Remember that the rules aren't made to be super-duper-finnicky. They're idiomatic. It's indescribably obvious that the reason the spectral hand winks out beyond 30 ft is because the spell's range is 30 ft. The idiomatic approach would mean if something increases the range of the spell, it increases how far the hand can go. This isn't an oversight by the writers - they just don't expect DMs to be so finnicky to the point of being ***** about it.
There is a subsection of the community that requires absolutely everything to be spelled out explicitly and in intricate detail. A certain strata of society that has completely forgotten how to even think for themselves let alone practice critical thinking. So there is no point in arguing with them, they seem to need everything to be spoonfed to them. Even if you are patently correct they won’t accept it. You will end up giving yourself a stroke if you try.
I agree with the "indescribably obvious" comment.
When telekinetic speaks of mage hand saying: " If you already know this spell, its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it." while mage hand's base description says that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." that it's clear that the 30 feet mentioned in the spell is a reflection of the range increased. Otherwise, this part of the feat would be useless. All mentally able DMs/players would, potentially, be able to work this out.
It kinda makes me sad because I'm sure there are some people out there that, for whatever reason, either find that they get entrenched and/or can't think for themselves.
Remember that the rules aren't made to be super-duper-finnicky. They're idiomatic. It's indescribably obvious that the reason the spectral hand winks out beyond 30 ft is because the spell's range is 30 ft. The idiomatic approach would mean if something increases the range of the spell, it increases how far the hand can go. This isn't an oversight by the writers - they just don't expect DMs to be so finnicky to the point of being ***** about it.
There is a subsection of the community that requires absolutely everything to be spelled out explicitly and in intricate detail. A certain strata of society that has completely forgotten how to even think for themselves let alone practice critical thinking. So there is no point in arguing with them, they seem to need everything to be spoonfed to them. Even if you are patently correct they won’t accept it. You will end up giving yourself a stroke if you try.
I agree with the "indescribably obvious" comment.
When telekinetic speaks of mage hand saying: " If you already know this spell, its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it." while mage hand's base description says that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." that it's clear that the 30 feet mentioned in the spell is a reflection of the range increased. Otherwise, this part of the feat would be useless. All mentally able DMs/players would, potentially, be able to work this out.
It kinda makes me sad because I'm sure there are some people out there that, for whatever reason, either find that they get entrenched and/or can't think for themselves.
I question the purpose of coming onto a forum devoted to answering questions about the RAW and insisting that the people working out what the RAW says are mentally inferior because their analysis of the RAW doesn't match up with your analysis of the RAI. It's like going to a facility where engineers design cars and insisting they're dumber than you are because you're confident you can do an excellent job painting.
Remember that the rules aren't made to be super-duper-finnicky. They're idiomatic. It's indescribably obvious that the reason the spectral hand winks out beyond 30 ft is because the spell's range is 30 ft. The idiomatic approach would mean if something increases the range of the spell, it increases how far the hand can go. This isn't an oversight by the writers - they just don't expect DMs to be so finnicky to the point of being ***** about it.
There is a subsection of the community that requires absolutely everything to be spelled out explicitly and in intricate detail. A certain strata of society that has completely forgotten how to even think for themselves let alone practice critical thinking. So there is no point in arguing with them, they seem to need everything to be spoonfed to them. Even if you are patently correct they won’t accept it. You will end up giving yourself a stroke if you try.
I agree with the "indescribably obvious" comment.
When telekinetic speaks of mage hand saying: " If you already know this spell, its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it." while mage hand's base description says that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." that it's clear that the 30 feet mentioned in the spell is a reflection of the range increased. Otherwise, this part of the feat would be useless. All mentally able DMs/players would, potentially, be able to work this out.
It kinda makes me sad because I'm sure there are some people out there that, for whatever reason, either find that they get entrenched and/or can't think for themselves.
I question the purpose of coming onto a forum devoted to answering questions about the RAW and insisting that the people working out what the RAW says are mentally inferior because their analysis of the RAW doesn't match up with your analysis of the RAI. It's like going to a facility where engineers design cars and insisting they're dumber than you are because you're confident you can do an excellent job painting.
Fair enough. Most people will not need to be spoonfed to enable them to come up with their own responses to the mentioned texts.
Starting out with the mage hand cantrip, either from being a high elf or sorcerer or wizard for example, then taking telekinetic to boost the range of mage hand.
Afterwards, would having your race changed due to a reincarnate or true polymorph cause you to lose the increased range of mage hand?
By the same respect, would swapping out the original cantrip from sorcerer or wizard cause the same decrease in range?
Any help clarifying this would be greatly appreciated!
The question relates to a character whose race enabled the use of a cantrip that was later enhanced by a feat but that still later had a change of race due to such means as reincarnation or use of the true polymorph spell.
Issues of interpretations of how mage hand works directly with the telekinetic feat are secondary.
RAW, mage hand is a poor example of future-proofing. They could have alleviated this if they just said the spell winks out if it's ever more than its range from you. I'd also like to share this nugget of wisdom from page 4 of the DMG.
And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.
There's no argument over what the text explicitly says. That said, it's also RAW for the DM to follow an idiomatic interpretation and have the spell persist out to a range of 60 feet.
A strict reading of the Telekinetic feat only change Mage Hand range value and not the clause that cause it to vanish. But i don't think it's intended to have the feat grant a benefit that is unusable RAW.
It should be subject to errata saying the hand vanishes if it is ever out of range instead.
I don't think it is helpful to the hobby or people learning it to pretend that some literal interpretation is more appropriate to be used during gameplay than the obviously intended (and conveyed) meaning of the rule.
I don't think it is helpful to the hobby or people learning it to pretend that some literal interpretation is more appropriate to be used during gameplay than the obviously intended (and conveyed) meaning of the rule.
And some people, unfortunately, still think in this binary. I saw a thing on Reddit the other day about the new AL season FAQ. Allegedly, it breaks the game because, "Spells or effects that create items can only create items that are otherwise available for purchase." (For reference, this is from Items Created by Spells; found on page 8.)
Which supposedly includes spells like goodberry and shadow blade; along with features like Performance of Creation and Transmuter's Stone. They'd all be functionally inoperable.
And I just can't fathom how that's a good-faith reading of the rule.
The Dev said it before, the rules must be able to stand on their own. When analyzing them as written, there's nothing wrong highlighting when they don't. It can even sometimes be helpful for people to read such rule discussions exposing different's people take on RAW RAI RAF.
I also make a distinction between rule discussions on forums and rule adjucation at the table. Many absurdities exposed in theory are never taken in actual play as in the end of it is a DM making rule call.
I question the purpose of coming onto a forum devoted to answering questions about the RAW and insisting that the people working out what the RAW says are mentally inferior because their analysis of the RAW doesn't match up with your analysis of the RAI. It's like going to a facility where engineers design cars and insisting they're dumber than you are because you're confident you can do an excellent job painting.
And I question the sanity of people that come on to a forum with an opinion that they claim is correct, and stubbornly refuse to accept it when everyone else on the forum tells them they are completely and utterly wrong…
I question the purpose of coming onto a forum devoted to answering questions about the RAW and insisting that the people working out what the RAW says are mentally inferior because their analysis of the RAW doesn't match up with your analysis of the RAI. It's like going to a facility where engineers design cars and insisting they're dumber than you are because you're confident you can do an excellent job painting.
And I question the sanity of people that come on to a forum with an opinion that they claim is correct, and stubbornly refuse to accept it when everyone else on the forum tells them they are completely and utterly wrong…
The problem is that they aren't wrong. It is a problem with how the rule is written that really should be errata'ed to make it clear.
Mage hand has a range of 30'. The spell description also says that the mage hand disappears if it is ever more than 30' away from you. These two numbers are the same but is that intentional? (The obvious answer is "Of course" but it isn't that simple).
What if mage hand said that the mage hand disappears if it is ever more than 40' away from you? Exactly the same wording except that the distance is no longer coincidentally equal to the range. This would mean that you could summon it within 30' but could move it up to 40' away from you. However, if something changed the spell range to 60' ... what should happen to the 40' value? Should it be 70'? Should it be 60'? Should it remain 40' since the change to the spell range didn't mention changing the distance it can be moved?
To me, and most everyone else, the INTENT of the feat is to allow the use of mage hand within 60' of the caster. However, the RANGE of the spell and the distance at which the hand disappears are not explicitly the same quantity as far as RAW goes. This is the source of the problem, this is why it needs an errata either in the feat or in the spell itself.
So as far as reading the RAW goes, quindraco is correct. As far as how people play it, including me, I would expect it to be a very rare DM who would limit mage hand to 30' for a person with this feat.
What if mage hand said that the mage hand disappears if it is ever more than 40' away from you?
What if it said it was actually a mage foot?
The fact that the distance mentioned in the description is identical to the range is not coincidental, and should not be treated as such
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I mean it really isn’t rocket science to understand it. I’m old as sin and my brain is slow and all foggy from decades of beer and partying but I can still work it out.
The feat should probably get the errata... that spell is in the Basic Rules and shows up in so many places.
How would you errata the feat to fix it? The "problem" text, if someone chooses to see it as a problem, is in the spell. The feat already tells you it's good out to 60 feet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't think it is helpful to the hobby or people learning it to pretend that some literal interpretation is more appropriate to be used during gameplay than the obviously intended (and conveyed) meaning of the rule.
Good thing no-one in this thread is doing that, then.
The only thing that matters with Rules as Written is whether or not your interpretation of the rules is valid and consistent. The amount of petty arguing over whether or not mage hand can't ever be effective past 30 feat with the Telekinetic feat is, on it's face, absurd. And everyone here knows it because even the people taking the position that it's RAW don't employ it that way. The intent is obvious.
Saying the 30 feet mentioned in the spell description is wholly distinct from the spell's actual 30 foot range may as well be arguing that the 20 foot radius in the spell description for fireball is wholly distinct from the...well, I would hope my point has been made. Both are part of the spell description. Both are equally valid.
What's more, people who say the feat should be subject to errata seem to be of the impression that the feat is what's "broken" when there is nothing wrong with the feat at all. Your hang ups are because of the spell, so it's the spell which "needs" errata. But that won't happen because, again, consistency is important. And it behooves WotC, and the readers of their books, to use consistent language across their many, many spell descriptions. Never mind that the spell is found in so many places it would make any changes impractical.
Could they errata the feat? Sure. Tasha's is getting a reprint in a few months; complete with a fancy new cover for anyone who wants to shell out the money for it? Will they errata it? Doubtful, as it would require adding even more text. That messes with page layouts and costs more money. So to those who insist on pedantry, perhaps stop to reconsider and ask if your pedantry is actually constructive in this instance? Because as a pedant, I recognize that going down that path leads to a place where the designers acknowledged the issues raised by some in the community and did nothing anyway. Which means the designers didn't ultimately see the problem they did. Which calls for a reevaluation of biases.
Or you just dig in your heels and demand WotC be wrong and you be right.
I don’t think calling interpretations obvious is useful as what is deemed obvious seems to change from person to person. There are quite a few features in the game that have different descriptions of how an effect can start, how long it lasts, if there are distance limitations at initial use, distance limitations while the effect is ongoing, specifications on how effects end, what happens when an effect ends. There are spells that continue after casting even after the caster dies or goes to another plane of existence.
the problem is the lack of quality control and adherence to the standard terminology supposedly required to run the game, by the very people who are paid to make the game. If these changes are so inexpensive and easy I don’t see why the changes wouldn’t have been implemented already.
You learn the mage hand cantrip. You can cast it without verbal or somatic components, and you can make the spectral hand invisible. If you already know this spell, its range and vanishing distance increase to 60 feet when you cast it. Its spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat.
I agree with the "indescribably obvious" comment.
When telekinetic speaks of mage hand saying: " If you already know this spell, its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it." while mage hand's base description says that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." that it's clear that the 30 feet mentioned in the spell is a reflection of the range increased. Otherwise, this part of the feat would be useless. All mentally able DMs/players would, potentially, be able to work this out.
It kinda makes me sad because I'm sure there are some people out there that, for whatever reason, either find that they get entrenched and/or can't think for themselves.
I question the purpose of coming onto a forum devoted to answering questions about the RAW and insisting that the people working out what the RAW says are mentally inferior because their analysis of the RAW doesn't match up with your analysis of the RAI. It's like going to a facility where engineers design cars and insisting they're dumber than you are because you're confident you can do an excellent job painting.
Fair enough. Most people will not need to be spoonfed to enable them to come up with their own responses to the mentioned texts.
The question relates to a character whose race enabled the use of a cantrip that was later enhanced by a feat but that still later had a change of race due to such means as reincarnation or use of the true polymorph spell.
Issues of interpretations of how mage hand works directly with the telekinetic feat are secondary.
RAW, mage hand is a poor example of future-proofing. They could have alleviated this if they just said the spell winks out if it's ever more than its range from you. I'd also like to share this nugget of wisdom from page 4 of the DMG.
There's no argument over what the text explicitly says. That said, it's also RAW for the DM to follow an idiomatic interpretation and have the spell persist out to a range of 60 feet.
A strict reading of the Telekinetic feat only change Mage Hand range value and not the clause that cause it to vanish. But i don't think it's intended to have the feat grant a benefit that is unusable RAW.
It should be subject to errata saying the hand vanishes if it is ever out of range instead.
I don't think it is helpful to the hobby or people learning it to pretend that some literal interpretation is more appropriate to be used during gameplay than the obviously intended (and conveyed) meaning of the rule.
And some people, unfortunately, still think in this binary. I saw a thing on Reddit the other day about the new AL season FAQ. Allegedly, it breaks the game because, "Spells or effects that create items can only create items that are otherwise available for purchase." (For reference, this is from Items Created by Spells; found on page 8.)
Which supposedly includes spells like goodberry and shadow blade; along with features like Performance of Creation and Transmuter's Stone. They'd all be functionally inoperable.
And I just can't fathom how that's a good-faith reading of the rule.
P.S.
Added link's and clarification.
The Dev said it before, the rules must be able to stand on their own. When analyzing them as written, there's nothing wrong highlighting when they don't. It can even sometimes be helpful for people to read such rule discussions exposing different's people take on RAW RAI RAF.
I also make a distinction between rule discussions on forums and rule adjucation at the table. Many absurdities exposed in theory are never taken in actual play as in the end of it is a DM making rule call.
And I question the sanity of people that come on to a forum with an opinion that they claim is correct, and stubbornly refuse to accept it when everyone else on the forum tells them they are completely and utterly wrong…
The problem is that they aren't wrong. It is a problem with how the rule is written that really should be errata'ed to make it clear.
Mage hand has a range of 30'. The spell description also says that the mage hand disappears if it is ever more than 30' away from you. These two numbers are the same but is that intentional? (The obvious answer is "Of course" but it isn't that simple).
What if mage hand said that the mage hand disappears if it is ever more than 40' away from you? Exactly the same wording except that the distance is no longer coincidentally equal to the range. This would mean that you could summon it within 30' but could move it up to 40' away from you. However, if something changed the spell range to 60' ... what should happen to the 40' value? Should it be 70'? Should it be 60'? Should it remain 40' since the change to the spell range didn't mention changing the distance it can be moved?
To me, and most everyone else, the INTENT of the feat is to allow the use of mage hand within 60' of the caster. However, the RANGE of the spell and the distance at which the hand disappears are not explicitly the same quantity as far as RAW goes. This is the source of the problem, this is why it needs an errata either in the feat or in the spell itself.
So as far as reading the RAW goes, quindraco is correct. As far as how people play it, including me, I would expect it to be a very rare DM who would limit mage hand to 30' for a person with this feat.
The feat should probably get the errata... that spell is in the Basic Rules and shows up in so many places.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
What if it said it was actually a mage foot?
The fact that the distance mentioned in the description is identical to the range is not coincidental, and should not be treated as such
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I mean it really isn’t rocket science to understand it. I’m old as sin and my brain is slow and all foggy from decades of beer and partying but I can still work it out.
How would you errata the feat to fix it? The "problem" text, if someone chooses to see it as a problem, is in the spell. The feat already tells you it's good out to 60 feet.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"which also applies to the distance it can be from the caster without disappearing."
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Good thing no-one in this thread is doing that, then.
The only thing that matters with Rules as Written is whether or not your interpretation of the rules is valid and consistent. The amount of petty arguing over whether or not mage hand can't ever be effective past 30 feat with the Telekinetic feat is, on it's face, absurd. And everyone here knows it because even the people taking the position that it's RAW don't employ it that way. The intent is obvious.
Saying the 30 feet mentioned in the spell description is wholly distinct from the spell's actual 30 foot range may as well be arguing that the 20 foot radius in the spell description for fireball is wholly distinct from the...well, I would hope my point has been made. Both are part of the spell description. Both are equally valid.
What's more, people who say the feat should be subject to errata seem to be of the impression that the feat is what's "broken" when there is nothing wrong with the feat at all. Your hang ups are because of the spell, so it's the spell which "needs" errata. But that won't happen because, again, consistency is important. And it behooves WotC, and the readers of their books, to use consistent language across their many, many spell descriptions. Never mind that the spell is found in so many places it would make any changes impractical.
Could they errata the feat? Sure. Tasha's is getting a reprint in a few months; complete with a fancy new cover for anyone who wants to shell out the money for it? Will they errata it? Doubtful, as it would require adding even more text. That messes with page layouts and costs more money. So to those who insist on pedantry, perhaps stop to reconsider and ask if your pedantry is actually constructive in this instance? Because as a pedant, I recognize that going down that path leads to a place where the designers acknowledged the issues raised by some in the community and did nothing anyway. Which means the designers didn't ultimately see the problem they did. Which calls for a reevaluation of biases.
Or you just dig in your heels and demand WotC be wrong and you be right.
I don’t think calling interpretations obvious is useful as what is deemed obvious seems to change from person to person. There are quite a few features in the game that have different descriptions of how an effect can start, how long it lasts, if there are distance limitations at initial use, distance limitations while the effect is ongoing, specifications on how effects end, what happens when an effect ends. There are spells that continue after casting even after the caster dies or goes to another plane of existence.
the problem is the lack of quality control and adherence to the standard terminology supposedly required to run the game, by the very people who are paid to make the game. If these changes are so inexpensive and easy I don’t see why the changes wouldn’t have been implemented already.
You learn the mage hand cantrip. You can cast it without verbal or somatic components, and you can make the spectral hand invisible. If you already know this spell, its range and vanishing distance increase to 60 feet when you cast it. Its spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat.