I'm guessing this has come up before but I can't search so... Wondering how folks would handle this.
The party is in a dark area only lit by a few lanterns. One of the attackers has a loaded crossbow waiting to attack. A party member uses mage hand on their turn to lift one of the lanterns and get it into the attackers face. Pretty much blotting out their vision from the bright light.
On the crossbowman's turn would you impose disadvantage to their attack? Or would he be able to move enough to get out of the bright light and attack as normal?
I'd say the attacker could logically move out of the way of the bright light. If they were, say... behind some kind of cover and only had a slit to see through, this would pretty much guarantee some sort of disadvantage. But in an open area it's basically just lighting up the crossbowman's area. Which, if nothing else, at least makes it easier for the party members to target him.
Maybe have the crossbowman use his use-an-object interaction to knock away the lantern. Give him disadvantage for this attack, but make sure that the player can't just repeat the same thing each turn.
OK, so you're saying basically mage hand would be static? The caster couldn't continue to control the mage hand through the round to keep the lantern in his line of sight? Or cause a situation where the crossbowman has to use a hand to get rid of the lantern, therefor stopping him from using a 2h weapon?
(BTW. I know what the call made was, I DM'd it, but I know this player is gong to continue to try to find creative uses for mage hand so thought I'd get some opinions about how useful it could be for distractions)
(was posting this before i saw your post ftl,)
But that was basically my thinking. I had him take the shot at disadvantage instead of using his action to knock it away. I rolled for it, 50/50 to do either.
Unless the enemy has a stat block that says otherwise, there is nothing RAW about bright light giving Disadvantage on attack rolls. It doesn't matter how close that light is to your face. If you wanted to rule otherwise, it depends on the lantern. Some lanterns shed bright light in a 30 ft radius and dim light for another 30 ft radius and some lanterns shed bright line in a 60 ft cone.
Could that mage hand smash the lantern at his feet? Now there's oil and flame at his feet! It might not cause damage this round, but if he stays there it might.
Personally I don't think I would give the light in its face disadvantage.
That's true but there are rules for line of sight. The player was saying having a lantern 4" from the attackers face would break line of sight. Sorry, I realized that wasn't in OP but they were saying a bright lantern in the attackers face would block line of sight. Essentially providing cover.
I do see your point of nothing in Raw in terms of having light in your face. However, having a flashlight shined in your eyes in low light conditions IRL causes issues.
I also realize that it may sound like I'm trying to defend a decision I made. I'm playing devils advocate (even to myself) just to explore the possibilities :)
I'd say the attacker could logically move out of the way of the bright light. If they were, say... behind some kind of cover and only had a slit to see through, this would pretty much guarantee some sort of disadvantage. But in an open area it's basically just lighting up the crossbowman's area. Which, if nothing else, at least makes it easier for the party members to target him.
I would agree with this sentiment. I wouldn't allow a PC to constantly keep a torch in front of the attacker's face during the attacker's turn. That feels like a spell effect that would require a save to me. If I was being lenient, I would say that the attacker gets a dex save to avoid disadvantage. I mean, it's mechanically giving the blinded condition for a round (part of it, anyway) with no save at the cost of a cantrip.
But in all honesty, I would just have the attacker move a foot to the left or to the right and not be hindered.
Personally I would have moved them 5 feet to the side so the light wouldn't be in their face, assuming they were able to move around in this instance. Then again, it's entirely possible they were a polymorphed bag of rocks that might not have the sense to know that moving would solve that particular issue, so I'd say it's entirely dependent on the monster you're playing.
As to just moving out of the way. Yes, I get that. Several people mentioned it. But in my games time doesn't stop when it moves to the next persons initiative. In other words the mage could continue to move the hand with the lantern to follow the guy wherever he went (within the 30' allowed by the spell) for the full minute.
An out of combat example, or I guess could be in combat just for kicks) The caster is going to have a mage hand hold a sign behind someone that says kick me. The person the sign is behind is walking. The mage hand doesn't pause in mid air just because the casters initiative ends and then catch back up to the moving target when his initiative resumes. Provided 'kick me' guy doesn't notice (and the caster stays in range) the hand and sign keep pace with him.
Anyway... I found the RAW answer of why it wouldn't work. In retrospect it's so simple I forgot it. "You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action." Usually it's used for stuff like drawing a weapon but knocking a lantern out of the way would qualify, then his attack as normal.
I guess you've found the RAW answer yourself, but...
I think I would have allowed it. Mage hand requires your action to use, so the player is essentially spending his action on giving ONE enemy a disadvantage. It might be useful on the first few levels in a few situation, but nothing that unbalances the game.
I guess you've found the RAW answer yourself, but...
I think I would have allowed it. Mage hand requires your action to use, so the player is essentially spending his action on giving ONE enemy a disadvantage. It might be useful on the first few levels in a few situation, but nothing that unbalances the game.
I did allow it in that game. Like you said it's not game breaking by any means, and once the player levels a couple times it would be a silly choice of action! I am gong to bring it up at the table though so everyone is on the same page in future games.
An action only takes part of a player turn. RAW, the player performs the action with the lantern on their turn and the rest of the time it is stationary. They don't get to move it in response to the target's movement or it opens up all sorts of problems. (I use mage hand - as a bonus action if I am an Arcane trickster) to constantly hold a cloth in front of my opponents eyes ... all the time. This is the logical conclusion of being able to move a lantern around to impose disadvantage. RAW it doesn't work that way and personally, I think it would be too powerful.
It is also strictly better than the level 13 Versatile Trickster ability which gives the arcane trickster rogue advantage against a target for the turn by using the mage hand to distract their target as a bonus action. Allowing the mage hand to hold an object in front of the targets eyes effectively blinding them gives the target disadvantage and all the other attackers advantage.
In terms of countermeasures, the square occupied by the target is typically 5' on a grid. The target would need to move less than 1' to avoid the effect of the lantern on their vision. They could also use a free object interaction to push the lantern away. The mage hand can only hold up to 10 pounds and more than 10 pounds of effort would likely knock the lantern out of the grasp of the mage hand anyway ... sending it several feet away.
Basically, there are so many easy counters to this plus the large ability to abuse this use with things other than a lantern that, except in some particular circumstance like firing through a small/narrow arrow slit where re-positioning or interacting with the blocking object wasn't possible, then the lantern/held object would do nothing.
If the action had been described differently, say, jamming a bucket on the NPC’s head. How would you rule that? I ask, because while the exact action taken might be described differently, mechanically the results would be the same: the caster spends their action, the enemy becomes blinded for approximately 6 seconds.
The answer was in SRD and really simple. Sometimes I get caught up in elaborate hijinx and overlook the basics :)
"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action." So the guy with the crossbow would be able to use his one free object interaction to remove the bucket, or in this case knock the lantern away and still get his hand back on the crossbow to fire with no penalty.
I'm guessing this has come up before but I can't search so... Wondering how folks would handle this.
The party is in a dark area only lit by a few lanterns. One of the attackers has a loaded crossbow waiting to attack. A party member uses mage hand on their turn to lift one of the lanterns and get it into the attackers face. Pretty much blotting out their vision from the bright light.
On the crossbowman's turn would you impose disadvantage to their attack? Or would he be able to move enough to get out of the bright light and attack as normal?
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
I'd say the attacker could logically move out of the way of the bright light. If they were, say... behind some kind of cover and only had a slit to see through, this would pretty much guarantee some sort of disadvantage. But in an open area it's basically just lighting up the crossbowman's area. Which, if nothing else, at least makes it easier for the party members to target him.
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
Maybe have the crossbowman use his use-an-object interaction to knock away the lantern. Give him disadvantage for this attack, but make sure that the player can't just repeat the same thing each turn.
OK, so you're saying basically mage hand would be static? The caster couldn't continue to control the mage hand through the round to keep the lantern in his line of sight? Or cause a situation where the crossbowman has to use a hand to get rid of the lantern, therefor stopping him from using a 2h weapon?
(BTW. I know what the call made was, I DM'd it, but I know this player is gong to continue to try to find creative uses for mage hand so thought I'd get some opinions about how useful it could be for distractions)
(was posting this before i saw your post ftl,)
But that was basically my thinking. I had him take the shot at disadvantage instead of using his action to knock it away. I rolled for it, 50/50 to do either.
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
Like I said I know the player will continue use mage hand for distractions which I think is a valid use. I want to make sure that it's not abused.
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
Unless the enemy has a stat block that says otherwise, there is nothing RAW about bright light giving Disadvantage on attack rolls. It doesn't matter how close that light is to your face. If you wanted to rule otherwise, it depends on the lantern. Some lanterns shed bright light in a 30 ft radius and dim light for another 30 ft radius and some lanterns shed bright line in a 60 ft cone.
Could that mage hand smash the lantern at his feet? Now there's oil and flame at his feet! It might not cause damage this round, but if he stays there it might.
Personally I don't think I would give the light in its face disadvantage.
That's true but there are rules for line of sight. The player was saying having a lantern 4" from the attackers face would break line of sight. Sorry, I realized that wasn't in OP but they were saying a bright lantern in the attackers face would block line of sight. Essentially providing cover.
I do see your point of nothing in Raw in terms of having light in your face. However, having a flashlight shined in your eyes in low light conditions IRL causes issues.
I also realize that it may sound like I'm trying to defend a decision I made. I'm playing devils advocate (even to myself) just to explore the possibilities :)
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
I would agree with this sentiment. I wouldn't allow a PC to constantly keep a torch in front of the attacker's face during the attacker's turn. That feels like a spell effect that would require a save to me. If I was being lenient, I would say that the attacker gets a dex save to avoid disadvantage. I mean, it's mechanically giving the blinded condition for a round (part of it, anyway) with no save at the cost of a cantrip.
But in all honesty, I would just have the attacker move a foot to the left or to the right and not be hindered.
A 5ft square that someone occupies is actually pretty big. You wouldn’t just stand in the same spot letting the light be directly in your face.
They would just move slightly? I mean why wouldn’t they move 5 feet to the side?
Personally I would have moved them 5 feet to the side so the light wouldn't be in their face, assuming they were able to move around in this instance. Then again, it's entirely possible they were a polymorphed bag of rocks that might not have the sense to know that moving would solve that particular issue, so I'd say it's entirely dependent on the monster you're playing.
As to just moving out of the way. Yes, I get that. Several people mentioned it. But in my games time doesn't stop when it moves to the next persons initiative. In other words the mage could continue to move the hand with the lantern to follow the guy wherever he went (within the 30' allowed by the spell) for the full minute.
An out of combat example, or I guess could be in combat just for kicks) The caster is going to have a mage hand hold a sign behind someone that says kick me. The person the sign is behind is walking. The mage hand doesn't pause in mid air just because the casters initiative ends and then catch back up to the moving target when his initiative resumes. Provided 'kick me' guy doesn't notice (and the caster stays in range) the hand and sign keep pace with him.
Anyway... I found the RAW answer of why it wouldn't work. In retrospect it's so simple I forgot it. "You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action." Usually it's used for stuff like drawing a weapon but knocking a lantern out of the way would qualify, then his attack as normal.
Thanks for everyone's input!
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
I guess you've found the RAW answer yourself, but...
I think I would have allowed it. Mage hand requires your action to use, so the player is essentially spending his action on giving ONE enemy a disadvantage. It might be useful on the first few levels in a few situation, but nothing that unbalances the game.
Ludo ergo sum!
I did allow it in that game. Like you said it's not game breaking by any means, and once the player levels a couple times it would be a silly choice of action! I am gong to bring it up at the table though so everyone is on the same page in future games.
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
Your RAW answer was that neither mage hand nor lantern descriptions define that effect.
I understand now that you're using ideas outside of usual RAW, but it probably makes this part of the forum the wrong place to pose the question.
Fair enough. I'll keep that in mind for my next question "The mage hand and the porcupine" LOL, j/k!
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
I would usually not allow it.
An action only takes part of a player turn. RAW, the player performs the action with the lantern on their turn and the rest of the time it is stationary. They don't get to move it in response to the target's movement or it opens up all sorts of problems. (I use mage hand - as a bonus action if I am an Arcane trickster) to constantly hold a cloth in front of my opponents eyes ... all the time. This is the logical conclusion of being able to move a lantern around to impose disadvantage. RAW it doesn't work that way and personally, I think it would be too powerful.
It is also strictly better than the level 13 Versatile Trickster ability which gives the arcane trickster rogue advantage against a target for the turn by using the mage hand to distract their target as a bonus action. Allowing the mage hand to hold an object in front of the targets eyes effectively blinding them gives the target disadvantage and all the other attackers advantage.
In terms of countermeasures, the square occupied by the target is typically 5' on a grid. The target would need to move less than 1' to avoid the effect of the lantern on their vision. They could also use a free object interaction to push the lantern away. The mage hand can only hold up to 10 pounds and more than 10 pounds of effort would likely knock the lantern out of the grasp of the mage hand anyway ... sending it several feet away.
Basically, there are so many easy counters to this plus the large ability to abuse this use with things other than a lantern that, except in some particular circumstance like firing through a small/narrow arrow slit where re-positioning or interacting with the blocking object wasn't possible, then the lantern/held object would do nothing.
If the action had been described differently, say, jamming a bucket on the NPC’s head. How would you rule that? I ask, because while the exact action taken might be described differently, mechanically the results would be the same: the caster spends their action, the enemy becomes blinded for approximately 6 seconds.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I should maybe edit post to (resolved)
The answer was in SRD and really simple. Sometimes I get caught up in elaborate hijinx and overlook the basics :)
"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action." So the guy with the crossbow would be able to use his one free object interaction to remove the bucket, or in this case knock the lantern away and still get his hand back on the crossbow to fire with no penalty.
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules