. There is no evidence that 'boils' in the spell description is used as a rule term but rather as a simple descriptive word for 'makes the water stir and bubble'. 3. The rule of thumb to interpreting unclear situations is "better safe than sorry". ...I would say tarkin is right here.
lint trap 03-28-07, 06:46 PM	I'm not sure why you are getting so hostile about this. Don't take it too personally; Tarkin usually posts in a very hostile tone. As for the boiling water thing, that's a good catch; I hadn't noticed it before. And with Freedom of Movement spells, it's not uncommon to find full plate underwater. It's a bit much for such a low-level spell, though, so I'd bump it down to 1d6 extra scalding damage for balance's sake.
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 07:01 PM	Don't take it too personally; Tarkin usually posts in a very hostile tone. As for the boiling water thing, that's a good catch; I hadn't noticed it before. And with Freedom of Movement spells, it's not uncommon to find full plate underwater. It's a bit much for such a low-level spell, though, so I'd bump it down to 1d6 extra scalding damage for balance's sake. Oh its the internet, its hard to take anything personal over it ;) My trouble was I felt he was derailing my thread with opinions he had already posted, but weren't very well substantiated. Thank you for your help, I agree entirely that it is a bit much (although I'm not much of a "balancer" so sometimes things I feel are under/overpowered are far off) and a change is necessary. I just figure I should know the RAW interpretation first, otherwise I'd be changing something that, as far as I didn't know, is already fine. Half of the thermal energy created by the spell goes to damage the character wrapped in the metal. The rest is absorbed by the surrounding water. If you cast heat metal on a fighter in full plate already swimming in boiling water, then the damage from boiling water would apply separately (and in which case I might argue the spell deals full damage). But in cold water, at least in a body of water large enough to submerge a guy in full plate to begin with, the increase of water temperature in immediate surroundings is neglible because the water simply can't remain at boiling temperature as a simple result of heat conducting. We may be breaking several laws of physics to begin with when it comes to spells and you're free to ignore that reasoning, but even sticking to RAW, the spell says "boils the surrounding water" not "turns the surrounding water into boiling water". Thus, seeing as... 1. The spell says how much damage it deals. 2. There is no evidence that 'boils' in the spell description is used as a rule term but rather as a simple descriptive word for 'makes the water stir and bubble'. 3. The rule of thumb to interpreting unclear situations is "better safe than sorry". ...I would say tarkin is right here. Alright, your first paragraph explains a lot. Is this logic on your part, however, or is there a ruling somewhere that says as such (either way it makes great sense and is probably what I would rule by). I'd also agree the spell wasn't intended for this monstrosity, which is why the "boiling damage" is not discussed in the spell. In the case of "chilled water" I'd say that works as an opposing "chill metal" spell. Effectively are you saying that the "boils" is put there for cosmetic reasons? One thing I was a bit unsure on in your post was this: but even sticking to RAW, the spell says "boils the surrounding water" not "turns the surrounding water into boiling water". What exactly would this change? If the spell boils the surrounding water, the water would still be "turned" into boiling water, correct? If so, then it seems like the phrasing, while different, would not matter in this case.
Cartigan 03-28-07, 07:06 PM	but even sticking to RAW, the spell says "boils the surrounding water" not "turns the surrounding water into boiling water". Thus, seeing as... 2. There is no evidence that 'boils' in the spell description is used as a rule term but rather as a simple descriptive word for 'makes the water stir and bubble'. That is a very questionable game of semantics used to try and prove yourself||Tarkin right. 1. The spell says how much damage it deals. Damage dealt by boiling water has nothing to do with the spell. If a spell or effect happens to make some one fall off a cliff, the falling damage has nothing to do with the spell. ...I would say tarkin is right here. I'd say the OP is right.
RisingZan 03-28-07, 07:13 PM	I agree, a full 10d6 does seem excessive, but 1) If a DM uses this to kill off the party fighters, he's not going to have players in his campaigns much longer, and 2) How often will a party druid actually get a chance to do this? For an example of an equal level power/spell that could have similar effect, see Energy Push (XPH) or Battering Ram (Spell Compendium). If the target is near a cliff or large window in a tall building, they could easily take 10d6 damage from the fall, and those are both 2nd level abilities using an environmental condition to their advantage. If I make the save against energy push and still get pushed off (fail the strength check), I still take full damage against the fall, because it's a separate effect from the damage done directly by the spell. Spells and powers are allowed to cause indirect damage (Ex: Disintegrate to open the lava tubes behind the enemies) Consider the following: If someone in Full Plate is underwater, their armor is also filled with water, therefore all of the water inside their suit will be boiling more as the metal heats. I think an equivalent analogue (would have to be a house ruling of course), would be that the damage from this water rises and falls with the damage from Heat Metal as follows: Round | Water Temp | Add'l Damage Round 1 | Warm | None Round 2 | Scalding | +1d6 Rounds 3-5 | Boiling | +2d6 Round 6 | Scalding | +1d6 Round 7 | Warm | None
lint trap 03-28-07, 07:19 PM	I think an equivalent analogue (would have to be a house ruling of course), would be that the damage from this water rises and falls with the damage from Heat Metal as follows: Round | Water Temp | Add'l Damage Round 1 | Warm | None Round 2 | Scalding | +1d6 Rounds 3-5 | Boiling | +2d6 Round 6 | Scalding | +1d6 Round 7 | Warm | None I like this. It stays true to the original mechanic, and it makes the spell a hell of a lot more ominous. If you start to heat up, you get the hell out of the pool.
Another Gnome 03-28-07, 07:36 PM	Effectively are you saying that the "boils" is put there for cosmetic reasons? Yep. One thing I was a bit unsure on in your post was this: but even sticking to RAW, the spell says "boils the surrounding water" not "turns the surrounding water into boiling water". What exactly would this change? If the spell boils the surrounding water, the water would still be "turned" into boiling water, correct? If so, then it seems like the phrasing, while different, would not matter in this case. That would be the difference between "boiling water" which is an environmental hazard defined in the rules, and mere descriptive text. Take the fireball spell. The description explicitly states it can melt various metals, such as copper, in which case we're talking about a temperature of at least 1981 °F in normal pressure. Taking the rule from DMG p. 303, a character in extremely high temperature, easily the case here, that wears metal armor or is in contact with metal is affected as per the heat metal spell. Curiously the other effects of heat only apply after a period of time, but that last bit has no such limitation. Now... actually that didn't help my case any, but no matter. :D Let's cast a fireball underwater at someone wearing, say, a silver ring (it doesn't matter how much metal you wear and what metal it is, as long as you're in contact with it). So, first you take the normal fireball damage plus damage from the boiling water caused by the fire, then the damage from underwater heat metal, and finally damage from the boiling water caused by the metal. Not bad, when the initial thought would be you're supposed to be safe from fireballs underwater...
