An Arcane Trickster wanted to use Mage Hand to go through space between a door and the floor to open it from the other side. I ruled that was allowed since there was no rule in for Mage Hand in Arcane Trickster or the spell that visibility of either the hand or the object to be manipulated is required.
That got me thinking about how does the Mage Hand controlled by, in this case, the Rogue when the hand is out of view? How if the rogue wanted to pick-up a set of keys that she knows is in the other room behind a locked door but not sure where? There is no indication that Mage Hand is sentient where it would know what keys look like and how to search a room for this object.
As players or DMs have you run into a similar situation with Mage Hand and how was it ruled?
The Hand is not independent and requires the caster to direct it. The hand itself does not need to be visible (since Tricksters can specifically make theirs invisible), but even if the caster doesn’t need to see the hand, I would imagine that they need to be able to see what that hand is interacting with. Otherwise it would be like trying to play a game of remote controlled pin the tail on the donkey.
The Hand is not independent and requires the caster to direct it. The hand itself does not need to be visible (since Tricksters can specifically make theirs invisible), but even if the caster doesn’t need to see the hand, I would imagine that they need to be able to see what that hand is interacting with. Otherwise it would be like trying to play a game of remote controlled pin the tail on the donkey.
That is a great way to look at it and what originally my thought was the player would just be guessing where to place the hand especially since there is no sensory context from the hand to tell the AT what the hand is touching. I let it go through since it was an unlocked door that she wanted to open from the other side at that time because I wanted to keep the game moving along so I made a note to research.
Hitch is what I would have probably done under that situation too. Just make sure you discuss this stuff with them since they are still learning what they can do with it too.
The Hand is not independent and requires the caster to direct it. The hand itself does not need to be visible (since Tricksters can specifically make theirs invisible), but even if the caster doesn’t need to see the hand, I would imagine that they need to be able to see what that hand is interacting with. Otherwise it would be like trying to play a game of remote controlled pin the tail on the donkey.
That is a great way to look at it and what originally my thought was the player would just be guessing where to place the hand especially since there is no sensory context from the hand to tell the AT what the hand is touching. I let it go through since it was an unlocked door that she wanted to open from the other side at that time because I wanted to keep the game moving along so I made a note to research.
In the case of mage hand, it is up to the DM to decide the edge cases of how it can be used. The spell lists what it does and the arcane trickster feature lists explicit additional uses that would likely be impossible unless the DM just says "magic" or allows that there may be some sort of feedback from the hand to its caster.
An arcane trickster can use an invisible mage hand to pick a lock or disarm a trap successfully from 30' away.
How the hand could even hold and properly manipulate thieves tools without some sort of feedback is a mystery of magic.
"Starting at 3rd level, when you cast mage hand, you can make the spectral hand invisible, and you can perform the following additional tasks with it: • You can stow one object the hand is holding in a container worn or carried by another creature. • You can retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature. • You can use thieves' tools to pick locks and disarm traps at range.
You can perform one of these tasks without being noticed by a creature if you succeed on a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check contested by the creature's Wisdom (Perception) check. In addition, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to control the hand."
This is explicitly the extras that an arcane trickster can do.
Mage Hand:
"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 magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds."
This is what the spells say explicitly.
RAW, the mage does not need to see the hand in order to manipulate an object. It only needs to be within 30'.
RAW, an arcane trickster can disarm a trap or pick a lock "at range" (which is up to 30') .. the hand can manipulate the tools needed with sufficient dexterity to accomplish the task, whether this is just by "magic" ... you instruct the hand to pick the lock and it just does it ... or whether there is sensory feedback allowing the rogue to actually pick the lock using the mage hand is entirely up to the DM. The EFFECT is very clearly and explicitly described ... how that effect happens is not ... it is magic.
RAW, an arcane trickster can remove or place items in containers carried by another creature where they can NOT see the hand OR the object in the container at all AND they can do this with a high likelihood of going unnoticed via a sleight of hand check. This is explicitly stated in the rules. HOW this is accomplished is up to the DM. Personally, I lean toward there being some sort of sensory feedback from the hand in order for this to make logical sense ... BUT a DM can just as easily say "magic".
However, the point is that the rogue or wizard using mage hand CAN have the hand perform tasks and many of these tasks do not require the hand to be visible or in sight. These tasks would be exceptionally difficult or impossible (like the tail pinning example) ... BUT these are something that an arcane trickster rogue might be able to accomplish. When it comes to picking a lock or disarming a trap from 30' using thieves tools and the interior of a lock or trap that they can not see, this is explicitly called out as possible and a usual and common usage of mage hand for an AT. As a result, I try to come up with a concept of how the spell works in my world so that I can reasonably extrapolate what a player can do with it when they come up with something new. Just saying "magic" works but runs into players saying "but if I can pick a lock I can't see into at 30' why can't I do X,Y or Z with the mage hand".
Invisible Mage Hand or not the caster still should be able to see the object that is being manipulated. The actions used with an AT the Hand is an extension of the caster and not a separate object that is 'remote' controlled. (Random: Whereas Bigby's Hand is defined as in object)
I agree, it's the DM prerogative how the Mage Hand 'exists' in the gaming world. Talking/Typing it out in regards to my opening example I feel any type of blindness or unable to visually see the object the Hand is directed to interact with would not be allowed.
Going with automatic success with a Mage Hand is ridiculous. If that were the case, the Arcane Trickster would never again roll dice to pick locks. The word can doesn't imply automatic success. It means an attempt is allowed.
Regarding doing things you can't see like picking a lock from inside (isn't there just a latch? or a key hole on both sides?) I'd give it a skill roll with disadvantage since you can't see, and if you want to do it on a lock you can see, a regular roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The Hand is not independent and requires the caster to direct it. The hand itself does not need to be visible (since Tricksters can specifically make theirs invisible), but even if the caster doesn’t need to see the hand, I would imagine that they need to be able to see what that hand is interacting with. Otherwise it would be like trying to play a game of remote controlled pin the tail on the donkey.
That is a great way to look at it and what originally my thought was the player would just be guessing where to place the hand especially since there is no sensory context from the hand to tell the AT what the hand is touching. I let it go through since it was an unlocked door that she wanted to open from the other side at that time because I wanted to keep the game moving along so I made a note to research.
RAW, the mage does not need to see the hand in order to manipulate an object (1). It only needs to be within 30'.
