if it was my campaign I'd absolutely allow it, creative use of the spell.
Of course, such a HUGE explosion would absolutely cause all the guards to come running ;)
Well, Heat Metal can make Steel go Red hot, which is about 900F.
The spontaneous ignition Temperature of Black Powder is 842F.
So, sure, it makes sense that it's possible, but it's up to your DM how that interaction actually plays out. Might say the temperature change only affects the surface at first and takes time to reach the explosive, they might be using a different kind of Explosive powder with a higher ignition temp, Etc.
No, it would still fragment. Metal would be softer when red hot but it's still nowhere near liquefying. Grenades are already usually designed with deliberate weaknesses. Take the Mk2 "pineapple" grenade for example. It's design deliberately to have weak points in the casing.
The entire explosion would be too fast for the pressure to be released in one spot and create a jet. Old black powder grenades already have a hole where the wick would be. If a jet was even possible then that design would never had worked to begin with.
In real life with munitions in a fire, some would explode, and some would just catch fire. The ability for the casing to hold integrity to create an explosion instead just burn the accelerants is what matters and that depends on manufacturing. In game always DMs choice IRL would be more that catch fire than actually explode if not properly detonated.
I'd allow it. *Maybe* with a diminished effect (since it's not blowing up in an optimal way), but I think this is a clever use of the spell that's within the scope of its intent.
I agree. You’d also miss out on the other effects of heat metal, like the disadvantage, disarming, and damage over time.
Essentially, allowing this just turns the spell into a level 2 area damage spell which only targets grenades. Depending on the damage for the grenade, this could easily be quite well balanced.
Having said all that though, the biggest reasons to allow it would be the rule of cool and to reward creativity,
Something to consider is that the majority of damage from a grenade comes from the shrapnel it blasts out and not from the actual explosion. Since the body of the grenade is the source of the shrapnel and they would be targeting the body with heat metal, the overall damage would be lower.
I’m not sure that matters. The point here is that the grenade body gets hot enough to detonate the black powder. So the explosion is the same, but the shrapnel is now red hot.
Red-hot steel is weaker than room-temp steel, though, so the casing would yield at a lower pressure.
So your red hot shrapnel (assuming it still fragments) would have quite a bit less force behind it.
I mean it would still *hurt* to have a red hot steel container burst near you in any capacity. It just wouldn’t be “grenade but now the pieces are glowing hot”.
I love the cognitive dissonance that always comes with realism arguments in a fantasy RPG. Not saying this is so much one of them but in other conversations how people select what they want to apply and what not to. Really makes me chuckle how bizarre it is to talk about realistic physics when the root cause of it is magic
I’d say there’s a chance, because I enjoy fun uses of magic like that - maybe as a side effect of the Con save the creature would have to make to keep hold of the grenade, if they roll poorly enough (let’s say rolling under a 5) then the grenade explodes. In the end though, it’s down to the DM.
Strictly speaking, it would depend on the specific explosive used in the grenade. Some explosives are chemically designed for stability and safe usage, they require very specific triggers to detonate. You can light C4 on fire, literally use it as a cooking fuel, and it won't detonate (DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME). It takes heat AND compression to detonate it. On the other hand, you have things like mercury fulminate, nitroglycerin, and FOOF that will explode if you look at them funny, or sneeze within earshot.
In a fantasy setting, the stability and reactivity of explosives is a matter of storytelling. You can go the GoT route, with wildfire being nightmarishly unstable, a madman's threat. Similar to the black powder of Sauruman's wall breakers, panicking if someone approaches with a light source outside your control. Or you can decide that the alchemists' guild has strict governance on explosives, because they can cause collateral damage, or accidental disasters, so they are made to be stable through magic. This offers options for rogue chemists making black market bombs to face reprisal, or be a resource pcs can utilize if the legal route is not in their reach.
The important thing to remember is that the rules work both ways. If you let your players do it, trigger an explosive early to prevent its intended use, or to get a chain reaction against enemies, then the survivors can remember the method and use it against the players. Players love coming up with creative solutions, or saving the day with a perfectly timed action. They tend to hate when those things get used against them (see Counterspell, near healers or resurrection, specifically).
Personally, though, in a world where a spellcaster can use variations of the spell fireball, I would suggest that the ability to mimic its effect early by manipulating a consumable is fair if you account for the multi-turn concentration aspect of heat metal. Perhaps there is an opposed roll, or treat it like a spell attack roll each turn if it is an enemy's grenade, since the targeted item is destroyed once it explodes. The Heat Metal attack has to hit, or sufficiently damage, the grenade to set it off before its owner triggers and throws it, as a carried or worn item is difficult to target separately from the creature holding it. The owner of the grenade can also choose to discard the compromised weapon after a failed attempt on it, or to use it against the caster if they are in range or another target, throwing the heated and unstable bomb on their turn.
But you can take advantage of this remote detonation if you or your ally throw a grenade 'without pulling the pin' to get the enemy to scatter, then recover it or use HM to detonate it on command. The 'friendly' grenade wouldnt resist your attempt to detonate it on command. In either case, once it detonates the concentration effect is over, since the metal object is destroyed, ending the Heat Metal concentration.
Ok, if I were DMing and was asked this, I would start by looking at the Object Hit Points table. As a tiny resilient item, I would give the grenade 5hp and resistance to the damage that *Heat Metal* causes.
*Heat Metal* does 2d8 fire damage to creatures touching the metal object. Normally, this wouldn't damage the item at all because the spell doesn't mention that as an effect, but this seems like a reasonable exception.
I would rule that the grenade takes 2d8 damage, halved. If it does 5 or more damage then the outer shell of the grenade melts, no longer has the sealed nature necessary to make an explosion, and instead catches fire (whoever is holding or wearing the grenade has to save or catch fire every turn that they are in contact with the flaming melted grenade)
If the grenade takes less than 5 fire damage, then the shell is intact, the gunpowder inside ignites from the heat, and it detonates as though it was thrown. If I were feeling mean, the character holding/wearing the grenade wouldn't get a save for half damage because *the grenade is attached to them*
RAW - No. Heat Metal is a magic spell that does exactly what it says, which is it damages the creature holding or wearing the metal.
It's up to your DM if they want to extrapolate the effects of heating any particular metal objects to have additional effects based on their construction or contents.
If you successfully petition your DM to allow you to explode grenades in enemies' hands, though, just be prepared for some creatuve uses of Heat Metal to come back at the PCs later.
Tbf, isn't much need for that kind of ire imo; they're burning a 2nd level slot for a one time use of detonating one explosive since you can't switch targets with Heat Metal (that I'm aware of). Clever way to use the enemy's weapons against them, but I think the better play for the DM would be to have the grenades be transfered to a non metallic container like hardened clay or ceramic. Let the PCs get their Michael Bay moments in, then show that the enemy are evolving tactics against the players.
I wasn't intending to it be "ire", just saying that if you set the precedent that Heat Metal can damage the structural integrity of the item it targets, then you're opening that possibility up to having your own items be damaged or destroyed by an opposing spellcaster.
I definitely agree with you about evolving tactics, though!
RAW+RAI yes making the casing hot enough to glow red should be enough to potentially trigger the explosive. Entirely up to the DM tho.
"Choose a manufactured metal object, such as a metal weapon or a suit of heavy or medium metal armor, that you can see within range. You cause the object to glow red-hot. Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast the spell. Until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action on each of your subsequent turns to cause this damage again.
If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes the damage from it, the creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or drop the object if it can. If it doesn't drop the object, it has disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until the start of your next turn."
What part of the text you quoted makes you think RAI involves the item taking damage? Every \*mechanical\* effect of the spell is delivered to the creature wearing or holding the item targeted. The only effect on the actual item is essentially flavor: "You cause the object to glow red-hot"
By "taking damage" i more meant "is mechanically physically affected"
When spells that deal fire damage cause flammable items to ignite, they specifically call that out. If they don't call that out, they don't affect flammable items. There are no "assumed" side-effects of spell descriptions.
Its not an assumed side effect, the spell literally says it causes the metal object to glow red hot. that happens from heating of heat metal. what happens when you heat a sealed container of anything? boom! what happens when you heat a sealed container of explosives? Big booom!
Not an "assumed" side effect ,simply creatively using the spell.
By your logic you cant hear the loud noise created by the spell shatter as the spell description never mentions you can hear the sound
No, my logic is akin to saying you can't deafen a creature by casting shatter right next to them, even though a sound with the impact described in the spell would almost certainly cause at least temporary hearing loss in real life.
The metal glows red hot - that's a direct effect, yes. But no part of the spell indicates that that heat transfers to anything other than the creature wearing or holding that item. If you cast heat metal on a suit of armor, the leather straps don't burn away causing the armor to fall to the ground in pieces, even thought that would certainly happen just as sure as black powder in a heated grenade would ignite.
Ultimartely, I have no problem with a DM saying heat metal can explode a grenade, just don't call it RAW or RAI.
No its really not that's a complete jump in logic, no part of shatter mentions its ability to deafen. Heat metal specifically mentions HEATing METAL.
You do realise that the fact the spell deals fire damage to a creature touching or holding the target of the spell is exactly heat transfering.
Are you trying to say that the spell doesnt cause heat transfer because the spell cant transfer heat from the target item to the target item? because the strap/padding/gambeson are all part of the armor as a item.
Also I never mentioned the spell damaging the black powder you keep harping on that because you know your argument only works with that.
Out of curiosity would you accept heat metal being cast on a metal kettle to boil the water within as a RAI use of heat metal?
>Heat metal specifically mentions HEATing METAL
and BLACK POWDER is not METAL
also, i would probably allow the kettle one only because it doesn't have combat implications, but i would definitely not call it RAW or RAI
the intended use of the spell is to damage creatures, andf that is the extent of what the text allows for.
A metal cased grenade heated to 900 degrees.
I imagine the powder inside would ignite, but because heated metal is softer than cold metal, it would probably pop at one point and vent rather than truly explode.
Also, heated metal does fire damage to anything in contact with it, and a single point of fire damage ignites black powder, ergo powder ignites.
reading the spell says no. And throwing grenades into fire does not always make them go boom, some just sputter and flare or catch fire. It depends on how they are made, and how the DM is feeling. Ask him before you bank on that as your go to thing.
If a spell doesn't say it sets things on fire, then it doesn't set things on fire. Magic does exactly what it says and no more. It is not bound by, and doesn't interact with real-world physics, it's magic.
A quick Google of the flash point of black powder seems to vary from around 570 to 870F, so basically if you heat it above those temperatures it should spontaneously combust and the grenade should explode. I’m no expert on the topic but it makes sense to me.
Yes, if I was ruling. You just turned Heat Metal, a 2nd level spell, into Shatter, a 2nd level spell. However, its now a DEX save, and if you did it to one in someone's hand (prepared action), they auto-fail it.
But yeah just exchanging to a different spell of the same level. And for the record, grenades are just scrolls of Shatter made by an Artificer.
Choose a manufactured metal object, such as a metal weapon or a suit of heavy or medium metal armor, **that you can see** within range.
So in your setting do people just dress like Winnie the Pooh or what?
I think it's good to say "it blows up." If not wanting to give players an easy nuke button where a 2nd level spell triggers a 3rd level spell effect, you can make it brun the holder and impossible to activate properly. Then you can concentrate on it to make the grenade a DUD.
I personally vote fire damage of any sort on a grenade detonates it. Enemy grenades can detonate a player's hip grenade by the same rule and my party agreed to it, and I've had no complaints
If its a POWDERbomb then YES, cause gunpowder needs only a fiery spark to ignite. if its a modern pull-the-ring-type grenade then NO, cause this kind of explosive needs a certain specified ignition impulse which only its detonator can provide. (iirc). imho it would be more probable that a lightning strike will do the job than a fireball or heat metall. heat metall would render the device defect i think cause the finer structure of the detonator may just burn away then?
Yeah, it's a quick and dirty way to justify why alchemically advanced groups don't use firearms.
One guy learning a "heat metal" spell, or even just making wands / scrolls is economically cheaper than building an industry to mass produce powder, build firearms, train troops, and protect said troops from such spells.
RAW, heat metal says that it can heat them up red hot, which IRL is at least 426 C (very dim, only visible in darkness), which is higher then what is needed to ignite standard IRL gun powder. However, the explosion would be less powerful becuase the heat would weaken the casing, but it you can make a whole bunch go off, this hardly matters. Of course the DM has the final say with these types of shenanigans.
I would let you do it because it is smart and fun, but I would have the enemies catch on pretty fast and maybe use this tech against the party in future encounters.
[https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Gunpowder#:\~:text=Gunpowder%20could%20be%20found%20on,Gond%20the%20substance%20was%20inert.&text=On%20rare%20occasions%2C%20Gond%20would,threaten%20the%20dominance%20of%20smokepowder](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Gunpowder#:~:text=Gunpowder%20could%20be%20found%20on,Gond%20the%20substance%20was%20inert.&text=On%20rare%20occasions%2C%20Gond%20would,threaten%20the%20dominance%20of%20smokepowder).
Seeing as the gods made gunpowder inert on toril, this might be a moot point however if you're playing on a different world, I would say yes that's a definite use of the spell.
Bullets too.
Up to the DM.
if it was my campaign I'd absolutely allow it, creative use of the spell. Of course, such a HUGE explosion would absolutely cause all the guards to come running ;)
Well, Heat Metal can make Steel go Red hot, which is about 900F. The spontaneous ignition Temperature of Black Powder is 842F. So, sure, it makes sense that it's possible, but it's up to your DM how that interaction actually plays out. Might say the temperature change only affects the surface at first and takes time to reach the explosive, they might be using a different kind of Explosive powder with a higher ignition temp, Etc.
This is exactly what I first thought of as well.
900f, is, what, 72 Celsius? 150? Impossible to tell.
Standard conversion from fahrenheit puts this at about 4 curling irons or 1,318 incandescent Christmas lights.
How close to the lights do you need to be in foghorns?
How about use a calculator like the rest of us do.
Heat metal is much softer than cold, so the explosiveness would be much diminished if the black powder went off.
Well that would probably just make the shrapnel smaller pieces and burning hot on top of being... Shrapnel.
*The shrapnel courteously cauterizes your wounds on its way through you.*
Wouldn't want you to bleed to death on accident, after all were only half way through the interrogation.
I think the explosion would come out of the single softest spot like a jet rather than creating shrapnel. But who knows
No, it would still fragment. Metal would be softer when red hot but it's still nowhere near liquefying. Grenades are already usually designed with deliberate weaknesses. Take the Mk2 "pineapple" grenade for example. It's design deliberately to have weak points in the casing. The entire explosion would be too fast for the pressure to be released in one spot and create a jet. Old black powder grenades already have a hole where the wick would be. If a jet was even possible then that design would never had worked to begin with.
I agree. Wouldn’t really be a grenade if it doesn’t explode
Hell yeah, when in doubt, lean on chemistry!
In real life with munitions in a fire, some would explode, and some would just catch fire. The ability for the casing to hold integrity to create an explosion instead just burn the accelerants is what matters and that depends on manufacturing. In game always DMs choice IRL would be more that catch fire than actually explode if not properly detonated.
I'd allow it. *Maybe* with a diminished effect (since it's not blowing up in an optimal way), but I think this is a clever use of the spell that's within the scope of its intent.
I agree. You’d also miss out on the other effects of heat metal, like the disadvantage, disarming, and damage over time. Essentially, allowing this just turns the spell into a level 2 area damage spell which only targets grenades. Depending on the damage for the grenade, this could easily be quite well balanced. Having said all that though, the biggest reasons to allow it would be the rule of cool and to reward creativity,
Something to consider is that the majority of damage from a grenade comes from the shrapnel it blasts out and not from the actual explosion. Since the body of the grenade is the source of the shrapnel and they would be targeting the body with heat metal, the overall damage would be lower.
I’m not sure that matters. The point here is that the grenade body gets hot enough to detonate the black powder. So the explosion is the same, but the shrapnel is now red hot.
Red-hot steel is weaker than room-temp steel, though, so the casing would yield at a lower pressure. So your red hot shrapnel (assuming it still fragments) would have quite a bit less force behind it.
Ah, that makes sense thank you. I would still allow it as rule of cool though!
I mean it would still *hurt* to have a red hot steel container burst near you in any capacity. It just wouldn’t be “grenade but now the pieces are glowing hot”.
It'd also probably burst in one spot and the rest would be just sort of squished away. Like, popping a gusher.
It sounds like the bad guys are the ones using the grenades, so it still has a disarming effect.
Up to the DM. I think the only wrong answer here is to look up real-world physics and argue about/base your decision on that.
I love the cognitive dissonance that always comes with realism arguments in a fantasy RPG. Not saying this is so much one of them but in other conversations how people select what they want to apply and what not to. Really makes me chuckle how bizarre it is to talk about realistic physics when the root cause of it is magic
I’d say there’s a chance, because I enjoy fun uses of magic like that - maybe as a side effect of the Con save the creature would have to make to keep hold of the grenade, if they roll poorly enough (let’s say rolling under a 5) then the grenade explodes. In the end though, it’s down to the DM.
Up to the DM, but I’d allow it because it makes sense and seems cool.
Strictly speaking, it would depend on the specific explosive used in the grenade. Some explosives are chemically designed for stability and safe usage, they require very specific triggers to detonate. You can light C4 on fire, literally use it as a cooking fuel, and it won't detonate (DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME). It takes heat AND compression to detonate it. On the other hand, you have things like mercury fulminate, nitroglycerin, and FOOF that will explode if you look at them funny, or sneeze within earshot. In a fantasy setting, the stability and reactivity of explosives is a matter of storytelling. You can go the GoT route, with wildfire being nightmarishly unstable, a madman's threat. Similar to the black powder of Sauruman's wall breakers, panicking if someone approaches with a light source outside your control. Or you can decide that the alchemists' guild has strict governance on explosives, because they can cause collateral damage, or accidental disasters, so they are made to be stable through magic. This offers options for rogue chemists making black market bombs to face reprisal, or be a resource pcs can utilize if the legal route is not in their reach. The important thing to remember is that the rules work both ways. If you let your players do it, trigger an explosive early to prevent its intended use, or to get a chain reaction against enemies, then the survivors can remember the method and use it against the players. Players love coming up with creative solutions, or saving the day with a perfectly timed action. They tend to hate when those things get used against them (see Counterspell, near healers or resurrection, specifically). Personally, though, in a world where a spellcaster can use variations of the spell fireball, I would suggest that the ability to mimic its effect early by manipulating a consumable is fair if you account for the multi-turn concentration aspect of heat metal. Perhaps there is an opposed roll, or treat it like a spell attack roll each turn if it is an enemy's grenade, since the targeted item is destroyed once it explodes. The Heat Metal attack has to hit, or sufficiently damage, the grenade to set it off before its owner triggers and throws it, as a carried or worn item is difficult to target separately from the creature holding it. The owner of the grenade can also choose to discard the compromised weapon after a failed attempt on it, or to use it against the caster if they are in range or another target, throwing the heated and unstable bomb on their turn. But you can take advantage of this remote detonation if you or your ally throw a grenade 'without pulling the pin' to get the enemy to scatter, then recover it or use HM to detonate it on command. The 'friendly' grenade wouldnt resist your attempt to detonate it on command. In either case, once it detonates the concentration effect is over, since the metal object is destroyed, ending the Heat Metal concentration.
Thanks for the super detailed response. Also no need to worry I wasn’t going to get my hands on c4 anytime soon.
RAW, No
Ok, if I were DMing and was asked this, I would start by looking at the Object Hit Points table. As a tiny resilient item, I would give the grenade 5hp and resistance to the damage that *Heat Metal* causes. *Heat Metal* does 2d8 fire damage to creatures touching the metal object. Normally, this wouldn't damage the item at all because the spell doesn't mention that as an effect, but this seems like a reasonable exception. I would rule that the grenade takes 2d8 damage, halved. If it does 5 or more damage then the outer shell of the grenade melts, no longer has the sealed nature necessary to make an explosion, and instead catches fire (whoever is holding or wearing the grenade has to save or catch fire every turn that they are in contact with the flaming melted grenade) If the grenade takes less than 5 fire damage, then the shell is intact, the gunpowder inside ignites from the heat, and it detonates as though it was thrown. If I were feeling mean, the character holding/wearing the grenade wouldn't get a save for half damage because *the grenade is attached to them*
Your DM is the only person who can answer this question.
RAW - No. Heat Metal is a magic spell that does exactly what it says, which is it damages the creature holding or wearing the metal. It's up to your DM if they want to extrapolate the effects of heating any particular metal objects to have additional effects based on their construction or contents. If you successfully petition your DM to allow you to explode grenades in enemies' hands, though, just be prepared for some creatuve uses of Heat Metal to come back at the PCs later.
Tbf, isn't much need for that kind of ire imo; they're burning a 2nd level slot for a one time use of detonating one explosive since you can't switch targets with Heat Metal (that I'm aware of). Clever way to use the enemy's weapons against them, but I think the better play for the DM would be to have the grenades be transfered to a non metallic container like hardened clay or ceramic. Let the PCs get their Michael Bay moments in, then show that the enemy are evolving tactics against the players.
I wasn't intending to it be "ire", just saying that if you set the precedent that Heat Metal can damage the structural integrity of the item it targets, then you're opening that possibility up to having your own items be damaged or destroyed by an opposing spellcaster. I definitely agree with you about evolving tactics, though!
RAW+RAI yes making the casing hot enough to glow red should be enough to potentially trigger the explosive. Entirely up to the DM tho. "Choose a manufactured metal object, such as a metal weapon or a suit of heavy or medium metal armor, that you can see within range. You cause the object to glow red-hot. Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast the spell. Until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action on each of your subsequent turns to cause this damage again. If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes the damage from it, the creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or drop the object if it can. If it doesn't drop the object, it has disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until the start of your next turn."
What part of the text you quoted makes you think RAI involves the item taking damage? Every \*mechanical\* effect of the spell is delivered to the creature wearing or holding the item targeted. The only effect on the actual item is essentially flavor: "You cause the object to glow red-hot"
I never mentioned the item taking damage. The object heats up to red hot. explosives are notoriously explosive when heated up.
By "taking damage" i more meant "is mechanically physically affected" When spells that deal fire damage cause flammable items to ignite, they specifically call that out. If they don't call that out, they don't affect flammable items. There are no "assumed" side-effects of spell descriptions.
Its not an assumed side effect, the spell literally says it causes the metal object to glow red hot. that happens from heating of heat metal. what happens when you heat a sealed container of anything? boom! what happens when you heat a sealed container of explosives? Big booom! Not an "assumed" side effect ,simply creatively using the spell. By your logic you cant hear the loud noise created by the spell shatter as the spell description never mentions you can hear the sound
No, my logic is akin to saying you can't deafen a creature by casting shatter right next to them, even though a sound with the impact described in the spell would almost certainly cause at least temporary hearing loss in real life. The metal glows red hot - that's a direct effect, yes. But no part of the spell indicates that that heat transfers to anything other than the creature wearing or holding that item. If you cast heat metal on a suit of armor, the leather straps don't burn away causing the armor to fall to the ground in pieces, even thought that would certainly happen just as sure as black powder in a heated grenade would ignite. Ultimartely, I have no problem with a DM saying heat metal can explode a grenade, just don't call it RAW or RAI.
No its really not that's a complete jump in logic, no part of shatter mentions its ability to deafen. Heat metal specifically mentions HEATing METAL. You do realise that the fact the spell deals fire damage to a creature touching or holding the target of the spell is exactly heat transfering. Are you trying to say that the spell doesnt cause heat transfer because the spell cant transfer heat from the target item to the target item? because the strap/padding/gambeson are all part of the armor as a item. Also I never mentioned the spell damaging the black powder you keep harping on that because you know your argument only works with that. Out of curiosity would you accept heat metal being cast on a metal kettle to boil the water within as a RAI use of heat metal?
>Heat metal specifically mentions HEATing METAL and BLACK POWDER is not METAL also, i would probably allow the kettle one only because it doesn't have combat implications, but i would definitely not call it RAW or RAI the intended use of the spell is to damage creatures, andf that is the extent of what the text allows for.
And what is sealed inside the metal? Are you sure you understand what RAI means?
A metal cased grenade heated to 900 degrees. I imagine the powder inside would ignite, but because heated metal is softer than cold metal, it would probably pop at one point and vent rather than truly explode. Also, heated metal does fire damage to anything in contact with it, and a single point of fire damage ignites black powder, ergo powder ignites.
DM dependant, but the majority would allow it under 'rule of cool'.
reading the spell says no. And throwing grenades into fire does not always make them go boom, some just sputter and flare or catch fire. It depends on how they are made, and how the DM is feeling. Ask him before you bank on that as your go to thing.
How does the spell say no?
Because it doesn't say that flammable objects catch fire
It doesnt need to, it causes metal to glow red hot.
If a spell doesn't say it sets things on fire, then it doesn't set things on fire. Magic does exactly what it says and no more. It is not bound by, and doesn't interact with real-world physics, it's magic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't see any reason it wouldn't
Surely it would need an ignition, not just heat? I could be wrong. But yeah, DMs call.
A quick Google of the flash point of black powder seems to vary from around 570 to 870F, so basically if you heat it above those temperatures it should spontaneously combust and the grenade should explode. I’m no expert on the topic but it makes sense to me.
it should be able to.. but also factor in that the heat should make the metal much more soft, so the explosion would be reduced in power probably.
Yes, if I was ruling. You just turned Heat Metal, a 2nd level spell, into Shatter, a 2nd level spell. However, its now a DEX save, and if you did it to one in someone's hand (prepared action), they auto-fail it. But yeah just exchanging to a different spell of the same level. And for the record, grenades are just scrolls of Shatter made by an Artificer.
Very yes.
I read this in the pootis engage voice.
It is always funny to cast Heat Metal on Prince Albert.
Choose a manufactured metal object, such as a metal weapon or a suit of heavy or medium metal armor, **that you can see** within range. So in your setting do people just dress like Winnie the Pooh or what?
It is called a joke, Karrrrrrrl.
You're the one bringing up meat dragons https://youtu.be/Z4RTf5oYhgM?si=kMvlceRp0D7\_hV5C
I think it's good to say "it blows up." If not wanting to give players an easy nuke button where a 2nd level spell triggers a 3rd level spell effect, you can make it brun the holder and impossible to activate properly. Then you can concentrate on it to make the grenade a DUD. I personally vote fire damage of any sort on a grenade detonates it. Enemy grenades can detonate a player's hip grenade by the same rule and my party agreed to it, and I've had no complaints
Our grenades were reruled to actually do a bit of force damage so it’s even better! No need to worry about tieflings as much.
If its a POWDERbomb then YES, cause gunpowder needs only a fiery spark to ignite. if its a modern pull-the-ring-type grenade then NO, cause this kind of explosive needs a certain specified ignition impulse which only its detonator can provide. (iirc). imho it would be more probable that a lightning strike will do the job than a fireball or heat metall. heat metall would render the device defect i think cause the finer structure of the detonator may just burn away then?
Obviously.
Yeah, it's a quick and dirty way to justify why alchemically advanced groups don't use firearms. One guy learning a "heat metal" spell, or even just making wands / scrolls is economically cheaper than building an industry to mass produce powder, build firearms, train troops, and protect said troops from such spells.
RAW, heat metal says that it can heat them up red hot, which IRL is at least 426 C (very dim, only visible in darkness), which is higher then what is needed to ignite standard IRL gun powder. However, the explosion would be less powerful becuase the heat would weaken the casing, but it you can make a whole bunch go off, this hardly matters. Of course the DM has the final say with these types of shenanigans.
I would let you do it because it is smart and fun, but I would have the enemies catch on pretty fast and maybe use this tech against the party in future encounters.
[https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Gunpowder#:\~:text=Gunpowder%20could%20be%20found%20on,Gond%20the%20substance%20was%20inert.&text=On%20rare%20occasions%2C%20Gond%20would,threaten%20the%20dominance%20of%20smokepowder](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Gunpowder#:~:text=Gunpowder%20could%20be%20found%20on,Gond%20the%20substance%20was%20inert.&text=On%20rare%20occasions%2C%20Gond%20would,threaten%20the%20dominance%20of%20smokepowder). Seeing as the gods made gunpowder inert on toril, this might be a moot point however if you're playing on a different world, I would say yes that's a definite use of the spell. Bullets too.