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 07:40 PM	Yep. That would be the difference between "boiling water" which is an environmental hazard defined in the rules, and mere descriptive text. Take the fireball spell. The description explicitly states it can melt various metals, such as copper, in which case we're talking about a temperature of at least 1981 °F in normal pressure. Taking the rule from DMG p. 303, a character in extremely high temperature, easily the case here, that wears metal armor or is in contact with metal is affected as per the heat metal spell. Curiously the other effects of heat only apply after a period of time, but that last bit has no such limitation. Now... actually that didn't help my case any, but no matter. :D Let's cast a fireball underwater at someone wearing, say, a silver ring (it doesn't matter how much metal you wear and what metal it is, as long as you're in contact with it). So, first you take the normal fireball damage plus damage from the boiling water caused by the fire, then the damage from underwater heat metal, and finally damage from the boiling water caused by the metal. Not bad, when the initial thought would be you're be safe from fireballs underwater... While the description of fireball states it can melt said metal objects, it does not explain the melting as a result of temperature. Fireball is not normal fire with normal heat rules, it is a magical fire and follows different temperature rules. The key is fireball does not cause a fire, it simply deals fire damage. There is a huge difference. This also explains your "Curiously the other effects of heat only apply after a period of time, but that last bit has no such limitation" bit. That is because the extreme air temperature (which is another hit, air temperature is significantly different then direct explosion temperature) is more gradual than the immediate effect of fireball. Also an example like the one you gave (assuming my points above were not valid, which they entirely are), while over-powered, would be 100% under RAW. I am trying to interpret RAW on this ruling right now, not determine whether its fair or as how the spell was intended to work.
Another Gnome 03-28-07, 07:43 PM	The key is fireball does not cause a fire, it simply deals fire damage. There is a huge difference. You mean the way heat metal does not cause boiling water, it simply boils water?
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 07:44 PM	You mean the way heat metal does not cause boiling water, it simply boils water? No; fire damage is not fire. Boiling water is water that is boiling. You also ignored my entire rebuttal, instead focusing on that one sentence. Are you conceding the point to me then?
CantripN 03-28-07, 07:53 PM	I'm fine with this spell dealing 10d6 / round in certain cases, but not in a pool. If you're in a pot, it'd deal 10d6, but in a poll it'd do 1d6. Now, about that Fireball melting stuff... So, what are you saying? That it raises the internal energy caused by repulsion by bypassing the heat capacity of the matter and physics altogether? Physical Chemistry calls bull. D&D says: Don't mix logic with D&D, you dolt!
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 07:56 PM	I'm fine with this spell dealing 10d6 / round in certain cases, but not in a pool. If you're in a pot, it'd deal 10d6, but in a pool it'd do 1d6. Why is this different? If a fighter is in full plate with Heat Metal cast on it, the water would still be boiling RIGHT on him. I'd agree the other would be more balanced, but I believe we are debating RAW right now (if your point was not made with that in mind, please correct me). Now, about that Fireball melting stuff... So, what are you saying? That it raises the internal energy caused by repulsion by bypassing the heat capacity of the matter and physics altogether? Physical Chemistry calls bull. D&D says: Don't mix logic with D&D, you dolt! Exactly :D
CantripN 03-28-07, 08:10 PM	Why is this different? If a fighter is in full plate with Heat Metal cast on it, the water would still be boiling RIGHT on him. I'd agree the other would be more balanced, but I believe we are debating RAW right now (if your point was not made with that in mind, please correct me). The difference being heat dissipation in the water itself. Given a large volume and a lower than boiling point water content, the energy would quickly move around and generally have little localized effect (Thus, 1d6, if at all, though a House Rule for more may be in order...). When you get a spell stating stuff in general, such as here (Define: "the surrounding water"...), you require a DM on the spot ruling, thus I believe there is no RAW here, since the rules are silent. How much water does it boil? For how long? How much energy is available? Boiling water may have different energy levels, since it doesn't heat any further upon reaching the phase transfer point until the shift is complete... Thus, any ruling is possible, and we must use "logic" and more importantly "game balance" to rule. I'd rule a minor amount of damage added, if at all, given a large amount of water, and a large amount of damage when the spell is sufficient to boil the entire volume of the water, not just the layer touching you for this split second. Now, I'm no pro chemist nor a physicist (Freshman), so correct me if I'm wrong.
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 08:22 PM	Here's what customer service agent Chuck has to say on it: Good question, it appears that if the target was standing in water on the 3rd, 4th or 5th round of the spell he would take an extra 1d6 damage from the boiling water. If the target was unfortunate enough to be submerged in water during those turns he would be taking an extra 10d6 damage from the boiling water. Nice use of a 2nd level spell. Thanks for writing in. I guess the extra boiling damage only applies on the rounds it deals damage, as "Another Gnome" stated: "Half of the thermal energy created by the spell goes to damage the character wrapped in the metal. The rest is absorbed by the surrounding water." So that makes sense to me and I consider this a good ruling. Thanks for all the discussion guys!
Perseus_Stoned 03-28-07, 08:27 PM	The difference being heat dissipation in the water itself. Given a large volume and a lower than boiling point water content, the energy would quickly move around and generally have little localized effect (Thus, 1d6, if at all, though a House Rule for more may be in order...). DnD does not follow the physics we recognize on earth. There are different rules for chemical reactions. When you get a spell stating stuff in general, such as here (Define: "the surrounding water"...), you require a DM on the spot ruling, thus I believe there is no RAW here, since the rules are silent. I'd agree with this, especially in as vague as terms as this is presented. How much water does it boil? Any "surrounding" the metal item, surrounding is defined as something that forms a border or edge around an object (I use the noun form for this, which I feel holds true to form in this case and is more specific), so I'd argue the immediate 5ft square the object occupies. For how long? The duration of the "Heat Metal" spell, 7 rounds, although 5 rounds (in between) is the ruling and certainly makes sense. How much energy is available? Boiling water may have different energy levels, since it doesn't heat any further upon reaching the phase transfer point until the shift is complete... See above comment about chemical reactions. Thus, any ruling is possible, and we must use "logic" and more importantly "game balance" to rule. I'd rule a minor amount of damage added, if at all, given a large amount of water, and a large amount of damage when the spell is sufficient to boil the entire volume of the water, not just the layer touching you for this split second. Now, I'm no pro chemist nor a physicist (Freshman), so correct me if I'm wrong. While I appreciate rulings that fix things like this, I had pointed out earlier I was first seeking to establish RAW before I fixed anything, so game balance does not apply. Logic is hard to apply in a fantasy setting that does not abide by Earth's rules, so thats another thing that is mostly scrapped in this case. You have the rules and thats it.
green_yawgmoth 03-28-07, 11:14 PM	I am totally making a trap involving a metal-lined pit filled with water that casts Baleful Polymorph (into a lobster) on the character that falls in, and Heat Metal on the metal part of the pit. :devil: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
OliverR 03-29-07, 12:09 AM	The Boiling Water is a cosmetic effect. 1. Where should the damage come from? Normally all the damage dealt is directly in the amor. In water it dissipates, so it deals just half damage. The other half is used to heat the water arround it. What you say is: If you ever hold something hot, never use water to cool it or you are dead... 2. If it was an environmental hazzard, then the spell normally refers to the according entry. Even if it would not, then there would at least be stated what volume of water is affected. Your reading could be also used to justify the following statement: If you use heatmetal in water, every creature in this ocean would take 10d6 damage, nowhere is stated, that it is limited;) Sometimes I think, some people are searching for loopholes in spell descriptions.
Perseus_Stoned 03-29-07, 12:12 AM	The Boiling Water is a cosmetic effect. 1. Where should the damage come from? Normally all the damage dealt is directly in the amor. Where did you find this ruling? I have never seen damage dealt directly from the armor, its always as a result of the temperature change. In water it dissipates, so it deals just half damage. The other half is used to heat the water arround it. I agree, thats what brings the water to a boil. What you say is: If you ever hold something hot, never use water to cool it or you are dead... That is not what I'm saying, I'm confused where you get this. Could you please quote your source? 2. If it was an environmental hazzard, then the spell normally refers to the according entry. Even if it would not, then there would at least be stated what volume of water is affected. and boils the surrounding water. You're right, it does state what is affect, just as it refers to it in its entry. Your reading could be also used to justify the following statement: If you use heatmetal in water, every creature in this ocean would take 10d6 damage, nowhere is stated, that it is limited;) Again, see above. Sometimes I think, some people are searching for loopholes in spell descriptions. I'd agree, but this is not the case.
OliverR 03-29-07, 01:37 AM	Where did you find this ruling? I have never seen damage dealt directly from the armor, its always as a result of the temperature change. ... I agree, thats what brings the water to a boil. ... That is not what I'm saying, I'm confused where you get this. Could you please quote your source? Ther is no source, but I used the same logic, as you did in the beginning;) There is x Heat created. you get therefore x damage from it. Water is a coolant in most cases. So where should the additional amount of damage come from? You're right, it does state what is affect, just as it refers to it in its entry. Again, see above. I'd agree, but this is not the case. I've read both the SRD and the PHB Version and neither refers to the DMG entry about boiling water. Nor does it state that boiling water is created, it just says, that it boils the surrounding water. The boiling water entry in the DMG assumes total submersion in boiling water. I've never seen boiling water in an otherwise cool open water. So, if you assume 10d6 damage, then you should assume it in a wide space... I'm just following your logic;) My logic is: The spell does x damage, in water half as much. the rest of the damaging energy is dispersed into the water. This results in interesting steam bubbles surrounding the target. If it was intended to do more damage in water, it would have been clearly stated (referrer to page x in the dmg or the damage listed in the spell description)
Perseus_Stoned 03-29-07, 02:08 AM	Ther is no source, but I used the same logic, as you did in the beginning;) There is x Heat created. you get therefore x damage from it. Water is a coolant in most cases. So where should the additional amount of damage come from? I fear I'm even more confused now. The damage comes from contact with a heated source, yet originally you claimed the damage was dealt directly from the heated armor. I also do not believe your "x heat = x damage" statement is correct either nor how "water as a coolant" relates. Can you please elaborate? I've read both the SRD and the PHB Version and neither refers to the DMG entry about boiling water. I do not understand what exactly the version is that you read, can you clarify as to what you're saying here? Nor does it state that boiling water is created, it just says, that it boils the surrounding water. Thereby creating boiling water, what is this difference for my point? The boiling water entry in the DMG assumes total submersion in boiling water. I've never seen boiling water in an otherwise cool open water. So, if you assume 10d6 damage, then you should assume it in a wide space... I'm just following your logic;) En contre, my logic dictates a surrounding area. Surrounded is not defined as "an open space all around". It is a closed barrier around what it surrounds; I made this point earlier. My logic is: The spell does x damage, in water half as much. the rest of the damaging energy is dispersed into the water. This results in interesting steam bubbles surrounding the target. If it was intended to do more damage in water, it would have been clearly stated (referrer to page x in the dmg or the damage listed in the spell description) This logic is flawed and incorrect based. It results in boiling water, the rules of which are clearly outlined in the DMG. Please show me where you found this ruling on "interesting steam bubbles", which theoretically are mind-blowing on their own (since steam is a vapor and a gas).
crimsonwolf 03-29-07, 02:35 AM	this is just a small quesiotn to ask the umm pepole doing this.. if say you heat up a sword deos that creat enough bubbles to cover the body taht they coudltn duck out of the way ?
Perseus_Stoned 03-29-07, 02:36 AM	this is just a small quesiotn to ask the umm pepole doing this.. if say you heat up a sword deos that creat enough bubbles to cover the body taht they coudltn duck out of the way ? No.
OliverR 03-29-07, 02:42 AM	Perhaps my english is not good enough:( Your conclusions depend on the half-sentence "and boils the surrounding water". You assume that this is identical to the "submerged in boiling water" entry in the DMG. But this is just an assumption. It is in no case covered by the entry in "Heat Metal". If the spell designer meant, what you assume, he should have written a link to the DMG or the resulting damage. He did neither. Also, as stated before, the spell would be overpowered. That is an additional hint to not follow your assumption. Even if you ignore all this, what area of "boiling water" should be assumed? There is no hint about it. You could assume a personal coat of boling water or a tons of water boiling because of a 2nd level spell... as you like it. You assume the first, but since it is not clarified, you could also assume the second. If you like to play in such a way, that your assumptions are right until disproven, it is ok. It is your game.
