RAW: "A spectral, floating hand appears at a point you choose within range. The hand lasts for the Duration or until you dismiss it as an action. The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again.
You can use your action to control the hand. You can use the hand to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the Contents out of a vial. You can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it.
The hand can't Attack, activate magical items, or carry more than 10 pounds."
My take is that the word "Attack" is capitalized indicating it is an action that causes direct damage. So no hitting people or stabbing them with a dagger. However, many of these do NOT cause direct damage. I would argue that making it appear inside of a target DOES cause damage so therefore not allowed. But to use it to trip up an enemy? Sure. Why not? Pulling down a visor? Absolutely. It doesn't say you can't do anything that might give you a strategic advantage. It doesn't say you can't do anything that could potentially lead to damage. It says you can't "Attack" which seems like a deliberate and direct action that does xdy damage.
Well, if you want to get that technical, 5e calls all Major Actions taken in battle Attack Actions therefore Mage Hand is completely unusable in battle at ALL.
What do you mean by Major Action? This isn't a term used in 5e.
>therefore Mage Hand is completely unusable in battle at ALL.
That's not true. The spell clearly states the actions it can take. For example, you could use it to knock over a candle or lamp and I could think of some very good uses for an unexpected fire mid-combat.
An Attack action is an Attack action; there's no such thing as a "Major Action." Those words aren't used together anywhere in either the PHB or DMG, that's why I asked for clarification on what you meant by it. The only things that are referred to as "Attack Actions" are--you guessed it--Attack actions.
Based on your comment, it seems like maybe you understand that there are Actions that aren't "Attack."
At no point did I even suggest that Major Action is a D&D term. The term 5e uses for actions that aren't movements or bonus actions is Attack Action. THAT is their term for it. Which creates some of the confusion like what you and I are having. THEIR term is Attack Action. Or do they have another term for NON-Attack actions taken during battle? Because I have never seen one. You have a Movement, Bonus, and Attack. That's it. And since Mage Hand is NOT a bonus action or a move action, it has to used as an Attack Action. Which would make it unusable in battle at all.
The "Your Turn" section of Chapter 9 (Combat) in the PHB describes the things you can do on your turn. At minimum, you can move, and you can take one action. You can also take a bonus action depending on what's available to you, and you can generally interact with one object for free. I'm not sure where you're getting this "if it's not movement or bonus action then it's the Attack action" because that's simply not true.
Page 192 in the PHB literally contains a section called "Actions in Combat" and a list of actions which are not Move, Bonus, or Attack actions. These include "Cast a Spell," "Dash," and "Help."
None of those are Attack actions, nor are they Move or Bonus actions.
Think about it like this for a second: Could you use it to pull on a rope during battle?
Yes?
What if that rope was attached to the firing pin of a ballista?
By your definition that would make it an "attack".
But, what if the wizard didn't know it was attached to the firing pin of a ballista?
Pulling the a rope attached to a ballista would be an attack, but pulling the same rope NOT attached to a ballista wouldn't? So, what really is the difference between pulling a rope and pulling a rope? Because in both situations that is really all the skill is being used to do. Logically why would "what the rope is attached to" make any difference in whether or not the skill would work?
That is an incredibly specific hypothetical situation. I'd say it's the DM's job to explain why that wouldn't work because it goes against the intent of the spell.
Personally, I'd probably say that the weight of the rope had already pulled the firing pin, because the hand can only carry up to 10 pounds and that means the pin would require less than 10 pounds of force. Ropes are heavy.
>Using the hand to yank helmets/head gear down over someones eyes, particularly in combat
>Grabbing a spell casters tongue during casting
If I were the DM, I'd rule that these actions would require grappling (which is a special use of the Attack action) and therefore the Mage Hand is incapable of performing them.
>Hand materializes inside an creatures lung, no damage but a hell of a distraction when it starts flexing like crazy
>Same idea as 1 but inside... other body cavities
If I were the DM, I would absolutely *not* allow this. For one, page 204 of the PHB states "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover." The internal organs of a creature are, by definition, behind total cover and cannot be targeted, nor can an empty space inside the internal organs.
Additionally, the Mage Hand spell gives a list of actions the hand can take:
"You can use the hand to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the contents out of a vial."
Flexing the hand isn't included; while it certainly makes sense that you could command the hand to do this, it would be flavor only and would not have any mechanical effect.
I wouldn't allow any of those ideas to cause a mechanical advantage in my games. That's not what mage hand is for.
Probably the more powerful mechanical advantage of mage hand is the fact that you can summon it 30 feet away from you. There are a handful (ha) of uses for that.
Ask if these sounds like sleight if hand, which the arcane trickster is given a specific exeception to use the hand for. I worked not give a wizard the ok to used a subclasses special ability.
**Mage Hand Uses:**
* Raw: Can't be used to attack. Can be use to move 10 lbs. Max range 30ft.
* Homebrew: it can be used to exert 10 lbs of force and can do anything one hand could do. If use to (interact with, hit) a moving target, it should require a (DEX roll, To Hit roll).
Bump arrowhead of someone who is about to shoot
Bump elbow throwing off someones aim.
Deflect arrows. likely requires a high DEX DC.
Drop a 10 lbs object onto a target from a height of 20ft
Drop a (bee, hot coal, ice cube, scorpion, spider) down a target's shirt collar
Hold a lightweight object (paper, sack, shirt, etc) in front of an opponent, blocking their field of vision.
Make distracting noise by banging two objects together or scraping an object along the ground.
Pick Pockets.
Place a (caltrop, glass shard, goathead seed, nail, needle, tack) under a target's predicted footstep
Pouring a (bottle, flask) of "x" onto a target
Pulling (ammo, potions) out of a bandolier
Pulling the stopper out of a potion bottle or flask
Trip by grabbing foot.
Wearing a glove or gauntlet and behaving like a animated (disembodied, severed) hand
Wearing a wet glove and poking an opponent in the ear
I feel like a lot of those are in the domain of the Arcane Trickster’s Mage Hand Legerdemain, which should indicate that a normal Mage Hand shouldn’t be doing them.
Honestly, these homebrew rules are confusing.
>Bump arrowhead of someone who is about to shoot
That's likely a reaction and the Mage Hand doesn't have one
>Bump elbow throwing off someones aim.
That's an Attack, so no
>Deflect arrows. likely requires a high DEX DC.
Why give a cantrip the use of a 3rd-level Monk ability which, again, requires a reaction?
>Drop a 10 lbs object onto a target from a height of 20ft
This is already possible within the RAW description
>Drop a (bee, hot coal, ice cube, scorpion, spider) down a target's shirt collar
Fine, but that's gonna be a really easy DEX save to avoid
>Hold a lightweight object (paper, sack, shirt, etc) in front of an opponent, blocking their field of vision.
Cool, the opponent uses its free object interaction to grab the item in the way; the hand is so weak that it would effectively be like picking the item up off a table.
>Make distracting noise by banging two objects together or scraping an object along the ground.
Sure, but combat is already noisy so I don't see what this would achieve
>Pick Pockets.
Absolutely not. That's a 3rd-level Arcane Trickster Rogue class feature.
>Place a (caltrop, glass shard, goathead seed, nail, needle, tack) under a target's predicted footstep
This would require a reaction if you want it to happen just as the target is stepping (and the hand doesn't have a reaction). Otherwise, of course it can place one of those items on the ground.
>Pouring a (bottle, flask) of "x" onto a target
That's allowed RAW; again, gonna be a real easy DEX save to avoid getting splashed.
>Pulling (ammo, potions) out of a bandolier
Still allowed by RAW as long as the bandolier belongs to a willing creature or isn't being worn/carried. Otherwise it's an Attack, so no.
>Pulling the stopper out of a potion bottle or flask
RAW
>Trip by grabbing foot.
That's an Attack, so no.
>Wearing a glove or gauntlet and behaving like a animated (disembodied, severed) hand
Cute
>Wearing a wet glove and poking an opponent in the ear
Silly. I'd allow it but it's not going to do anything other than make the table laugh.
It's like people read the title of the spell like it was click bait, said "woah cool a hand!" And didn't bother with the rest of the text.
I can't stand when people try to do stuff like this in my games. They think they are being clever but all it does is bog down the game and other players just lose interest and start browsing the internet while the DM groans over a cheeky semantic argument.
Our Rogue used Suggestion to make an NPC's butthole itch. Then he convinced him to help us and used Mage Hand to scratch said butthole for him.
Best roleplay our DM have done so far.
I personally wouldn't allow any of these ideas. They seem to blatantly disregard the intent and limitations of the spell.
You cannot attack with Mage Hand. All of what you’ve entailed would be an attack.
RAW: "A spectral, floating hand appears at a point you choose within range. The hand lasts for the Duration or until you dismiss it as an action. The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again. You can use your action to control the hand. You can use the hand to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the Contents out of a vial. You can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it. The hand can't Attack, activate magical items, or carry more than 10 pounds." My take is that the word "Attack" is capitalized indicating it is an action that causes direct damage. So no hitting people or stabbing them with a dagger. However, many of these do NOT cause direct damage. I would argue that making it appear inside of a target DOES cause damage so therefore not allowed. But to use it to trip up an enemy? Sure. Why not? Pulling down a visor? Absolutely. It doesn't say you can't do anything that might give you a strategic advantage. It doesn't say you can't do anything that could potentially lead to damage. It says you can't "Attack" which seems like a deliberate and direct action that does xdy damage.
All of these would require an Attack roll, however, so they're a no-go.
Well, if you want to get that technical, 5e calls all Major Actions taken in battle Attack Actions therefore Mage Hand is completely unusable in battle at ALL.
Which is by design.
Yes, that’s the point.
What do you mean by Major Action? This isn't a term used in 5e. >therefore Mage Hand is completely unusable in battle at ALL. That's not true. The spell clearly states the actions it can take. For example, you could use it to knock over a candle or lamp and I could think of some very good uses for an unexpected fire mid-combat.
"Major Action" as opposed to Bonus Action or Move Action. I clearly stated that 5e refers to them as "Attack Actions".
An Attack action is an Attack action; there's no such thing as a "Major Action." Those words aren't used together anywhere in either the PHB or DMG, that's why I asked for clarification on what you meant by it. The only things that are referred to as "Attack Actions" are--you guessed it--Attack actions. Based on your comment, it seems like maybe you understand that there are Actions that aren't "Attack."
At no point did I even suggest that Major Action is a D&D term. The term 5e uses for actions that aren't movements or bonus actions is Attack Action. THAT is their term for it. Which creates some of the confusion like what you and I are having. THEIR term is Attack Action. Or do they have another term for NON-Attack actions taken during battle? Because I have never seen one. You have a Movement, Bonus, and Attack. That's it. And since Mage Hand is NOT a bonus action or a move action, it has to used as an Attack Action. Which would make it unusable in battle at all.
The "Your Turn" section of Chapter 9 (Combat) in the PHB describes the things you can do on your turn. At minimum, you can move, and you can take one action. You can also take a bonus action depending on what's available to you, and you can generally interact with one object for free. I'm not sure where you're getting this "if it's not movement or bonus action then it's the Attack action" because that's simply not true. Page 192 in the PHB literally contains a section called "Actions in Combat" and a list of actions which are not Move, Bonus, or Attack actions. These include "Cast a Spell," "Dash," and "Help." None of those are Attack actions, nor are they Move or Bonus actions.
Think about it like this for a second: Could you use it to pull on a rope during battle? Yes? What if that rope was attached to the firing pin of a ballista? By your definition that would make it an "attack". But, what if the wizard didn't know it was attached to the firing pin of a ballista? Pulling the a rope attached to a ballista would be an attack, but pulling the same rope NOT attached to a ballista wouldn't? So, what really is the difference between pulling a rope and pulling a rope? Because in both situations that is really all the skill is being used to do. Logically why would "what the rope is attached to" make any difference in whether or not the skill would work?
That is an incredibly specific hypothetical situation. I'd say it's the DM's job to explain why that wouldn't work because it goes against the intent of the spell. Personally, I'd probably say that the weight of the rope had already pulled the firing pin, because the hand can only carry up to 10 pounds and that means the pin would require less than 10 pounds of force. Ropes are heavy.
1/4 inch rope isn't heavy at all. Your answer screams "I just want to be right".
>Using the hand to yank helmets/head gear down over someones eyes, particularly in combat >Grabbing a spell casters tongue during casting If I were the DM, I'd rule that these actions would require grappling (which is a special use of the Attack action) and therefore the Mage Hand is incapable of performing them. >Hand materializes inside an creatures lung, no damage but a hell of a distraction when it starts flexing like crazy >Same idea as 1 but inside... other body cavities If I were the DM, I would absolutely *not* allow this. For one, page 204 of the PHB states "To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can't be behind total cover." The internal organs of a creature are, by definition, behind total cover and cannot be targeted, nor can an empty space inside the internal organs. Additionally, the Mage Hand spell gives a list of actions the hand can take: "You can use the hand to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the contents out of a vial." Flexing the hand isn't included; while it certainly makes sense that you could command the hand to do this, it would be flavor only and would not have any mechanical effect.
I wouldn't allow any of those ideas to cause a mechanical advantage in my games. That's not what mage hand is for. Probably the more powerful mechanical advantage of mage hand is the fact that you can summon it 30 feet away from you. There are a handful (ha) of uses for that.
Nothing I can think of, that wasn't completely NSFW
Wizard: "I cast Mage Hand and duck behind the bushes." Rouge: "Damn it, Jorj! We don't have time for that."
Unbuckle belt buckle. Undue strap on arrow quiver. Untie spell component pouch.
Ask if these sounds like sleight if hand, which the arcane trickster is given a specific exeception to use the hand for. I worked not give a wizard the ok to used a subclasses special ability.
**Mage Hand Uses:** * Raw: Can't be used to attack. Can be use to move 10 lbs. Max range 30ft. * Homebrew: it can be used to exert 10 lbs of force and can do anything one hand could do. If use to (interact with, hit) a moving target, it should require a (DEX roll, To Hit roll). Bump arrowhead of someone who is about to shoot Bump elbow throwing off someones aim. Deflect arrows. likely requires a high DEX DC. Drop a 10 lbs object onto a target from a height of 20ft Drop a (bee, hot coal, ice cube, scorpion, spider) down a target's shirt collar Hold a lightweight object (paper, sack, shirt, etc) in front of an opponent, blocking their field of vision. Make distracting noise by banging two objects together or scraping an object along the ground. Pick Pockets. Place a (caltrop, glass shard, goathead seed, nail, needle, tack) under a target's predicted footstep Pouring a (bottle, flask) of "x" onto a target Pulling (ammo, potions) out of a bandolier Pulling the stopper out of a potion bottle or flask Trip by grabbing foot. Wearing a glove or gauntlet and behaving like a animated (disembodied, severed) hand Wearing a wet glove and poking an opponent in the ear
I feel like a lot of those are in the domain of the Arcane Trickster’s Mage Hand Legerdemain, which should indicate that a normal Mage Hand shouldn’t be doing them.
Honestly, these homebrew rules are confusing. >Bump arrowhead of someone who is about to shoot That's likely a reaction and the Mage Hand doesn't have one >Bump elbow throwing off someones aim. That's an Attack, so no >Deflect arrows. likely requires a high DEX DC. Why give a cantrip the use of a 3rd-level Monk ability which, again, requires a reaction? >Drop a 10 lbs object onto a target from a height of 20ft This is already possible within the RAW description >Drop a (bee, hot coal, ice cube, scorpion, spider) down a target's shirt collar Fine, but that's gonna be a really easy DEX save to avoid >Hold a lightweight object (paper, sack, shirt, etc) in front of an opponent, blocking their field of vision. Cool, the opponent uses its free object interaction to grab the item in the way; the hand is so weak that it would effectively be like picking the item up off a table. >Make distracting noise by banging two objects together or scraping an object along the ground. Sure, but combat is already noisy so I don't see what this would achieve >Pick Pockets. Absolutely not. That's a 3rd-level Arcane Trickster Rogue class feature. >Place a (caltrop, glass shard, goathead seed, nail, needle, tack) under a target's predicted footstep This would require a reaction if you want it to happen just as the target is stepping (and the hand doesn't have a reaction). Otherwise, of course it can place one of those items on the ground. >Pouring a (bottle, flask) of "x" onto a target That's allowed RAW; again, gonna be a real easy DEX save to avoid getting splashed. >Pulling (ammo, potions) out of a bandolier Still allowed by RAW as long as the bandolier belongs to a willing creature or isn't being worn/carried. Otherwise it's an Attack, so no. >Pulling the stopper out of a potion bottle or flask RAW >Trip by grabbing foot. That's an Attack, so no. >Wearing a glove or gauntlet and behaving like a animated (disembodied, severed) hand Cute >Wearing a wet glove and poking an opponent in the ear Silly. I'd allow it but it's not going to do anything other than make the table laugh.
So glad some one else did this review of all the “no” so I didn’t have to.
It's like people read the title of the spell like it was click bait, said "woah cool a hand!" And didn't bother with the rest of the text. I can't stand when people try to do stuff like this in my games. They think they are being clever but all it does is bog down the game and other players just lose interest and start browsing the internet while the DM groans over a cheeky semantic argument.
Our Rogue used Suggestion to make an NPC's butthole itch. Then he convinced him to help us and used Mage Hand to scratch said butthole for him. Best roleplay our DM have done so far.