RAW, an arcane trickster can disarm a trap or pick a lock "at range" (which is up to 30') .. the hand can manipulate the tools needed with sufficient dexterity to accomplish the task, whether this is just by "magic" ... you instruct the hand to pick the lock and it just does it (2) ... or whether there is sensory feedback allowing the rogue to actually pick the lock using the mage hand is entirely up to the DM. The EFFECT is very clearly and explicitly described ... how that effect happens is not ... it is magic.
RAW, an arcane trickster can remove or place items in containers carried by another creature where they can NOT see the hand OR the object in the container at all (3) AND they can do this with a high likelihood of going unnoticed via a sleight of hand check. This is explicitly stated in the rules. HOW this is accomplished is up to the DM. Personally, I lean toward there being some sort of sensory feedback from the hand in order for this to make logical sense ... BUT a DM can just as easily say "magic".
No, that is not RAW in the slightest. Could you please provide citations backing up those claims?
The AT does not need to be able to see the Mage Hand itself (of course, that's the point of the feature), but they do need to be able to see whatever the hand is interacting with.
The hand does not do anything on its own. It is not a sentient being, nor does it ever act independently. You do not instruct it; it is an extension of yourself that you control with your action. It possesses no capabilities of autonomy, nor a stat block. The fact that you make ability checks with your stats when controlling the hand makes this point abundantly clear.
This claim is demonstrably false. The basic rules tell us that you effectively suffer from the Blinded condition in that situation, failing any ability check that requires sight. Mage Hand does not provide any function of shared, enhanced, or additional senses; it's not Clairvoyance. How are you going to manipulate something you're incapable of seeing? Automatic failure. "Feel around with the hand?" How? You can't feel what it touches, nor can you see what it is touching. Automatic failure.
Unless you can see what you're trying to interact with, you're Blinded.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think I'd rule that they have to make a Perception check with disadvantage or a high DC. Basically they're feeling in the dark. If they have some idea where the thing they want to manipulate is, the DC is not quite as high.
You could rule that you can't feel at all through the Mage Hand, but I think it makes it more fun to give creative player solutions a chance of success.
I think I'd rule that they have to make a Perception check with disadvantage or a high DC. Basically they're feeling in the dark. If they have some idea where the thing they want to manipulate is, the DC is not quite as high.
You could rule that you can't feel at all through the Mage Hand, but I think it makes it more fun to give creative player solutions a chance of success.
Mage Hand has no senses of its own, nor does it extend your own senses in any way whatsoever. It isn't Clairvoyance, Find Familiar, or anything else in the same vein.
Blinded
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature's attack rolls have disadvantage.
Personally, I love creative solutions from my players. Attempting to use a spell for functions that it does not have, however, is not a creative solution. It isn't a solution at all. This is where I ask my player about exactly what they are trying to accomplish. If the player has features that can accomplish it, I remind them.
If other players have features that can help, I give them a nudge: "You recall that you've seen (PC) do something similar to what you're thinking about."
If it can't be accomplished by anyone in the party, via any combination of features and teamwork, then it is what it is. Failure is an ever-present risk, and it is the spice which creates a fun campaign. When a DM does not let the party/players fail, that's not good DMing, and everyone gets bored. Letting them bang their heads against a wall when they are capable of success isn't good DMing either. Reminders & nudges.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I don't think it would be possible to remotely pick a lock without tactile feedback. I do not assert that it is RAW, but I would allow limited "feeling around" in a case like OP's original where they knew approximately where the door handle was. Of course, in a world where this is possible there would likely be additional safeguards in place to thwart the likes of Arcane Tricksters so it would work in some cases but certainly not all.
The Hand is not independent and requires the caster to direct it. The hand itself does not need to be visible (since Tricksters can specifically make theirs invisible), but even if the caster doesn’t need to see the hand, I would imagine that they need to be able to see what that hand is interacting with. Otherwise it would be like trying to play a game of remote controlled pin the tail on the donkey.
That is a great way to look at it and what originally my thought was the player would just be guessing where to place the hand especially since there is no sensory context from the hand to tell the AT what the hand is touching. I let it go through since it was an unlocked door that she wanted to open from the other side at that time because I wanted to keep the game moving along so I made a note to research.
RAW, the mage does not need to see the hand in order to manipulate an object (1). It only needs to be within 30'.
RAW, an arcane trickster can disarm a trap or pick a lock "at range" (which is up to 30') .. the hand can manipulate the tools needed with sufficient dexterity to accomplish the task, whether this is just by "magic" ... you instruct the hand to pick the lock and it just does it (2) ... or whether there is sensory feedback allowing the rogue to actually pick the lock using the mage hand is entirely up to the DM. The EFFECT is very clearly and explicitly described ... how that effect happens is not ... it is magic.
RAW, an arcane trickster can remove or place items in containers carried by another creature where they can NOT see the hand OR the object in the container at all (3) AND they can do this with a high likelihood of going unnoticed via a sleight of hand check. This is explicitly stated in the rules. HOW this is accomplished is up to the DM. Personally, I lean toward there being some sort of sensory feedback from the hand in order for this to make logical sense ... BUT a DM can just as easily say "magic".
No, that is not RAW in the slightest. Could you please provide citations backing up those claims?
The AT does not need to be able to see the Mage Hand itself (of course, that's the point of the feature), but they do need to be able to see whatever the hand is interacting with.
The hand does not do anything on its own. It is not a sentient being, nor does it ever act independently. You do not instruct it; it is an extension of yourself that you control with your action. It possesses no capabilities of autonomy, nor a stat block. The fact that you make ability checks with your stats when controlling the hand makes this point abundantly clear.
This claim is demonstrably false. The basic rules tell us that you effectively suffer from the Blinded condition in that situation, failing any ability check that requires sight. Mage Hand does not provide any function of shared, enhanced, or additional senses; it's not Clairvoyance. How are you going to manipulate something you're incapable of seeing? Automatic failure. "Feel around with the hand?" How? You can't feel what it touches, nor can you see what it is touching. Automatic failure.
Unless you can see what you're trying to interact with, you're Blinded.
I cited the text of the mage hand spell. It lists several things that you can do with the mage hand. None of these things say that SIGHT is required to do them.
SPELL TEXT:
""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 magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds."
No where in that description does it state that the hand must always be in sight nor does it say that the caster can't perform actions with the hand when they can't see it. RAW does NOT say that the hand must be seen to perform actions with it. If you wish to claim that a caster needs to see the mage hand or the object it is manipulating to operate the hand, that is fine, but the spell text does NOT state that or require it leaving it very much up to the DM how they want to run it. Many spells explicitly state that the caster has to see the target or object - the telekinesis spell explicitly requires sight for example:
"When you cast the spell, and as your action each round for the duration, you can exert your will on one creature or object that you can see within range,"
Mage hand does NOT include the same rider so why you ASSUME that the rules require the user of mage hand to see the object they try to manipulate, I don't know. Since you claim that being able to manipulate items you can't see using mage hand is not RAW ... please offer a citation. I have shown that RAW does not impose any such restriction on mage hand while it does on similar manipulation spells like telekinesis.
By the way, as DM I might require the caster to be able to see certain objects if they wanted to use mage hand or impose disadvantage on a skill check (though not for ones made by an arcane trickster that are explicitly excluded) ... but I realize that those aren't necessarily called for in terms of RAW ... just in terms of how I run a game.
On to your other points:
"1. The AT does not need to be able to see the Mage Hand itself (of course, that's the point of the feature), but they do need to be able to see whatever the hand is interacting with."
This is demonstrably a false statement to use your terminology. Citing mage hand legerdemain (from my previous post).
"Starting at 3rd level, when you cast mage hand, you can make the spectral hand invisible, and you can perform the following additional tasks with it: • You can stow one object the hand is holding in a container worn or carried by another creature. • You can retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature. • You can use thieves' tools to pick locks and disarm traps at range.
You can perform one of these tasks without being noticed by a creature if you succeed on a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check contested by the creature's Wisdom (Perception) check. In addition, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to control the hand."
If an arcane trickster can "retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature." WHICH an arcane trickster CAN do and is explicitly stated in the rules then they do NOT need to be able to see the object that the hand is interacting with. The object is IN a container ... worn or carried by another creature ... the trickster can NOT see it (at least most of the time) and yet they can have the hand go into the container, FIND the item which the AT can't see, AND retrieve it with a good chance of going unnoticed.
"2. The hand does not do anything on its own. It is not a sentient being, nor does it ever act independently. You do not instruct it; it is an extension of yourself that you control with your action. It possesses no capabilities of autonomy, nor a stat block. The fact that you make ability checks with your stats when controlling the hand makes this point abundantly clear."
Completely agree. The hand allows the AT to make skill checks at a distance using their own skills. I NEVER said otherwise and if it was interpreted that way then I wasn't being clear.
"3. This claim is demonstrably false. The basic rules tell us that you effectively suffer from the Blinded condition in that situation, failing any ability check that requires sight. Mage Hand does not provide any function of shared, enhanced, or additional senses; it's not Clairvoyance. How are you going to manipulate something you're incapable of seeing? Automatic failure. "Feel around with the hand?" How? You can't feel what it touches, nor can you see what it is touching. Automatic failure."
No. Please read the AT rules.
"You can retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature. You can perform one of these tasks without being noticed by a creature if you succeed on a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check contested by the creature's Wisdom (Perception) check."
Specific beats general. An AT can use mage hand to go into a container worn or carried by another creature and retrieve an item. This is what the RULES state. They do not say only items you can see, it does not state anything else. The rules state that the AT can go unnoticed by succeeding on a sleight of hand check. As DM you are welcome to play it however you like but the AT rules on mage hand legerdemain contain NO requirements that the AT be able to see the item in the container that is being retrieved. THAT is a house rule and not RAW.
I realize you appear very committed to the way you play and interpret mage hand. That is fine, everyone is welcome to opinions. However, based on what is published in the books there is no requirement stated that seeing the hand is required AND the AT rules explicitly state things an AT can do with a mage hand that would normally be impossible without sight. Why does it work? MAGIC ... it is a magic spell. A DM can come up with whatever justification they wish to use in their world but if an AT rogue isn't allowed to pick a lock at 30' because the DM says they can't see it - that is a house rule since the SPECIFIC AT rules allow them to make skill checks to disarm traps and open locks at range and make NO restriction on having a clear sight into the lock.The rules also allow the AT to retrieve an item from a container worn or carried by another creature within 30' and again makes NO mention of requiring the rogue to see the item being manipulated. Even the basic mage hand spell makes no mention of sight being required.
How it works I have no idea .. it is up to the DM to come up with their interpretation but RAW ... and I have cited RAW several times above ... has NO statement that being able to see these objects is required.
Honestly this whole argument is moot. RAW are irrelevant. The rule of cool trumps. If using the mage hand somewhere they can't see is going to make your player feel like a boss, let them do it. If succeeding is going to ruin your whole plot and some cool adventures you had planned, don't let them succeed.
My philosophy is that anything is possible. Some things just have a really high DC. Make them make a DC 30 Perception check. But them watch them use Enhance Ability and Guidance and Bardic Inspiration and roll a nat 20 and pull it off. Reward the effort. You can get creative and adapt your plot to handle their unexpected success.
The Hand is not independent and requires the caster to direct it. The hand itself does not need to be visible (since Tricksters can specifically make theirs invisible), but even if the caster doesn’t need to see the hand, I would imagine that they need to be able to see what that hand is interacting with. Otherwise it would be like trying to play a game of remote controlled pin the tail on the donkey.
That is a great way to look at it and what originally my thought was the player would just be guessing where to place the hand especially since there is no sensory context from the hand to tell the AT what the hand is touching. I let it go through since it was an unlocked door that she wanted to open from the other side at that time because I wanted to keep the game moving along so I made a note to research.
RAW, the mage does not need to see the hand in order to manipulate an object (1). It only needs to be within 30'.
RAW, an arcane trickster can disarm a trap or pick a lock "at range" (which is up to 30') .. the hand can manipulate the tools needed with sufficient dexterity to accomplish the task, whether this is just by "magic" ... you instruct the hand to pick the lock and it just does it (2) ... or whether there is sensory feedback allowing the rogue to actually pick the lock using the mage hand is entirely up to the DM. The EFFECT is very clearly and explicitly described ... how that effect happens is not ... it is magic.
RAW, an arcane trickster can remove or place items in containers carried by another creature where they can NOT see the hand OR the object in the container at all (3) AND they can do this with a high likelihood of going unnoticed via a sleight of hand check. This is explicitly stated in the rules. HOW this is accomplished is up to the DM. Personally, I lean toward there being some sort of sensory feedback from the hand in order for this to make logical sense ... BUT a DM can just as easily say "magic".
No, that is not RAW in the slightest. Could you please provide citations backing up those claims?
The AT does not need to be able to see the Mage Hand itself (of course, that's the point of the feature), but they do need to be able to see whatever the hand is interacting with.