RisingZan 03-29-07, 02:52 AM	Yep. Let's cast a fireball underwater at someone wearing, say, a silver ring (it doesn't matter how much metal you wear and what metal it is, as long as you're in contact with it). So, first you take the normal fireball damage plus damage from the boiling water caused by the fire, then the damage from underwater heat metal, and finally damage from the boiling water caused by the metal. Not bad, when the initial thought would be you're supposed to be safe from fireballs underwater... Actually, the underwater rules state that a Fireball underwater is a ball of steam, not fire, and only if you make a spellcraft check - it essentially boils all of the water in the volume of the fireball instantaneously. Even if that weren't the case, Fireball, while very hot, is also instantaneous, so it doesn't melt your armor or cause persistant damage. In any case, this is an example of YDMMV, and I think it could be house ruled a dozen different ways as long as it's consistant. IMO, anyone mostly wrapped in metal (basically any metal armor) who is also submerged in water should take at least some additional damage as all of the water betwen the metal and their skin (and soaked into whatever they are wearing under the armor) boils into steam. If you want an example of what this would feel like, get an oven mitt wet, and then use it pull a hot cookie sheet out of the oven. I did it once, with just a little wet spot, and within a few seconds of contact I had a nice burn on my fingers that blistered up very quickly.
Cartigan 03-29-07, 06:48 AM	The Boiling Water is a cosmetic effect. 1. Where should the damage come from? Normally all the damage dealt is directly in the amor. In water it dissipates, so it deals just half damage. The other half is used to heat the water arround it. What you say is: If you ever hold something hot, never use water to cool it or you are dead... Have you ever heated something so hot that it independently boils water? Doubt it. Your "counter logic" is therefore junk to begin with. But the spell would be like sticking a pot of water on a stove top. Maybe if you stick your finger in the water once the water begins boiling you won't be burned :rolleyes: 2. If it was an environmental hazzard, then the spell normally refers to the according entry. Even if it would not, then there would at least be stated what volume of water is affected. A reasonable amount? Surrounding water I imagine would be in the immediate vicinity. Maybe you should go get old cast iron skillet, stick the skillet end in a big lake and apply a heating source to the handle and see if anything starts boiling. If it does, we have the answer. Anyway, a water-filled pit trap is not cool, open water. Sometimes I think, some people are searching for loopholes in spell descriptions. Sometime I think people are arguing just because they hate logical methods in D&D.
OliverR 03-29-07, 08:22 AM	Sometime I think people are arguing just because they hate logical methods in D&D. No, I'm arguing, because I think I'm right;) get an oven mitt wet, and then use it pull a hot cookie sheet out of the oven. I did it once, with just a little wet spot, and within a few seconds of contact I had a nice burn on my fingers that blistered up very quickly. The wet mitt is not itself hundreds of degees hot... imagine a redheated iron glove you put into water... do you really think, you get additional damage beyond that of the iron? Maybe if you stick your finger in the water once the water begins boiling you won't be burned I never said, you don't get burned. But that is the damage, the spell description says. If you put a hot iron ingot into water, you do this because you want to cool it. the water itself heats up, the iron becomes cooler. But you don't have more heat energy (translates into damage) than before. Water is far better than air, if you want to transfer heat, so instead of giving most heat to your body, the heated armor gives most heat (in the spells description about half the original amount) to the environment. As I said before. If you want to rule the things your way, go ahead. But neither I see it covered by raw nor by common sense. If you want some official statement, go and contact the customer service;)
TheGogmagog 03-29-07, 08:47 AM	Tough question. My first thought was the rule of thumb "If a spell doesn't say it does something, it doesn't". I believe that rule is part of the FAQ. The classic example was the number of questions about how much damage does a person in an enclosed space take when he's enlarged. The question came up enough that they bothered to add the answer. The second most questioned spell would be telekenisis used on 50 arrows, the damage is capped by the spell description, not by normal arrow damage. But that brings us to what the OP says was his question, what is the point of saying ' and boils the surrounding water'? Is it flavor, is it an environmental condition, what effect does that have. Is this one of the spells that could cause secondary damage (as the pushing off cliff example)? To take a stab at the intent, you might cast this on a pot or even a cauldren with the limitation being the amount of metal effected (25 lb. of metal/level, all of which must be within a 30-ft. circle) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heatMetal.htm). I'd allow if there was a pot with a massive amount of metal, it could bring an equal amount (in lbs apparently) of water to a boil. A typical iron pot (5 sp 10 lb.) could bring over a galon of water to full boil. Far from submerged, doing 1d6. For simplicity, If there was a cauldron in a module, hopefully it would list it's weight, then I would cap the damage by10d6 or 1d6/10lbs whichever is lower. Likewise full plate at 50 lbs IIRC, wouldn't qualify IMHO for the 10d6 environmental. I would also consider the circumstance of having more water than the metal would be able to bring to full boil. At best I'd allow 5d6/4 in the second round, 5d6/2 in third-fifth, 5d6/4 in 6th.Half at third-fifth rounds because half the boiling water on each side of the plate. One fourth in 2nd and 6th rounds because the spell says it can boil water, it doesn't say what round it does so. But only if I decide to skip my gut feeling to stick with what damage the spell says, which I don't think I would.
CrazyMarv 03-29-07, 09:46 AM	It is in no case covered by the entry in "Heat Metal". If the spell designer meant, what you assume, he should have written a link to the DMG or the resulting damage. He did neither. The Reverse Gravity spell doesn't specifically say that you take damage from a fall. All it says is: "If some solid object is encountered in this fall, falling objects and creatures strike it in the same manner as they would during a normal downward fall." If the designer wanted you to take damage from this he would have wrote a link to somewhere it states what this means, or would have wrote the damage himself. He did neither. By your logic we can only assume that falling 300 feet does no damage if your fall was the result of a Reverse Gravity spell. Of course, everyone knows that the fall hurts people. The spell does tell you directly that you strike objects normally, but leaves you to look up what this means and the damage that results. Heat Metal says that it makes the water boil and leaves you to look up what that means and how much damage it deals. If the designer did not want the water to boil he would have said something else, like the water gets pleasantly warm, or bubbles slightly but does no damage. He didn't. He said the water boils. If you want some official statement, go and contact the customer service He did: Good question, it appears that if the target was standing in water on the 3rd, 4th or 5th round of the spell he would take an extra 1d6 damage from the boiling water. If the target was unfortunate enough to be submerged in water during those turns he would be taking an extra 10d6 damage from the boiling water. Nice use of a 2nd level spell. Thanks for writing in. They told him that it deals the 10d6 damage if the guy is submerged, 1d6 if he is only partially in the water. Note also that they said he takes the extra 10d6 damage from the boiling water, not the spell itself.
OliverR 03-29-07, 10:30 AM	Oh, sorry, I haven't read carefully enough. I missed Chucks response... shame on me. I thought it was still a controversal topic. Sorry for any inconvenience;)
Perseus_Stoned 03-29-07, 11:20 AM	Perhaps my english is not good enough:( Your conclusions depend on the half-sentence "and boils the surrounding water". You assume that this is identical to the "submerged in boiling water" entry in the DMG. But this is just an assumption. Ah, there we go. I made no assumption, I am merely assuming that "boils in the surrounding water" is the same as the boiling entry in the DMG- the submerging-bit is an entirely issue. I am assuming boiling leads to boiling damage, if the person is submerged when it happens then they get 10d6 damage, otherwise its the normal damage for boiling- 1d6. Also, as stated before, the spell would be overpowered. That is an additional hint to not follow your assumption. I'm discussing RAW, not RAI. Even if you ignore all this, what area of "boiling water" should be assumed? There is no hint about it. You could assume a personal coat of boling water or a tons of water boiling because of a 2nd level spell... as you like it. You assume the first, but since it is not clarified, you could also assume the second. Again the area is the surrounding water of the item. I am not assuming anything, it is all outlined in the spell article. If you like to play in such a way, that your assumptions are right until disproven, it is ok. It is your game. It is also RAW, as confirmed by the customer support. In any case, this is an example of YDMMV, and I think it could be house ruled a dozen different ways as long as it's consistant. Forgive me, what is YDMMV? As I said before. If you want to rule the things your way, go ahead. But neither I see it covered by raw nor by common sense. If you want some official statement, go and contact the customer service;) As I already did, if you read the posts in this forum; they confirmed this as 100% legit. Edit: As CrazyMarv pointed out with a very good example of "Reverse Gravity". Thank you for contributing so much. Oh, sorry, I haven't read carefully enough. I missed Chucks response... shame on me. I thought it was still a controversal topic. Sorry for any inconvenience;) Its fine, we always appreciate input on DnD, provided its relatively well-researched (yours was).
orionm42 03-29-07, 12:02 PM	I recognize you already contacted customer service here and they confirmed your position. However, I'm with Tarkin and others in that I believe the damage is limited to what it says in the description of the spell. While I agree you have found a semantics issue here, semantics can cut both ways… :) Full Plate: The suit includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet… Technically, per the description of the armor, the entire outfit is not made of metal (notice the boots). As such, the player is not fully immersed in boiling water and would not take immersion damage. Now…I'm not fond of relying exclusively on semantics arguments. So before you question "what if the player is wearing metal boots?", or start discussing partial damage, the description continues… …and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor. IMO, this layer of padding between the metal and the wearer’s skin would protect the wearer from taking any additional damage from the scalding water (He obviously takes some damage from the heated metal. But the water cannot be hotter than the metal itself and so no additional heat will be transferred through the padding).
chucky 03-29-07, 01:53 PM	It would be the call of the gm if the spell caster had enough volume with the spell to boil all the water surrounding the target or not. If they did then yes you just took an extra 10d6 damage from the boiling water. There is a interesting article in dragon magazine a while back about magical fires and lightning. That explains exaclt what happens to the party member dumb enough to cast fire ball on that mountain of gold his party is standing on. You basically insta heated the pile to its melting point and it does what any metal does when that happens. It pours to the lowest point available. If your standing on it when that happens you better know how to surf that wave of molten gold or your screwed.
JiCi 03-29-07, 02:25 PM	So does this mean a fighter swimming in full plate (unrealistic situation, but one that demonstrates my point well; we'll say it was a trap and he fell into a pit of water) that gets "Heat Metal" cast on him takes 10d6 points of scalding damage per round, in addition to half the damage from the heated metal?Unrealistic situation ? you should get yourself a copy of Stormwrack my friend; you'll be introduced to plenty of ways to venture underwater with a full plate. Beside, the weight is enough to make you sink like a rock. Oh, and yes, it deals scalding damage to anything within 30 feet, but you should scale the damage first: a single round of heat metal won't bring the water to a boiling point instantly. Perhaps you could go with 1d6 -> 5d6 -> 10d6, which represents the 1st, 2nd and 3rd round. This seems like a decent spell suddenly just got over-powered in certain situations (although I suppose one might argue all spells could be found to fall in that category, this is certainly a situation that is more easily manufactured). All you need is a trap that is a pit of water, some small metal balls, and something that can replicate a level 2 druid spell- in exchange you get 10d6 damage per round, plus any extra damage if the metal happens to touch the trap recipient.A dungeon cell with chains, manacles and iron balls is enough for a water-filled trap. If all this is true, "Heat Metal" even specifies the water only boils around the metal piece, so you could still be underwater with them when this occurs and remain unscalded (if you keep your distance).Yep, as long as you stay away from 30 feet of the heated metal. Am I misinterpreting this spell or is this all RAW (although feel free to share what you think the RAI would be in this situation, assuming RAW)?You read correctly: heat metal deals half damage (1d4/2 and 2d4/2) but the water itself will deal 10d6 points of damage.
Perseus_Stoned 03-29-07, 02:35 PM	Technically, per the description of the armor, the entire outfit is not made of metal (notice the boots). As such, the player is not fully immersed in boiling water and would not take immersion damage. Now…I'm not fond of relying exclusively on semantics arguments. So before you question "what if the player is wearing metal boots?", or start discussing partial damage, the description continues… IMO, this layer of padding between the metal and the wearer’s skin would protect the wearer from taking any additional damage from the scalding water (He obviously takes some damage from the heated metal. But the water cannot be hotter than the metal itself and so no additional heat will be transferred through the padding). Fair enough, I agree the full plate armor was not the best example for my point, but better ones have been made by better players than me already, so I might refer to you one of the above. However all of your issue address full plate directly; are you going to support the argument Tarkin and others have put forward or do you believe that all they've put forward is enough to disprove this? There is a interesting article in dragon magazine a while back about magical fires and lightning. That explains exaclt what happens to the party member dumb enough to cast fire ball on that mountain of gold his party is standing on. You basically insta heated the pile to its melting point and it does what any metal does when that happens. It pours to the lowest point available. If your standing on it when that happens you better know how to surf that wave of molten gold or your screwed. This is really interesting, thank you- I think I remember reading this as well. Unrealistic situation ? you should get yourself a copy of Stormwrack my friend; you'll be introduced to plenty of ways to venture underwater with a full plate. Beside, the weight is enough to make you sink like a rock. Oh, and yes, it deals scalding damage to anything within 30 feet, but you should scale the damage first: a single round of heat metal won't bring the water to a boiling point instantly. Perhaps you could go with 1d6 -> 5d6 -> 10d6, which represents the 1st, 2nd and 3rd round. Fair enough :) I guess I meant more a situation out of the norm. Anyways I agree about the "scaling damage", but customer support said it would only deal the scalding on rounds that would deal damage as normal- therefore the "warming up" rounds don't count. A dungeon cell with chains, manacles and iron balls is enough for a water-filled trap. Again valid point, I would fear DMs like yourself. And love them. Thanks for all your help everyone.
orionm42 03-29-07, 02:41 PM	Oh, and yes, it deals scalding damage to anything within 30 feet, but you should scale the damage first: a single round of heat metal won't bring the water to a boiling point instantly. Perhaps you could go with 1d6 -> 5d6 -> 10d6, which represents the 1st, 2nd and 3rd round. Where does the 30 feet come from? And, per the initial quote, scalding damage is only 1d6...would you scale to 10d6 if a target was, say, 25 feet away from the effect? If your assertion is from Stormwrack, perhaps you could post the entire quote for those of us who don't have the book. Thanks. :)
orionm42 03-29-07, 03:03 PM	Fair enough, I agree the full plate armor was not the best example for my point, but better ones have been made by better players than me already, so I might refer to you one of the above. However all of your issue address full plate directly; are you going to support the argument Tarkin and others have put forward or do you believe that all they've put forward is enough to disprove this? I'd like to see what Stormwrack has to offer first. Also, I was only trying to address your initial point that the RAW supports an additional 10d6 of damage while in full plate. I have not really consider the points of others. With that said, I find chucky's quote interesting. Fireball's description says... The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. However, the SRD also notes this with respect to spells with instantaneous durations... Catching on Fire Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash. So, according to RAW, the heat is sufficient to melt a pile of metal because it is unattended, but it is not sufficient to catch your hair on fire?!?! :confused: There is also another section that talks about damage to worn items, including non-magical items. These worn items only take damage when you roll a natural 1 on your save. All in all, there appears to be some logical inconsistencies within the RAW. What else is new! :D
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-29-07, 04:49 PM	Wait, wait wait... Are some people actually arguing that boiling water -- while doing damage at any other time -- for some reason doesn't deal damage if it was boiled using the Heat Metal spell? WHAT.
orionm42 03-29-07, 05:22 PM	Wait, wait wait... The spell says being encased in a searing hot suit of metal for a full six seconds does 2d4 points of damage. Given the fact that the water surrounding the metal cannot be hotter than the metal that heated it, are some people actually arguing you receive seven times as much damage from the surrounding water than you do from the metal itself? WHAT. During the 3 rounds of searing heat, the wearer takes an average of 15 points of damage from the armor. Using the OP's initial interpretation, the wearer would take an additional 105 points of damage on average from the surrounding water during the same time period.
Thiez 03-29-07, 05:58 PM	the water is directly touching your flesh, including eyes, ears, your nose, your private parts, etc. The armor isn't (unless you wear a chainmail bikini)
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-29-07, 06:27 PM	What kind of full plate do you have that's waterproof? The military will pay you a mint.
green_yawgmoth 03-29-07, 07:58 PM	Wait, wait wait... The spell says being encased in a searing hot suit of metal for a full six seconds does 2d4 points of damage. Given the fact that the water surrounding the metal cannot be hotter than the metal that heated it, are some people actually arguing you receive seven times as much damage from the surrounding water than you do from the metal itself? WHAT. During the 3 rounds of searing heat, the wearer takes an average of 15 points of damage from the armor. Using the OP's initial interpretation, the wearer would take an additional 105 points of damage on average from the surrounding water during the same time period. Fun fact: hot water can contact a lot more skin than metal armor can. Have you ever worn armor? It isn't bare metal against bare skin; it's metal surrounding whatever clothing you have under it, usually with some insulator. Less contact = less damage. However! If the water surrounding the person (and thus is in contact with nigh 100% of their flesh) is suddenly heated to boiling, it will do a hell of a lot more than the contact points of te armor will. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Perseus_Stoned 03-29-07, 09:25 PM	Where does the 30 feet come from? Ouch, good catch. I (as well) would not consider 30ft to be surrounding area, unless there is some material to back that up. All in all, there appears to be some logical inconsistencies within the RAW. It seems like everyday it is proven, yet again, that logic holds no place in a DnD world. Its funny how the laws of physics for such an expansive universe are held entirely in a small bound book with the words "Dungeon Master" on the front. Wait, wait wait... The spell says being encased in a searing hot suit of metal for a full six seconds does 2d4 points of damage. This is not true, it says 8d4 damage for a full 42 seconds. If you are arguing that one round of the "searing" portion of the spell does 2d4 damage, this would be true, however. The way this is phrased needs to be corrected though. Given the fact that the water surrounding the metal cannot be hotter than the metal that heated it, are some people actually arguing you receive seven times as much damage from the surrounding water than you do from the metal itself? This is not the real world; chemical reactions do not function the same way. Do not expect real world rules to apply to the DnD world. Boiling is scalding damage, heat metal is unnamed. During the 3 rounds of searing heat, the wearer takes an average of 15 points of damage from the armor. Using the OP's initial interpretation, the wearer would take an additional 105 points of damage on average from the surrounding water during the same time period. This is not true either; are you assuming the person is immersed in water? For a general example my interpretation would not even apply, since it would be out of water.
orionm42 03-29-07, 10:25 PM	If you are arguing that one round of the "searing" portion of the spell does 2d4 damage, this would be true, however. That is what I was saying. Boiling is scalding damage, heat metal is unnamed. I may be missing the point here, but are you saying the heat metal damage is untyped? The spell uses the Fire descriptor...as such, the damage is fire damage. It also specifically mentions fire damage in the text of the spell. In any event, I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. In other words, why does the type of damage matter in the context of this discussion? However, while we are on the subject, spells with the fire descriptor… …are ineffective underwater unless the caster makes a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell level). If the check succeeds the spell creates a bubble of steam instead of its usual fiery effect, but otherwise the spell works as described. This does not prove much, but I thought it was at least worth mentioning. :) This is not true either; are you assuming the person is immersed in water? I was, because in your initial argument, you reference the rules for total immersion. You also specifically mention 10d6 points of damage in your water trap example, so I assumed the target was totally immersed. If we are considering total immersion, I could argue the points raised by Vaal, Thiez and green_yawgmoth using physics and more technicalities. However, I won't because, what it boils down to (pardon the pun), is that the “total immersion” use of the spell is broken and should not be allowed for that reason in and of itself. To demonstrate why, let's take the strictest interpretation of the spell (i.e. the spell would only do the boiling water damage in rounds 3, 4, and 5). If you add it up, the spell will do an average of 125 points of damage over the course of the first six rounds. Assume you have a seventh level druid. With this one second level spell, he can target three creatures and does, on average, a total of 375HP of damage. Interpret it this way if you want. But to me, ruling this way and allowing that much damage from a second level spell simply does not make much sense and opens things up to too many abuses. For example, if you choose to interpret it this way, I think a 7th level player would use this spell in combination with spells like control water to flood rooms / areas which contain water. An argument could also be made you could use this combination in conjunction with create water to flood any enclosed space.
Perseus_Stoned 03-29-07, 10:42 PM	I may be missing the point here, but are you saying the heat metal damage is untyped? The spell uses the Fire descriptor...as such, the damage is fire damage. It also specifically mentions fire damage in the text of the spell. In any event, I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. In other words, why does the type of damage matter in the context of this discussion? You're right, the heat metal damage is fire damage, I apologize. However, my reasoning was to make sure you understand that these are two different damage types and as of such stack perfectly, regardless of Earth's chemistry experiments. However, while we are on the subject, spells with the fire descriptor… This does not prove much, but I thought it was at least worth mentioning. :) Hmmm... that is pretty intriguing and an interesting point. I was, because in your initial argument, you reference the rules for total immersion. You also specifically mention 10d6 points of damage in your water trap example, so I assumed the target was totally immersed. If we are considering total immersion, I could argue the points raised by Vaal, Thiez and green_yawgmoth using physics and more technicalities. However, I won't because, what it boils down to (pardon the pun), is that the “total immersion” use of the spell is broken and should not be allowed for that reason in and of itself. To demonstrate why, let's take the strictest interpretation of the spell (i.e. the spell would only do the boiling water damage in rounds 3, 4, and 5). If you add it up, the spell will do an average of 125 points of damage over the course of the first six rounds. Assume you have a seventh level druid. With this one second level spell, he can target three creatures and does, on average, a total of 375HP of damage. Interpret it this way if you want. But to me, ruling this way and allowing that much damage from a second level spell simply does not make much sense and opens things up to too many abuses. For example, if you choose to interpret it this way, I think a 7th level player would use this spell in combination with spells like control water to flood rooms / areas which contain water. An argument could also be made you could use this combination in conjunction with create water to flood any enclosed space. I won't address most of this, because it has already been talked about in responses to the posters you referenced. If you're worried about potential imbalances basically any possible thing you could do can be unbalanced in certain situations, it seems a bit unfair to errata "unbalanced" because I could string up this situation in which it would be very powerful.
yrogerg 03-29-07, 10:50 PM	Fun fact: hot water can contact a lot more skin than metal armor can. Have you ever worn armor? It isn't bare metal against bare skin; it's metal surrounding whatever clothing you have under it, usually with some insulator. Less contact = less damage. However! If the water surrounding the person (and thus is in contact with nigh 100% of their flesh) is suddenly heated to boiling, it will do a hell of a lot more than the contact points of te armor will. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif Umm, not a *lot* more, as full plate would be in contact with the majority of the body surface: the torso alone amounts to ~36% of the body surface, and full plate also completely covers the head (9%), groin (1%) and at least half of the arms (18% total), and legs (36% total). Water certainly wouldn't cover enough more of the body surface to make the damage jump up sevenfold. On the other hand, that jump might be somewhat plausable if it's the result of steam burns. On the other other hand, boiling water isn't steam, and can't condense the way steam does. So, that doesn't make sense either. Personally, I'd consider applying the boiling water rules (but not total immersion rules) to those standing near the Heat Metal-ed guy, but that's about it.
orionm42 03-29-07, 10:59 PM	If you're worried about potential imbalances… I’m always worried about balance. I think my players spend most of their waking hours trying to figure out how to bend the rules to their best advantage. :) Because of this, I usually take a “high level” approach like, “hey, that is simply too much damage for a second level spell…so, no go!” This approach may be too conservative and may, in fact, be wrong. With all that said, some folks (including a customer service rep) support adding in at least some boiling water damage. If you choose to do it that way, other reasonable people clearly support your position. Anyhooo…it has been an interesting discussion. Thanks to everyone for keeping it lively and civil! :tiphat:
Perseus_Stoned 03-29-07, 11:14 PM	Anyhooo…it has been an interesting discussion. Thanks to everyone for keeping it lively and civil! :tiphat: Seconded. Both sides definitely have merit and customer service has been (or at least in a great many people's opinions) considered wrong before. Ultimately house rules are almost always necessary to uphold the balance in mechanics above all else; try it out, if its overpowered in a game (and happens often) you should surely lower its value.
Nathreet 03-30-07, 04:52 AM	"If cast underwater, heat metal deals half damage and boils the surrounding water." It says the damage caused by HEAT METAL is halved, I don't see anything about damage from boiling water. <SLAP> It's the same heat! If you want a justification then try this: Heat metal doesn't create enough heat to fully immerse the fighter in boiling water for a full round. The spell deals half damage because half of the heat gets wasted as the water pulls heat away from the fighter.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-30-07, 08:47 AM	So... wat about the boiling water that is now inside your armor, right next to your skin? That doesn't deal damage because the univese already thinks you've had enough due to heat metal? Yet if I boiled a pot of water and threw it at you, you're take damage from the boiling water and the hot iron smacking you.
orionm42 03-30-07, 10:12 AM	Are some people actually arguing that boiling water -- while doing damage at any other time -- for some reason doesn't deal damage if it was boiled using the Heat Metal spell? ... So... wat about the boiling water that is now inside your armor, right next to your skin? That doesn't deal damage because the univese already thinks you've had enough due to heat metal? Are you intentionally misrepresenting what we are saying, or are you missing the point? The essence of the argument is not, "you take no damage from the water." What we are arguing is that the damage taken from the combined effects of the heated water and the heated metal is the damage enumerated in the spell's description (i.e. half the damage normally dealt by the spell). As Nathreet and others have noted, the surrounding water (including the water that is not in direct contact with the skin) absorbs some of the metal's heat. That means the metal is cooler. The combined effect on the target is less intense heat and less damage overall.
CrazyMarv 03-30-07, 11:45 AM	Are you intentionally misrepresenting what we are saying, or are you missing the point? The essence of the argument is not, "you take no damage from the water." What we are arguing is that the damage taken from the combined effects of the heated water and the heated metal is the damage enumerated in the spell's description (i.e. half the damage normally dealt by the spell). As Nathreet and others have noted, the surrounding water (including the water that is not in direct contact with the skin) absorbs some of the metal's heat. That means the metal is cooler. The combined effect on the target is less intense heat and less damage overall. Yeah, the metal is cooler than normal, but you are still in boiling water. The spell has created it. It doesn't say anywhere that the boiling water is somehow cooler than normal, and the damage listed in the spell itself is the damage from the Heated Metal. Boiling water always does the damage listed in the DMG. These are the rules of the game, and the Wizard's customer service has already confirmed that this works. The only reason that people are arguing it at all is because you can potentially deal a bunch of damage under certain situations, but this is not the only low level spell that can deal a bunch of damage. You can use a Battering Ram (2nd level) spell to push someone off a 500 foot cliff, or into a pool of lava, or into the massive gears of some huge machine. You can use a Dimension Hop (2nd level) to do the same kind of thing. Yet no one would ever argue these uses don't work, or rule that they are somehow immune to the damage. The spell forces the guy into an environmental threat. So be it. The boiling water trick works, if you feel it is too strong, then alter the spell so that it creates warm water and does half damage from the heated metal.
Perseus_Stoned 03-30-07, 12:01 PM	Are you intentionally misrepresenting what we are saying, or are you missing the point? The essence of the argument is not, "you take no damage from the water." I would agree; but the scalding damage from the boiling effect is something that does deal damage. What we are arguing is that the damage taken from the combined effects of the heated water and the heated metal is the damage enumerated in the spell's description (i.e. half the damage normally dealt by the spell). I would agree with this, but the additional boiling affect also chimes in. Everything CrazyMarv said. ^absolutely true.
Vaalingrade Ashland 03-30-07, 01:39 PM	The damage from the water is not enumerate in the spell. The spell specifically describes how the damage the spell does is effected. The spell also notes that the water in the immediate area boils. And damage from boiling water is enumerated elsewhere. In short; the spell does not do the damage caused by the boiling water.
garou85 03-30-07, 02:28 PM	Of course the DM can decide whatever they want on this but as far as the rules go I don't see anything wrong with the original post. By the book this is a real good use of the spell and a deadly trap, good for you. A quick question though, how much metal do you have to have to make this work. I mean lets say a horse falls in with a full armor. Or maybe someone in scale mail. Would there be less damage? Or what about a weapon connected to a locked gauntlet? Sorry don't mean to steal your post bud.
orionm42 03-30-07, 02:37 PM	I hate to be a party-pooper and back out of the discussion but, quite frankly, I think we have reached an impasse. We clearly disagree here and I assume you folks are not fond of banging your head against a rock (as my head has been aptly described). :) As I said previously, you are free to interpret the spell as you see fit and your interpretation of the spell's effects have support of some community members (including at least one customer service representative). Similarly, I will continue to interpret the spell differently. I’ll leave it to others to decide if one side is right and the other is wrong. Personally, I don’t believe that to be the case. Thanks again for the spirited conversation and I wish you all "good gaming!" :)
Perseus_Stoned 03-30-07, 02:39 PM	The damage from the water is not enumerate in the spell. The spell specifically describes how the damage the spell does is effected. The spell also notes that the water in the immediate area boils. And damage from boiling water is enumerated elsewhere. In short; the spell does not do the damage caused by the boiling water. Key word "the spell" ;) I guess that is an important issue to point out though, thank you. Of course the DM can decide whatever they want on this but as far as the rules go I don't see anything wrong with the original post. By the book this is a real good use of the spell and a deadly trap, good for you. A quick question though, how much metal do you have to have to make this work. I mean lets say a horse falls in with a full armor. Or maybe someone in scale mail. Would there be less damage? Or what about a weapon connected to a locked gauntlet? Sorry don't mean to steal your post bud. As far as I can tell the only limit on the metal is weight; although one could say "surrounding" does not cover the boiling issue if the "surrounding" area of an object is small enough to not warrant boiling.
nightwyrm 03-30-07, 02:42 PM	The argument could really go either way, but I'd like to remind people of one of the cardinal rules of roleplaying: Any new rule-bending tricks the players invent could and would eventually be used against them. Happy Gaming.
Cartigan 03-30-07, 03:22 PM	As far as I can tell the only limit on the metal is weight; although one could say "surrounding" does not cover the boiling issue if the "surrounding" area of an object is small enough to not warrant boiling. Which is why there is a scalding damage modifier. I would say if you are wearing metal armor and completely in water, you are effectively "surrounded".
Perseus_Stoned 03-30-07, 03:30 PM	Which is why there is a scalding damage modifier. I would say if you are wearing metal armor and completely in water, you are effectively "surrounded". I think you missed the point of my post (I do not even know why the "scalding damage modifier was brought into it); I was responding to someone who was wondering whether the size of the metal object matter (in this case definitely not metal armor). An example would be small metal marbles. Seems a bit strange to have marbles in your pocket while swimming underwater, get them targeted, and take 10d6 boiling damage for being "surrounded".
Cartigan 03-30-07, 03:37 PM	I think you missed the point of my post (I do not even know why the "scalding damage modifier was brought into it); I was responding to someone who was wondering whether the size of the metal object matter (in this case definitely not metal armor). An example would be small metal marbles. Seems a bit strange to have marbles in your pocket while swimming underwater, get them targeted, and take 10d6 boiling damage for being "surrounded". I didn't say that. When he asked, his examples were armored creatures (well the horse one was confusing), not "some one jumps in clinging to a longsword 3 size categories larger than themselves." If some one jumped in in armor, they would effectively surrounded by boiling water. I'd say if you are in something that encloses you or large enough that it would cause a boiling effect that covered most of your body, you would be surrounded. Is plain scale mail even metal?
Perseus_Stoned 03-30-07, 03:43 PM	I didn't say that. When he asked, his examples were armored creatures (well the horse one was confusing), not "some one jumps in clinging to a longsword 3 size categories larger than themselves." If some one jumped in in armor, they would effectively surrounded by boiling water. I'd say if you are in something that encloses you or large enough that it would cause a boiling effect that covered most of your body, you would be surrounded. But you responded to my post, not his (and I missed the point of your post, which did'nt help much either). Now that is it clarified I agree with your statement, the larger the metal available the more "surrounding" *cough* it gets. Is plain scale mail even metal? Depends on the scale mail; assuming wikipedia is not wrong in this and that the real-life scale armour DnD scale armour is based on are similar, then mostly (although there are cases that would differ).
green_yawgmoth 03-30-07, 11:41 PM	Umm, not a *lot* more, as full plate would be in contact with the majority of the body surface: the torso alone amounts to ~36% of the body surface, and full plate also completely covers the head (9%), groin (1%) and at least half of the arms (18% total), and legs (36% total).Go grab a coat and long pants. Do the coat/pants touch all of the skin that it is protecting? No! It's got air between your body and itself. Now dive into a pool. Which is touching you more, now that you are not only surrounded on the outside by water, but have water in all the places that once had air? I'd bet the farm that area of skin coated in water > area of skin touched by metal. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif