This is a subject I've been thinking about since I saw the mage hand spell.
Mage Hand can't be used to attack a creature, but it can carry/interact with a non-magical object that is about 10 lbs or less and can go at a range of 30 ft.
Telekinesis can let you carry an object that weights about 1000 lbs or less and can go at a range of 60 ft.
If such objects fell onto a creature (and let's assume we're dropping them from between 10 to 20 feet off the ground and the creature's size is medium), would said creature take damage from the impact? If so, how much damage?
Would the creature need to make a strength or a dexterity saving throw to avoid the damage? If so, what would be the DC?
In addition, if a character decided to make a plunging attack (from the same distance and against the same creature), would the impact damage stack with the attack?
There currently aren't any specific rules on dropping objects with these spells, but a generous DM may allow for some improvised rules. If your DM is open to this, I would suggest a dexterity saving throw, its DC decreasing as the height from which you are dropping the object increases. For damage, I would revolve around falling damage detailed in the phb. This means that for every 10 feet that the object falls it will deal 1d6 of damage, to a maximum of 20d6. Again, this relies heavily on your DM and the object that you are dropping.
I wouldn't allow it at all with mage hand. The rules don't provide for it with telekinesis either, but let's be real. As soon as we all saw that 1000lb number in the spell's description, it was probably the first thing we all thought of. The DMG has a collapsing roof trap that you might draw inspiration from.
When the trap is triggered, the unstable ceiling collapses. Any creature in the area beneath the unstable section must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw, taking 22 (4d10) bludgeoning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. Once the trap is triggered, the floor of the area is filled with rubble and becomes difficult terrain.
I would rule that the 10 lb object from mage hand isn't significantly damaging (of course, it would be in real life).
For telekinesis, it takes an action to change target or move it, so its quite limiting action-economy wise and only deals 3d6 a round (or you can drop the spell to do 3d6 damage on top of whatever spell you cast, which is a bit of a waste of a conc. spell and spell slot). If anything telekinesis would be a waste of a 5th level slot being used this way :P. I'd probably give a dex save against spell save DC out of pity.
Yeah, you are making an attack roll, not a saving throw. And you are not proficient. Frankly, I have given people DISADVANTAGE on that attack roll as well, if they are more than 30 ft. But it does negate cover.
Don't feel too bad, it is a common error. Think of it this way:
If I throw a rock at you, I make an attack roll. It doesn't really matter if I am using magic to do it or do it with my hand - unless the spell specifically says otherwise. Doing it from a location above someone - where I do NOT have eyes looking in the same direction I am throwing does not give you some kind of advantage.
I'd like to thank everybody in this thread for their feedback. This has been very useful insight. I'd like to propose a home-brew rule:
Homebrew: Dropping Objects onto Creatures
If an object that weighs 250 lbs or more falls on a creature, the creature makes a DC 15 Dexterity Saving throw. On a failed save, the creature takes bludgeoning damage equal to 1d10 for every 250 lb the object weighs.
Why 250 lb or more?
While lighter objects would hurt in real life, 250 lb increments are used in conjunction with other mechanics in DnD 5e(such as the mage hand cantrip and the telekinesis spell) to maintain a balanced system. Of course, the increments can be adjusted to the DM’s liking.
Why no falling damage in addition to the weight damage?
It would be difficult to quickly calculate the distributed damage that a falling creature would deal in addition to the damage it deals with it's weight, especially if the falling creature has reduced damage from falling(such as monks). So while the falling creature/object may take falling damage, the creature they drop onto does not.
Why a saving throw instead of an attack roll?
While an attack roll would be appropriate for a ranged attack, objects of this extreme weight would be too heavy to simply throw or shoot without the assistance of a siege weapon or siege monster. In such cases, a saving throw would be more appropriate as the creature would need to avoid a falling object landing onto them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a subject I've been thinking about since I saw the mage hand spell.
Mage Hand can't be used to attack a creature, but it can carry/interact with a non-magical object that is about 10 lbs or less and can go at a range of 30 ft.
Telekinesis can let you carry an object that weights about 1000 lbs or less and can go at a range of 60 ft.
If such objects fell onto a creature (and let's assume we're dropping them from between 10 to 20 feet off the ground and the creature's size is medium), would said creature take damage from the impact? If so, how much damage?
Would the creature need to make a strength or a dexterity saving throw to avoid the damage? If so, what would be the DC?
In addition, if a character decided to make a plunging attack (from the same distance and against the same creature), would the impact damage stack with the attack?
You see, my spell didn't do the attacking. Gravity did the attacking!
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There currently aren't any specific rules on dropping objects with these spells, but a generous DM may allow for some improvised rules. If your DM is open to this, I would suggest a dexterity saving throw, its DC decreasing as the height from which you are dropping the object increases. For damage, I would revolve around falling damage detailed in the phb. This means that for every 10 feet that the object falls it will deal 1d6 of damage, to a maximum of 20d6. Again, this relies heavily on your DM and the object that you are dropping.
I wouldn't allow it at all with mage hand. The rules don't provide for it with telekinesis either, but let's be real. As soon as we all saw that 1000lb number in the spell's description, it was probably the first thing we all thought of. The DMG has a collapsing roof trap that you might draw inspiration from.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'd consider it creative use of spells. You can create a table stating DC, weight, height and fair damage.
playing since 1986
Falling does 1d6 bludgeoning damage per 10' fallen, to a maximum of 20d6.
(https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/59359/when-does-a-flying-creature-start-and-end-falling)
Cedo nulli, Calcanda semel via leti.
Parvi sed magni.
I would rule that the 10 lb object from mage hand isn't significantly damaging (of course, it would be in real life).
For telekinesis, it takes an action to change target or move it, so its quite limiting action-economy wise and only deals 3d6 a round (or you can drop the spell to do 3d6 damage on top of whatever spell you cast, which is a bit of a waste of a conc. spell and spell slot). If anything telekinesis would be a waste of a 5th level slot being used this way :P. I'd probably give a dex save against spell save DC out of pity.
Yeah, you are making an attack roll, not a saving throw. And you are not proficient.
Frankly, I have given people DISADVANTAGE on that attack roll as well, if they are more than 30 ft. But it does negate cover.
Don't feel too bad, it is a common error. Think of it this way:
If I throw a rock at you, I make an attack roll. It doesn't really matter if I am using magic to do it or do it with my hand - unless the spell specifically says otherwise. Doing it from a location above someone - where I do NOT have eyes looking in the same direction I am throwing does not give you some kind of advantage.
Personally, I would say it takes an improvised attack with either spell. Disadvantage if the target can see the object.
As for damage from Mage Hand, I would say 1 damage per 10 feet.
From Telekinesis, I would say 1d2 per 10 feet if less than 80 lbs; 1d4 per 10 feet if 80-199 lbs; then 1d6 per 10 feet if 200+ lbs.
I'd like to thank everybody in this thread for their feedback. This has been very useful insight. I'd like to propose a home-brew rule:
Homebrew: Dropping Objects onto Creatures
If an object that weighs 250 lbs or more falls on a creature, the creature makes a DC 15 Dexterity Saving throw. On a failed save, the creature takes bludgeoning damage equal to 1d10 for every 250 lb the object weighs.
Why 250 lb or more?
While lighter objects would hurt in real life, 250 lb increments are used in conjunction with other mechanics in DnD 5e(such as the mage hand cantrip and the telekinesis spell) to maintain a balanced system. Of course, the increments can be adjusted to the DM’s liking.
Why no falling damage in addition to the weight damage?
It would be difficult to quickly calculate the distributed damage that a falling creature would deal in addition to the damage it deals with it's weight, especially if the falling creature has reduced damage from falling(such as monks). So while the falling creature/object may take falling damage, the creature they drop onto does not.
Why a saving throw instead of an attack roll?
While an attack roll would be appropriate for a ranged attack, objects of this extreme weight would be too heavy to simply throw or shoot without the assistance of a siege weapon or siege monster. In such cases, a saving throw would be more appropriate as the creature would need to avoid a falling object landing onto them.