The hand does not do anything on its own. It is not a sentient being, nor does it ever act independently. You do not instruct it; it is an extension of yourself that you control with your action. It possesses no capabilities of autonomy, nor a stat block. The fact that you make ability checks with your stats when controlling the hand makes this point abundantly clear.
This claim is demonstrably false. The basic rules tell us that you effectively suffer from the Blinded condition in that situation, failing any ability check that requires sight. Mage Hand does not provide any function of shared, enhanced, or additional senses; it's not Clairvoyance. How are you going to manipulate something you're incapable of seeing? Automatic failure. "Feel around with the hand?" How? You can't feel what it touches, nor can you see what it is touching. Automatic failure.
Unless you can see what you're trying to interact with, you're Blinded.
I cited the text of the mage hand spell. It lists several things that you can do with the mage hand. None of these things say that SIGHT is required to do them.
SPELL TEXT:
""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 magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds."
No where in that description does it state that the hand must always be in sight nor does it say that the caster can't perform actions with the hand when they can't see it. RAW does NOT say that the hand must be seen to perform actions with it. If you wish to claim that a caster needs to see the mage hand or the object it is manipulating to operate the hand, that is fine, but the spell text does NOT state that or require it leaving it very much up to the DM how they want to run it. Many spells explicitly state that the caster has to see the target or object - the telekinesis spell explicitly requires sight for example:
"When you cast the spell, and as your action each round for the duration, you can exert your will on one creature or object that you can see within range,"
Mage hand does NOT include the same rider so why you ASSUME that the rules require the user of mage hand to see the object they try to manipulate, I don't know. Since you claim that being able to manipulate items you can't see using mage hand is not RAW ... please offer a citation. I have shown that RAW does not impose any such restriction on mage hand while it does on similar manipulation spells like telekinesis.
By the way, as DM I might require the caster to be able to see certain objects if they wanted to use mage hand or impose disadvantage on a skill check (though not for ones made by an arcane trickster that are explicitly excluded) ... but I realize that those aren't necessarily called for in terms of RAW ... just in terms of how I run a game.
On to your other points:
"1. The AT does not need to be able to see the Mage Hand itself (of course, that's the point of the feature), but they do need to be able to see whatever the hand is interacting with."
This is demonstrably a false statement to use your terminology. Citing mage hand legerdemain (from my previous post).
"Starting at 3rd level, when you cast mage hand, you can make the spectral hand invisible, and you can perform the following additional tasks with it: • You can stow one object the hand is holding in a container worn or carried by another creature. • You can retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature. • You can use thieves' tools to pick locks and disarm traps at range.
You can perform one of these tasks without being noticed by a creature if you succeed on a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check contested by the creature's Wisdom (Perception) check. In addition, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to control the hand."
If an arcane trickster can "retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature." WHICH an arcane trickster CAN do and is explicitly stated in the rules then they do NOT need to be able to see the object that the hand is interacting with. The object is IN a container ... worn or carried by another creature ... the trickster can NOT see it (at least most of the time) and yet they can have the hand go into the container, FIND the item which the AT can't see, AND retrieve it with a good chance of going unnoticed.
"2. The hand does not do anything on its own. It is not a sentient being, nor does it ever act independently. You do not instruct it; it is an extension of yourself that you control with your action. It possesses no capabilities of autonomy, nor a stat block. The fact that you make ability checks with your stats when controlling the hand makes this point abundantly clear."
Completely agree. The hand allows the AT to make skill checks at a distance using their own skills. I NEVER said otherwise and if it was interpreted that way then I wasn't being clear.
"3. This claim is demonstrably false. The basic rules tell us that you effectively suffer from the Blinded condition in that situation, failing any ability check that requires sight. Mage Hand does not provide any function of shared, enhanced, or additional senses; it's not Clairvoyance. How are you going to manipulate something you're incapable of seeing? Automatic failure. "Feel around with the hand?" How? You can't feel what it touches, nor can you see what it is touching. Automatic failure."
No. Please read the AT rules.
"You can retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature. You can perform one of these tasks without being noticed by a creature if you succeed on a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check contested by the creature's Wisdom (Perception) check."
Specific beats general. An AT can use mage hand to go into a container worn or carried by another creature and retrieve an item. This is what the RULES state. They do not say only items you can see, it does not state anything else. The rules state that the AT can go unnoticed by succeeding on a sleight of hand check. As DM you are welcome to play it however you like but the AT rules on mage hand legerdemain contain NO requirements that the AT be able to see the item in the container that is being retrieved. THAT is a house rule and not RAW.
I realize you appear very committed to the way you play and interpret mage hand. That is fine, everyone is welcome to opinions. However, based on what is published in the books there is no requirement stated that seeing the hand is required AND the AT rules explicitly state things an AT can do with a mage hand that would normally be impossible without sight. Why does it work? MAGIC ... it is a magic spell. A DM can come up with whatever justification they wish to use in their world but if an AT rogue isn't allowed to pick a lock at 30' because the DM says they can't see it - that is a house rule since the SPECIFIC AT rules allow them to make skill checks to disarm traps and open locks at range and make NO restriction on having a clear sight into the lock.The rules also allow the AT to retrieve an item from a container worn or carried by another creature within 30' and again makes NO mention of requiring the rogue to see the item being manipulated. Even the basic mage hand spell makes no mention of sight being required.
How it works I have no idea .. it is up to the DM to come up with their interpretation but RAW ... and I have cited RAW several times above ... has NO statement that being able to see these objects is required.
Wow man! Way to abuse RAW notions. Yikes. A mage hand is a magical disembodied third hand. And since the RAW does not indicate that this had gives any sensation feedback, the only way to control it is through the wizards own perception of it. Using your mage hand where you cant see it is going to be a lot like using your own hand where you can't see it and where your hand is also numb to any sensation. Imagine having an anesthetized hand then having to reach through a hole to manipulate an object you cannot see. It would be like playing the claw game but with opaque wall instead of glass. Good luck with that!
Wow man! Way to abuse RAW notions. Yikes. A mage hand is a magical disembodied third hand. And since the RAW does not indicate that this had gives any sensation feedback, the only way to control it is through the wizards own perception of it. Using your mage hand where you cant see it is going to be a lot like using your own hand where you can't see it and where your hand is also numb to any sensation. Imagine having an anesthetized hand then having to reach through a hole to manipulate an object you cannot see. It would be like playing the claw game but with opaque wall instead of glass. Good luck with that!
I agree with you. :) ... it should be impossible if there is no feedback.
However, the rules allow an Arcane Trickster to explicitly pick locks or disarm traps from 30' where they can't possibly see into the lock or have any feedback on how the thieve's tools are working AND yet the rules explicitly allow them to do so.
The rules also allow an Arcane Trickster to use an invisible mage hand that they can't feel to reach into a container they can't see in to to retrieve or place an item and to do so in such a skillful way that they are unlikely to be detected. THAT is what the rules say. I'm not abusing it. How do you run the things the rules say an arcane trickster can do with a mage hand? Or do you just say that it is impossible and take away things that the rules explicitly allow an arcane trickster to do?
"Starting at 3rd level, when you cast mage hand, you can make the spectral hand invisible, and you can perform the following additional tasks with it: • You can stow one object the hand is holding in a container worn or carried by another creature. • You can retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature. • You can use thieves' tools to pick locks and disarm traps at range."
I'm not making it up. I'm not abusing it. These are things that the rules say an arcane trickster can explicitly do with a mage hand. Would it be impossible without some form of sensory feedback or if they can't see exactly what the hand is trying to grasp ... absolutely! However, the rules explicitly say that these things are possible and in fact commonplace for an arcane trickster use of mage hand.
There are two ways a DM can run it consistent with the rules. The DM can just say that these tasks are possible because the rules say they are and it is because it is magic. The DM then has to come up with some system to decide how to adjudicate similar tasks. Can an arcane trickster ONLY do the three extra things explicitly listed?
In any case, the three examples of what the arcane trickster CAN explicitly do, would be impossible without either relying on the explanation is "it's magic so it works" or "there is some sort of sensory feedback". Only the first is RAW. Mage hand is clearly magical. The rules say it can do certain things. The DM determines how to explain it in their games.
P.S. How I choose to run it in my games, and it is NOT RAW, is that the hand provides some very limited sensory feedback to the caster. An arcane trickster gets more detailed sensory information allowing an AT to perform actions with a mage hand that a wizard can not. Keep in mind this is NOT RAW, just how I run it. By using this explanation in my games I can easily and logically adjudicate any actions the players decide to take using the mage hand and it is consistent with the stated RAW text of both the mage hand spell and mage hand legerdemain ... but the rules don't say this ... it is just how I choose to run it.
Wow man! Way to abuse RAW notions. Yikes. A mage hand is a magical disembodied third hand. And since the RAW does not indicate that this had gives any sensation feedback, the only way to control it is through the wizards own perception of it. Using your mage hand where you cant see it is going to be a lot like using your own hand where you can't see it and where your hand is also numb to any sensation. Imagine having an anesthetized hand then having to reach through a hole to manipulate an object you cannot see. It would be like playing the claw game but with opaque wall instead of glass. Good luck with that!
I agree with you. :) ... it should be impossible if there is no feedback.
However, the rules allow an Arcane Trickster to explicitly pick locks or disarm traps from 30' where they can't possibly see into the lock or have any feedback on how the thieve's tools are working AND yet the rules explicitly allow them to do so.
The rules also allow an Arcane Trickster to use an invisible mage hand that they can't feel to reach into a container they can't see in to to retrieve or place an item and to do so in such a skillful way that they are unlikely to be detected. THAT is what the rules say. I'm not abusing it. How do you run the things the rules say an arcane trickster can do with a mage hand? Or do you just say that it is impossible and take away things that the rules explicitly allow an arcane trickster to do?
"Starting at 3rd level, when you cast mage hand, you can make the spectral hand invisible, and you can perform the following additional tasks with it: • You can stow one object the hand is holding in a container worn or carried by another creature. • You can retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature. • You can use thieves' tools to pick locks and disarm traps at range."
I'm not making it up. I'm not abusing it. These are things that the rules say an arcane trickster can explicitly do with a mage hand. Would it be impossible without some form of sensory feedback or if they can't see exactly what the hand is trying to grasp ... absolutely! However, the rules explicitly say that these things are possible and in fact commonplace for an arcane trickster use of mage hand.
There are two ways a DM can run it consistent with the rules. The DM can just say that these tasks are possible because the rules say they are and it is because it is magic. The DM then has to come up with some system to decide how to adjudicate similar tasks. Can an arcane trickster ONLY do the three extra things explicitly listed?
In any case, the three examples of what the arcane trickster CAN explicitly do, would be impossible without either relying on the explanation is "it's magic so it works" or "there is some sort of sensory feedback". Only the first is RAW. Mage hand is clearly magical. The rules say it can do certain things. The DM determines how to explain it in their games.
P.S. How I choose to run it in my games, and it is NOT RAW, is that the hand provides some very limited sensory feedback to the caster. An arcane trickster gets more detailed sensory information allowing an AT to perform actions with a mage hand that a wizard can not. Keep in mind this is NOT RAW, just how I run it. By using this explanation in my games I can easily and logically adjudicate any actions the players decide to take using the mage hand and it is consistent with the stated RAW text of both the mage hand spell and mage hand legerdemain ... but the rules don't say this ... it is just how I choose to run it.
I'm not talking about the Arcane Trickster and their OP broken mage hand. I'm talking about the using Mage hand in another room where you cannot see. In my opinion mage hand is just a third hand that the caster can materialize via the spell. I agree with you. I would give the hand a bit of touch feedback. Thus if the caster tried to retrieve and item from the next room without being able to see into the next room, they would have to grope around just as they would have to do with their own hands.
When a mage is stuck on one side of a door, slips the mage hand underneath the door, and tell the DM they want to try to open the door from the blind side with no sensory feedback from the hand, I think it is perfectly reasonable and within the description of the rules for the DM to respond with "OK, tell me how that works."
If the player has a reasonable strategy and the latch system is simple enough (maybe a latch just has to be lifted) then maybe it works. For a complex lock or knob, it's probably not going to happen unless the mage has prior familiarity with the other side of the door. And even then, it's going to be a tough DC at my table.
And for those that keep saying "Can" means it happens automatically? Yeah, you "can" kill Tiamat with a level 1 fighter armed with a +1 dagger, but it's really unlikely, not automatic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I've been playing an Arcane Trickster in my first campaign, with 9 levels of experience, and I'd like to weigh in on how I picture Mage Hand working, based on the given rules of both the spell and the Legerdemain feature:
As others have mentioned in this thread, the Legerdemain is able to use thieves' tools and manipulate items within containers worn by others. So I'd say that there is a tactile sense to it. There might be a tactile sense on the normal Mage Hand (even if not mentioned) but it'd be much more blunt than on the Arcane Trickster's Mage Hand. (I remember reading on a forum that Mage Hand is more like Mage Mitten, and the Legerdemain is like Mage Glove, in terms of how deft you can be with it.)
In a "how my brain interacts with it" sense, I like to envision the Mage Hand spell (not just for Rogues) creating an actual spectral "third hand", not mirroring what your other hands are doing, and you have a proprioception sense with it so that you know where the hand is relative to you/in space even if it's invisible. So it's like for the duration of the spell you have a literal "phantom limb" that you can do stuff with, and it feels normal both while the spell is in effect and when it isn't.
The spell itself allows you to cast it at any spot you choose within range (30 feet), so it doesn't matter whether you can see the location or not.
Now for a practical situation. Let's say I know there's probably a latch or chain or (not-too-heavy) bar locking the other side of a door, and can make a good guess where it's located. Even without seeing it, I know the position of the Mage Hand and how it's gesturing. If the hand has no tactile sense, I could still run fingers along the other side and possibly listen for the jangling of a chain or other locking element; with tactile sense I can tell even more, and with a Legerdemain with great tactile sense, I could even try to fumble for a nearby key. These would all require some sort of skill check, Sleight of Hand I assume, and maybe Investigation (with disadvantage?) if you're fumbling for a key or mechanism. A better Hand would lower the DC and/or give more options for interacting with the door.
What about when you really, really need to see what you're doing? If you have a familiar, bamf it onto the other side of the door. Now you can view the situation via the familiar! And if you're an Arcane Trickster, you can keep using your action to see through their eyes while you use your bonus action to control the Hand.
Of course your DM doesn't have to let you get away with not making skill checks. Sleight of Hand guided by a familiar's remote POV can be awkward (I imagine having the Hand be visible would help with that some.) Also, your Hand and/or familiar are on the other side of a door, where there may be a person nearby, so Stealth checks may be in order too. If you have to rely on listening for the jingling of a chain or latch, that would definitely grab the attention of someone nearby.
Anyway, that's what I think about Mage Hand control. A very useful and fun spell if you're creative enough and your DM is willing to let you attempt such things, preferably without automatic success.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
An Arcane Trickster wanted to use Mage Hand to go through space between a door and the floor to open it from the other side. I ruled that was allowed since there was no rule in for Mage Hand in Arcane Trickster or the spell that visibility of either the hand or the object to be manipulated is required.
That got me thinking about how does the Mage Hand controlled by, in this case, the Rogue when the hand is out of view? How if the rogue wanted to pick-up a set of keys that she knows is in the other room behind a locked door but not sure where? There is no indication that Mage Hand is sentient where it would know what keys look like and how to search a room for this object.
As players or DMs have you run into a similar situation with Mage Hand and how was it ruled?
The Hand is not independent and requires the caster to direct it. The hand itself does not need to be visible (since Tricksters can specifically make theirs invisible), but even if the caster doesn’t need to see the hand, I would imagine that they need to be able to see what that hand is interacting with. Otherwise it would be like trying to play a game of remote controlled pin the tail on the donkey.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That is a great way to look at it and what originally my thought was the player would just be guessing where to place the hand especially since there is no sensory context from the hand to tell the AT what the hand is touching. I let it go through since it was an unlocked door that she wanted to open from the other side at that time because I wanted to keep the game moving along so I made a note to research.
Hitch is what I would have probably done under that situation too. Just make sure you discuss this stuff with them since they are still learning what they can do with it too.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
In the case of mage hand, it is up to the DM to decide the edge cases of how it can be used. The spell lists what it does and the arcane trickster feature lists explicit additional uses that would likely be impossible unless the DM just says "magic" or allows that there may be some sort of feedback from the hand to its caster.
An arcane trickster can use an invisible mage hand to pick a lock or disarm a trap successfully from 30' away.
How the hand could even hold and properly manipulate thieves tools without some sort of feedback is a mystery of magic.
"Starting at 3rd level, when you cast mage hand, you can make the spectral hand invisible, and you can perform the following additional tasks with it:
• You can stow one object the hand is holding in a container worn or carried by another creature.
• You can retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature.
• You can use thieves' tools to pick locks and disarm traps at range.
You can perform one of these tasks without being noticed by a creature if you succeed on a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check contested by the creature's Wisdom (Perception) check.
In addition, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to control the hand."
This is explicitly the extras that an arcane trickster can do.
Mage Hand:
"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 magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds."
This is what the spells say explicitly.
RAW, the mage does not need to see the hand in order to manipulate an object. It only needs to be within 30'.
RAW, an arcane trickster can disarm a trap or pick a lock "at range" (which is up to 30') .. the hand can manipulate the tools needed with sufficient dexterity to accomplish the task, whether this is just by "magic" ... you instruct the hand to pick the lock and it just does it ... or whether there is sensory feedback allowing the rogue to actually pick the lock using the mage hand is entirely up to the DM. The EFFECT is very clearly and explicitly described ... how that effect happens is not ... it is magic.
RAW, an arcane trickster can remove or place items in containers carried by another creature where they can NOT see the hand OR the object in the container at all AND they can do this with a high likelihood of going unnoticed via a sleight of hand check. This is explicitly stated in the rules. HOW this is accomplished is up to the DM. Personally, I lean toward there being some sort of sensory feedback from the hand in order for this to make logical sense ... BUT a DM can just as easily say "magic".
However, the point is that the rogue or wizard using mage hand CAN have the hand perform tasks and many of these tasks do not require the hand to be visible or in sight. These tasks would be exceptionally difficult or impossible (like the tail pinning example) ... BUT these are something that an arcane trickster rogue might be able to accomplish. When it comes to picking a lock or disarming a trap from 30' using thieves tools and the interior of a lock or trap that they can not see, this is explicitly called out as possible and a usual and common usage of mage hand for an AT. As a result, I try to come up with a concept of how the spell works in my world so that I can reasonably extrapolate what a player can do with it when they come up with something new. Just saying "magic" works but runs into players saying "but if I can pick a lock I can't see into at 30' why can't I do X,Y or Z with the mage hand".
Invisible Mage Hand or not the caster still should be able to see the object that is being manipulated. The actions used with an AT the Hand is an extension of the caster and not a separate object that is 'remote' controlled. (Random: Whereas Bigby's Hand is defined as in object)
I agree, it's the DM prerogative how the Mage Hand 'exists' in the gaming world. Talking/Typing it out in regards to my opening example I feel any type of blindness or unable to visually see the object the Hand is directed to interact with would not be allowed.
Going with automatic success with a Mage Hand is ridiculous. If that were the case, the Arcane Trickster would never again roll dice to pick locks. The word can doesn't imply automatic success. It means an attempt is allowed.
Regarding doing things you can't see like picking a lock from inside (isn't there just a latch? or a key hole on both sides?) I'd give it a skill roll with disadvantage since you can't see, and if you want to do it on a lock you can see, a regular roll.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
No, that is not RAW in the slightest. Could you please provide citations backing up those claims?
Unless you can see what you're trying to interact with, you're Blinded.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think I'd rule that they have to make a Perception check with disadvantage or a high DC. Basically they're feeling in the dark. If they have some idea where the thing they want to manipulate is, the DC is not quite as high.
You could rule that you can't feel at all through the Mage Hand, but I think it makes it more fun to give creative player solutions a chance of success.
Mage Hand has no senses of its own, nor does it extend your own senses in any way whatsoever. It isn't Clairvoyance, Find Familiar, or anything else in the same vein.
Personally, I love creative solutions from my players. Attempting to use a spell for functions that it does not have, however, is not a creative solution. It isn't a solution at all. This is where I ask my player about exactly what they are trying to accomplish. If the player has features that can accomplish it, I remind them.
If other players have features that can help, I give them a nudge: "You recall that you've seen (PC) do something similar to what you're thinking about."
If it can't be accomplished by anyone in the party, via any combination of features and teamwork, then it is what it is. Failure is an ever-present risk, and it is the spice which creates a fun campaign. When a DM does not let the party/players fail, that's not good DMing, and everyone gets bored. Letting them bang their heads against a wall when they are capable of success isn't good DMing either. Reminders & nudges.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I don't think it would be possible to remotely pick a lock without tactile feedback. I do not assert that it is RAW, but I would allow limited "feeling around" in a case like OP's original where they knew approximately where the door handle was. Of course, in a world where this is possible there would likely be additional safeguards in place to thwart the likes of Arcane Tricksters so it would work in some cases but certainly not all.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I cited the text of the mage hand spell. It lists several things that you can do with the mage hand. None of these things say that SIGHT is required to do them.
SPELL TEXT:
""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 magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds."
No where in that description does it state that the hand must always be in sight nor does it say that the caster can't perform actions with the hand when they can't see it. RAW does NOT say that the hand must be seen to perform actions with it. If you wish to claim that a caster needs to see the mage hand or the object it is manipulating to operate the hand, that is fine, but the spell text does NOT state that or require it leaving it very much up to the DM how they want to run it. Many spells explicitly state that the caster has to see the target or object - the telekinesis spell explicitly requires sight for example:
"When you cast the spell, and as your action each round for the duration, you can exert your will on one creature or object that you can see within range,"
Mage hand does NOT include the same rider so why you ASSUME that the rules require the user of mage hand to see the object they try to manipulate, I don't know. Since you claim that being able to manipulate items you can't see using mage hand is not RAW ... please offer a citation. I have shown that RAW does not impose any such restriction on mage hand while it does on similar manipulation spells like telekinesis.
By the way, as DM I might require the caster to be able to see certain objects if they wanted to use mage hand or impose disadvantage on a skill check (though not for ones made by an arcane trickster that are explicitly excluded) ... but I realize that those aren't necessarily called for in terms of RAW ... just in terms of how I run a game.
On to your other points:
"1. The AT does not need to be able to see the Mage Hand itself (of course, that's the point of the feature), but they do need to be able to see whatever the hand is interacting with."
This is demonstrably a false statement to use your terminology. Citing mage hand legerdemain (from my previous post).
"Starting at 3rd level, when you cast mage hand, you can make the spectral hand invisible, and you can perform the following additional tasks with it:
• You can stow one object the hand is holding in a container worn or carried by another creature.
• You can retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature.
• You can use thieves' tools to pick locks and disarm traps at range.
You can perform one of these tasks without being noticed by a creature if you succeed on a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check contested by the creature's Wisdom (Perception) check.
In addition, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to control the hand."
If an arcane trickster can "retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature." WHICH an arcane trickster CAN do and is explicitly stated in the rules then they do NOT need to be able to see the object that the hand is interacting with. The object is IN a container ... worn or carried by another creature ... the trickster can NOT see it (at least most of the time) and yet they can have the hand go into the container, FIND the item which the AT can't see, AND retrieve it with a good chance of going unnoticed.
"2. The hand does not do anything on its own. It is not a sentient being, nor does it ever act independently. You do not instruct it; it is an extension of yourself that you control with your action. It possesses no capabilities of autonomy, nor a stat block. The fact that you make ability checks with your stats when controlling the hand makes this point abundantly clear."
Completely agree. The hand allows the AT to make skill checks at a distance using their own skills. I NEVER said otherwise and if it was interpreted that way then I wasn't being clear.
"3. This claim is demonstrably false. The basic rules tell us that you effectively suffer from the Blinded condition in that situation, failing any ability check that requires sight. Mage Hand does not provide any function of shared, enhanced, or additional senses; it's not Clairvoyance. How are you going to manipulate something you're incapable of seeing? Automatic failure. "Feel around with the hand?" How? You can't feel what it touches, nor can you see what it is touching. Automatic failure."
No. Please read the AT rules.
"You can retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature. You can perform one of these tasks without being noticed by a creature if you succeed on a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check contested by the creature's Wisdom (Perception) check."
Specific beats general. An AT can use mage hand to go into a container worn or carried by another creature and retrieve an item. This is what the RULES state. They do not say only items you can see, it does not state anything else. The rules state that the AT can go unnoticed by succeeding on a sleight of hand check. As DM you are welcome to play it however you like but the AT rules on mage hand legerdemain contain NO requirements that the AT be able to see the item in the container that is being retrieved. THAT is a house rule and not RAW.
I realize you appear very committed to the way you play and interpret mage hand. That is fine, everyone is welcome to opinions. However, based on what is published in the books there is no requirement stated that seeing the hand is required AND the AT rules explicitly state things an AT can do with a mage hand that would normally be impossible without sight. Why does it work? MAGIC ... it is a magic spell. A DM can come up with whatever justification they wish to use in their world but if an AT rogue isn't allowed to pick a lock at 30' because the DM says they can't see it - that is a house rule since the SPECIFIC AT rules allow them to make skill checks to disarm traps and open locks at range and make NO restriction on having a clear sight into the lock.The rules also allow the AT to retrieve an item from a container worn or carried by another creature within 30' and again makes NO mention of requiring the rogue to see the item being manipulated. Even the basic mage hand spell makes no mention of sight being required.
How it works I have no idea .. it is up to the DM to come up with their interpretation but RAW ... and I have cited RAW several times above ... has NO statement that being able to see these objects is required.
Honestly this whole argument is moot. RAW are irrelevant. The rule of cool trumps. If using the mage hand somewhere they can't see is going to make your player feel like a boss, let them do it. If succeeding is going to ruin your whole plot and some cool adventures you had planned, don't let them succeed.
My philosophy is that anything is possible. Some things just have a really high DC. Make them make a DC 30 Perception check. But them watch them use Enhance Ability and Guidance and Bardic Inspiration and roll a nat 20 and pull it off. Reward the effort. You can get creative and adapt your plot to handle their unexpected success.
Wow man! Way to abuse RAW notions. Yikes. A mage hand is a magical disembodied third hand. And since the RAW does not indicate that this had gives any sensation feedback, the only way to control it is through the wizards own perception of it. Using your mage hand where you cant see it is going to be a lot like using your own hand where you can't see it and where your hand is also numb to any sensation. Imagine having an anesthetized hand then having to reach through a hole to manipulate an object you cannot see. It would be like playing the claw game but with opaque wall instead of glass. Good luck with that!
I agree with you. :) ... it should be impossible if there is no feedback.
However, the rules allow an Arcane Trickster to explicitly pick locks or disarm traps from 30' where they can't possibly see into the lock or have any feedback on how the thieve's tools are working AND yet the rules explicitly allow them to do so.
The rules also allow an Arcane Trickster to use an invisible mage hand that they can't feel to reach into a container they can't see in to to retrieve or place an item and to do so in such a skillful way that they are unlikely to be detected. THAT is what the rules say. I'm not abusing it. How do you run the things the rules say an arcane trickster can do with a mage hand? Or do you just say that it is impossible and take away things that the rules explicitly allow an arcane trickster to do?
"Starting at 3rd level, when you cast mage hand, you can make the spectral hand invisible, and you can perform the following additional tasks with it:
• You can stow one object the hand is holding in a container worn or carried by another creature.
• You can retrieve an object in a container worn or carried by another creature.
• You can use thieves' tools to pick locks and disarm traps at range."
I'm not making it up. I'm not abusing it. These are things that the rules say an arcane trickster can explicitly do with a mage hand. Would it be impossible without some form of sensory feedback or if they can't see exactly what the hand is trying to grasp ... absolutely! However, the rules explicitly say that these things are possible and in fact commonplace for an arcane trickster use of mage hand.
There are two ways a DM can run it consistent with the rules. The DM can just say that these tasks are possible because the rules say they are and it is because it is magic. The DM then has to come up with some system to decide how to adjudicate similar tasks. Can an arcane trickster ONLY do the three extra things explicitly listed?
In any case, the three examples of what the arcane trickster CAN explicitly do, would be impossible without either relying on the explanation is "it's magic so it works" or "there is some sort of sensory feedback". Only the first is RAW. Mage hand is clearly magical. The rules say it can do certain things. The DM determines how to explain it in their games.
P.S. How I choose to run it in my games, and it is NOT RAW, is that the hand provides some very limited sensory feedback to the caster. An arcane trickster gets more detailed sensory information allowing an AT to perform actions with a mage hand that a wizard can not. Keep in mind this is NOT RAW, just how I run it. By using this explanation in my games I can easily and logically adjudicate any actions the players decide to take using the mage hand and it is consistent with the stated RAW text of both the mage hand spell and mage hand legerdemain ... but the rules don't say this ... it is just how I choose to run it.
I'm not talking about the Arcane Trickster and their OP broken mage hand. I'm talking about the using Mage hand in another room where you cannot see.
In my opinion mage hand is just a third hand that the caster can materialize via the spell. I agree with you. I would give the hand a bit of touch feedback. Thus if the caster tried to retrieve and item from the next room without being able to see into the next room, they would have to grope around just as they would have to do with their own hands.
When a mage is stuck on one side of a door, slips the mage hand underneath the door, and tell the DM they want to try to open the door from the blind side with no sensory feedback from the hand, I think it is perfectly reasonable and within the description of the rules for the DM to respond with "OK, tell me how that works."
If the player has a reasonable strategy and the latch system is simple enough (maybe a latch just has to be lifted) then maybe it works. For a complex lock or knob, it's probably not going to happen unless the mage has prior familiarity with the other side of the door. And even then, it's going to be a tough DC at my table.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
What I don't understand is why there would be a lock needing to be picked on the other side of the door.
Latches, knobs, crossbar, sliding chain, sure. A keyhole only on one side?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
And for those that keep saying "Can" means it happens automatically? Yeah, you "can" kill Tiamat with a level 1 fighter armed with a +1 dagger, but it's really unlikely, not automatic.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
(casting Animate Dead on thread)
I've been playing an Arcane Trickster in my first campaign, with 9 levels of experience, and I'd like to weigh in on how I picture Mage Hand working, based on the given rules of both the spell and the Legerdemain feature:
Now for a practical situation. Let's say I know there's probably a latch or chain or (not-too-heavy) bar locking the other side of a door, and can make a good guess where it's located. Even without seeing it, I know the position of the Mage Hand and how it's gesturing. If the hand has no tactile sense, I could still run fingers along the other side and possibly listen for the jangling of a chain or other locking element; with tactile sense I can tell even more, and with a Legerdemain with great tactile sense, I could even try to fumble for a nearby key. These would all require some sort of skill check, Sleight of Hand I assume, and maybe Investigation (with disadvantage?) if you're fumbling for a key or mechanism. A better Hand would lower the DC and/or give more options for interacting with the door.
What about when you really, really need to see what you're doing? If you have a familiar, bamf it onto the other side of the door. Now you can view the situation via the familiar! And if you're an Arcane Trickster, you can keep using your action to see through their eyes while you use your bonus action to control the Hand.
Of course your DM doesn't have to let you get away with not making skill checks. Sleight of Hand guided by a familiar's remote POV can be awkward (I imagine having the Hand be visible would help with that some.) Also, your Hand and/or familiar are on the other side of a door, where there may be a person nearby, so Stealth checks may be in order too. If you have to rely on listening for the jingling of a chain or latch, that would definitely grab the attention of someone nearby.
Anyway, that's what I think about Mage Hand control. A very useful and fun spell if you're creative enough and your DM is willing to let you attempt such things, preferably without automatic success.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)