RAW state that "the hand can't attack" but I wondered what your thoughts were on using Mage Hand to drop something on to an enemy? Would this be allowed if the intention was to cause damage and if so, how should it be handled? Thanks in advance :-)
If the intent is to cause damage, the only two ways to handle it would be: make an attack roll, in which case it's an attack, and you can't do it; or require a saving throw, which doesn't make a lot of sense given the context of the action (you're aiming; that's an attack roll, not a saving throw).
The fact that spells that require targets to make saving throws aren't technically attacks is sometimes very relevant, but as a DM I wouldn't think that deeply here. An attack roll would be far more sensible, and I wouldn't be inclined to let it be a saving throw just to let someone do it when the spell text is clearly intended to prevent such shenanigans.
I think I agree. The way you can deal damage with a non-weapon object is as an improvised attack -- so that is how I would treat dropping a heavy object onto a creature. Since it is an attack, mage hand can't do it.
I sort of disagree with the others, but only slightly. When rocks fall from the ceiling, it doesn't make an attack to hit you, you make a save to avoid it. In that sense, you can drop stuff to try and do damage without it going against the rules of the spell. But it would be entirely up to the DM.
I sort of disagree with the others, but only slightly. When rocks fall from the ceiling, it doesn't make an attack to hit you, you make a save to avoid it. In that sense, you can drop stuff to try and do damage without it going against the rules of the spell. But it would be entirely up to the DM.
Rocks falling from the ceiling aren’t being controlled by a spellcaster. The onus isn’t on the victim to get out of the way but on the caster to drop the thing accurately.
It’s certainly not the case that there’s no precedent for something like that requiring a save (Catapult comes to mind), but conversely giants’ rocks are ranged attacks.
Really the only difference between dropping something from 30 feet above their head and throwing the thing at them is the source of the propulsive force (thrower’s muscles vs. gravity); the mechanics of aiming are the same, which is why I feel this is much more like an attack roll.
I sort of disagree with the others, but only slightly. When rocks fall from the ceiling, it doesn't make an attack to hit you, you make a save to avoid it. In that sense, you can drop stuff to try and do damage without it going against the rules of the spell. But it would be entirely up to the DM.
Rocks falling from the ceiling aren’t being controlled by a spellcaster. The onus isn’t on the victim to get out of the way but on the caster to drop the thing accurately.
It’s certainly not the case that there’s no precedent for something like that requiring a save (Catapult comes to mind), but conversely giants’ rocks are ranged attacks.
Really the only difference between dropping something from 30 feet above their head and throwing the thing at them is the source of the propulsive force (thrower’s muscles vs. gravity); the mechanics of aiming are the same, which is why I feel this is much more like an attack roll.
With the caveat that I'm definitely not trying to get into an argument and am just sharing my own thoughts on things:
Every one of those spells is an AoE, which, to my mind at least, very intuitively should require saving throws rather than attack rolls. The idea of just stopping concentration I think does get around the need for an attack roll. That said, an object small enough to be carried by mage hand and high enough up to cause damage would be so easy for someone aware of it to dodge that I think I still wouldn't require a saving throw to avoid it unless the caster were hidden from the target (or under similar circumstances).
Which at the end of the day is mostly sort of a rationalization of my feeling that if a player is going to violate the spirit of a spell that is obviously not intended to cause damage, they should at least have the courtesy to be more creative than just "I drop a thing." Pour out a vial of acid or something (the spell text says you can pour out liquids, and that would spread through the air enough that I wouldn't be at all uncomfortable calling it a saving throw thing).
Well, Mage Hand cannot lift heavy objects. However, 10 lb. of acid, as pointed out already, or a 10 lb. rock, or 10 lb. of alchemist fire can all do significant damage. "Pour contents out of a vial" is one of the explicitly allowed actions. So any of the above actions should be viable. It's generally not very economical from an action allowance perspective (1 round to pick up object, next round to drop it), so, in most cases, it doesn't supplant attack spells like Spiritual Weapon. I don't see what the big deal is about preventing Mage Hand from dropping things onto enemies. I would probably set the Save DC to something fairly low, though, like 10.
This is one of those things that runs into the "Simulation Vs. Game" problems you run into with the game. The hand is unable to attack, and from a simulation perspective I always took that to mean that the hand is simply incapable of moving with enough force to do damage. But it could be used to, say... trigger a trap, assuming the trigger for the trap required 10 pounds or less of force to be exerted on it. At that point if a creature is in range of the trap but hasn't triggered it themselves, then the trap itself would be making the attack.
I think from that perspective, dropping an object using mage hand should be treated as though it's a falling object, and the target should be able to react accordingly. It's not an attack roll, but rather just manipulating the environment in a specific way. It's also wildly inefficient compared to simply throwing the object... The Mage Hand has a range of 30 feet, but if you picture that as a rough sphere... if the caster and the target are on the same plane, then the mage hand must lower about 5 feet in height for every 5 feet of horizontal distance it travels (of course, over-simplifying just to keep from having to pull out a graphic calculator at the table). You could, at most, get the object 20 feet away to be able to drop it 10 feet, and any less than that is probably not enough of a drop to deal damage. And even at that point, the target is only asked to respond to the danger level of a ten pound object haphazardly dropped in their relative direction... it has some potential uses if used stealthily at the start of battle, but honestly, if someone at your table wants to use Mage Hand to drop an object I'd say just let them so they can see how much time and energy they wasted when they could have just thrown the damn thing.
Thanks all for your replies - it certainly seems that there are a range of views here!
My thought now is that Mage Hand could be used to carry a vile of acid, for example, and held directly above an enemies head and poured. As it is directly above the enemies head, the enemy could use a saving throw to give them a chance to react quickly and get out of the way.
I'm happy with allowing this going forwards for my games and will make it clear to my players, before the situation arises again. I have some flexibility with setting the save DC should this start becoming the go-to action for every encounter ;-)
I sort of disagree with the others, but only slightly. When rocks fall from the ceiling, it doesn't make an attack to hit you, you make a save to avoid it.
Sometimes. Nothing stops an unmanned trap or environmental hazard from using an attack roll. Whether armor would help significantly against the damage source factors into the decision to use one or the other. Unfortunately the game doesn't have a built in way of handling damage that both requires aim from a creature and also ignores armor, so without house rules sometimes neither mechanic is a perfect fit.
The main problems with dropping an object with Mage Hand from a story point of view is the fact that the target is going to see it coming, it's going to be hard to align the object without a bird's eye view, and dropping something isn't going to accelerate it as much as throwing it.
There's niche circumstances where it's plausible to use Mage Hand like this, like holding a flask of oil over a door to splash an unsuspecting creature, but it's not a very practical way of hurting people mid-combat and however the DM chooses to handle it ought to reflect that.
The main problems with dropping an object with Mage Hand from a story point of view is the fact that the target is going to see it coming, it's going to be hard to align the object without a bird's eye view, and dropping something isn't going to accelerate it as much as throwing it.
There's niche circumstances where it's plausible to use Mage Hand like this, like holding a flask of oil over a door to splash an unsuspecting creature, but it's not a very practical way of hurting people mid-combat and however the DM chooses to handle it ought to reflect that.
It's also dependent on whether the intended target is aware of the MHand's presence and whether it's even intelligent enough to care. Dropping 10 lb. of salt would not be considered an attack, generally, but if you're fighting a Giant Slug, for instance, that would certainly do some damage, but Giant Slugs have a dismal INT and probably could not distinguish a bag of salt from a bag of flour until it got really close.
I see no issues with dropping something with a mage hand cantrip. It requires an Action on behalf of its caster (bonus Action in the case of an Arcane Trickster) to drop something the hand is holding. Thus, as long as the object fits the requirements of the cantril, the Hand can drop something.
I've had party members drop a sack with 6 flasks of oil and 2 Alchemist's Fire to ignite them (sack 1 lb, 6 flasks of oil 6 lbs, 2 Alchemist's Fire 2 lbs = 9 lbs) with great effect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I still think I wouldn't let the mage hand do anything that requires an attack roll, as the spell is clear that attacks are off limits. If the PC would require an attack roll to do an action with his or her own hands, then the mage hand simply cannot. Pouring vials? Sure. Splashing vial contents on an enemy? Apparently not. Causing damage with a vial? Apparently not, that takes splashing and an attack roll.
Well, Mage Hand cannot lift heavy objects. However, 10 lb. of acid, as pointed out already, or a 10 lb. rock, or 10 lb. of alchemist fire can all do significant damage. "Pour contents out of a vial" is one of the explicitly allowed actions. So any of the above actions should be viable. It's generally not very economical from an action allowance perspective (1 round to pick up object, next round to drop it), so, in most cases, it doesn't supplant attack spells like Spiritual Weapon. I don't see what the big deal is about preventing Mage Hand from dropping things onto enemies. I would probably set the Save DC to something fairly low, though, like 10.
That DC is what I have typically encountered in those situations.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
RAW state that "the hand can't attack" but I wondered what your thoughts were on using Mage Hand to drop something on to an enemy? Would this be allowed if the intention was to cause damage and if so, how should it be handled? Thanks in advance :-)
If the intent is to cause damage, the only two ways to handle it would be: make an attack roll, in which case it's an attack, and you can't do it; or require a saving throw, which doesn't make a lot of sense given the context of the action (you're aiming; that's an attack roll, not a saving throw).
The fact that spells that require targets to make saving throws aren't technically attacks is sometimes very relevant, but as a DM I wouldn't think that deeply here. An attack roll would be far more sensible, and I wouldn't be inclined to let it be a saving throw just to let someone do it when the spell text is clearly intended to prevent such shenanigans.
I think I agree. The way you can deal damage with a non-weapon object is as an improvised attack -- so that is how I would treat dropping a heavy object onto a creature. Since it is an attack, mage hand can't do it.
I sort of disagree with the others, but only slightly. When rocks fall from the ceiling, it doesn't make an attack to hit you, you make a save to avoid it. In that sense, you can drop stuff to try and do damage without it going against the rules of the spell. But it would be entirely up to the DM.
Rocks falling from the ceiling aren’t being controlled by a spellcaster. The onus isn’t on the victim to get out of the way but on the caster to drop the thing accurately.
It’s certainly not the case that there’s no precedent for something like that requiring a save (Catapult comes to mind), but conversely giants’ rocks are ranged attacks.
Really the only difference between dropping something from 30 feet above their head and throwing the thing at them is the source of the propulsive force (thrower’s muscles vs. gravity); the mechanics of aiming are the same, which is why I feel this is much more like an attack roll.
There are plenty of spells that drop something from above and it requires a save (besides catapult): hail of thorns, call lightning, conjure volley, transmute rock, meteor swarm.
And if dropping something is too much like throwing, you can always just stop concentrating on the hand and let the item drop that way.
With the caveat that I'm definitely not trying to get into an argument and am just sharing my own thoughts on things:
Every one of those spells is an AoE, which, to my mind at least, very intuitively should require saving throws rather than attack rolls. The idea of just stopping concentration I think does get around the need for an attack roll. That said, an object small enough to be carried by mage hand and high enough up to cause damage would be so easy for someone aware of it to dodge that I think I still wouldn't require a saving throw to avoid it unless the caster were hidden from the target (or under similar circumstances).
Which at the end of the day is mostly sort of a rationalization of my feeling that if a player is going to violate the spirit of a spell that is obviously not intended to cause damage, they should at least have the courtesy to be more creative than just "I drop a thing." Pour out a vial of acid or something (the spell text says you can pour out liquids, and that would spread through the air enough that I wouldn't be at all uncomfortable calling it a saving throw thing).
Well, Mage Hand cannot lift heavy objects. However, 10 lb. of acid, as pointed out already, or a 10 lb. rock, or 10 lb. of alchemist fire can all do significant damage. "Pour contents out of a vial" is one of the explicitly allowed actions. So any of the above actions should be viable. It's generally not very economical from an action allowance perspective (1 round to pick up object, next round to drop it), so, in most cases, it doesn't supplant attack spells like Spiritual Weapon. I don't see what the big deal is about preventing Mage Hand from dropping things onto enemies. I would probably set the Save DC to something fairly low, though, like 10.
This is one of those things that runs into the "Simulation Vs. Game" problems you run into with the game. The hand is unable to attack, and from a simulation perspective I always took that to mean that the hand is simply incapable of moving with enough force to do damage. But it could be used to, say... trigger a trap, assuming the trigger for the trap required 10 pounds or less of force to be exerted on it. At that point if a creature is in range of the trap but hasn't triggered it themselves, then the trap itself would be making the attack.
I think from that perspective, dropping an object using mage hand should be treated as though it's a falling object, and the target should be able to react accordingly. It's not an attack roll, but rather just manipulating the environment in a specific way. It's also wildly inefficient compared to simply throwing the object... The Mage Hand has a range of 30 feet, but if you picture that as a rough sphere... if the caster and the target are on the same plane, then the mage hand must lower about 5 feet in height for every 5 feet of horizontal distance it travels (of course, over-simplifying just to keep from having to pull out a graphic calculator at the table). You could, at most, get the object 20 feet away to be able to drop it 10 feet, and any less than that is probably not enough of a drop to deal damage. And even at that point, the target is only asked to respond to the danger level of a ten pound object haphazardly dropped in their relative direction... it has some potential uses if used stealthily at the start of battle, but honestly, if someone at your table wants to use Mage Hand to drop an object I'd say just let them so they can see how much time and energy they wasted when they could have just thrown the damn thing.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Thanks all for your replies - it certainly seems that there are a range of views here!
My thought now is that Mage Hand could be used to carry a vile of acid, for example, and held directly above an enemies head and poured. As it is directly above the enemies head, the enemy could use a saving throw to give them a chance to react quickly and get out of the way.
I'm happy with allowing this going forwards for my games and will make it clear to my players, before the situation arises again. I have some flexibility with setting the save DC should this start becoming the go-to action for every encounter ;-)
Thanks once again for all your input :-)
Sometimes. Nothing stops an unmanned trap or environmental hazard from using an attack roll. Whether armor would help significantly against the damage source factors into the decision to use one or the other. Unfortunately the game doesn't have a built in way of handling damage that both requires aim from a creature and also ignores armor, so without house rules sometimes neither mechanic is a perfect fit.
The main problems with dropping an object with Mage Hand from a story point of view is the fact that the target is going to see it coming, it's going to be hard to align the object without a bird's eye view, and dropping something isn't going to accelerate it as much as throwing it.
There's niche circumstances where it's plausible to use Mage Hand like this, like holding a flask of oil over a door to splash an unsuspecting creature, but it's not a very practical way of hurting people mid-combat and however the DM chooses to handle it ought to reflect that.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
It's also dependent on whether the intended target is aware of the MHand's presence and whether it's even intelligent enough to care. Dropping 10 lb. of salt would not be considered an attack, generally, but if you're fighting a Giant Slug, for instance, that would certainly do some damage, but Giant Slugs have a dismal INT and probably could not distinguish a bag of salt from a bag of flour until it got really close.
I’d require both. The caster has to get it to just the right position. The victim gets to dodge as if it fell at the right moment.
and I’d give advantage on the save if they saw it coming.
I see no issues with dropping something with a mage hand cantrip. It requires an Action on behalf of its caster (bonus Action in the case of an Arcane Trickster) to drop something the hand is holding. Thus, as long as the object fits the requirements of the cantril, the Hand can drop something.
I've had party members drop a sack with 6 flasks of oil and 2 Alchemist's Fire to ignite them (sack 1 lb, 6 flasks of oil 6 lbs, 2 Alchemist's Fire 2 lbs = 9 lbs) with great effect.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I still think I wouldn't let the mage hand do anything that requires an attack roll, as the spell is clear that attacks are off limits. If the PC would require an attack roll to do an action with his or her own hands, then the mage hand simply cannot. Pouring vials? Sure. Splashing vial contents on an enemy? Apparently not. Causing damage with a vial? Apparently not, that takes splashing and an attack roll.
That DC is what I have typically encountered in those situations.