The RAW is dysfunctional and requires homebrew to make it work.
The RAW is fine.
The feat says it increases the range to 60ft. End. Period. The spell now works out to a range of 60ft. Whatever you think you need to change to allow it to fulfil that functional range, change it. Because that's what the feat does.
RAW is riddled with a large number of well-documented problems...
RAW:
... The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you ...
The RAW is dysfunctional and requires homebrew to make it work.
The RAW is fine.
The feat says it increases the range to 60ft. End. Period. The spell now works out to a range of 60ft. Whatever you think you need to change to allow it to fulfil that functional range, change it. Because that's what the feat does.
RAW is riddled with a large number of well-documented problems...
RAW:
... The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you ...
Guys, the feat does what it says it does. You can use the mage hand out to 60ft. There is no need to overcomplicate this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The feat says it increases the range to 60ft. End. Period. The spell now works out to a range of 60ft. Whatever you think you need to change to allow it to fulfil that functional range, change it. Because that's what the feat does.
No. The rules are very clear that the range a spell can be cast at and the distance a spell effect can exist/be used at are two separate things. So changing the range to 60ft has not functional effect here as the spell description hard codes it to vanish at 30ft.
But of course no one actually plays it like that. It's just a f**k up by the one who wrote the feat (it is somewhat annoying that they haven't bothered to errata it though). If you allow the feat in your game then of course you should allow the vanish distance to increase to 60ft just as the range is increased. The one thing I wouldn't change though is the 30ft distance you can move it in a turn, no reason that this instance of Mage Hand should be any quicker that a regular one IMO.
The feat says it increases the range to 60ft. End. Period. The spell now works out to a range of 60ft. Whatever you think you need to change to allow it to fulfil that functional range, change it. Because that's what the feat does.
No. The rules are very clear that the range a spell can be cast at and the distance a spell effect can exist/be used at are two separate things. So changing the range to 60ft has not functional effect here as the spell description hard codes it to vanish at 30ft.
But of course no one actually plays it like that. It's just a f**k up by the one who wrote the feat (it is somewhat annoying that they haven't bothered to errata it though). If you allow the feat in your game then of course you should allow the vanish distance to increase to 60ft just as the range is increased. The one thing I wouldn't change though is the 30ft distance you can move it in a turn, no reason that this instance of Mage Hand should be any quicker that a regular one IMO.
It moves 60ft in a turn because that is the new range of the spell after being modified by the feat. There is no issue here. The RAW is fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It seems pretty clear from the wording that the feat modifies the spell. The mage hand spell is getting an increase in power. It's utility is expanded to cover 60ft (which necessarily modifies the original 30ft limitation), and the things it can do within the original 30ft has also been expanded. I do not see the issue here. I am surprised this has gotten so much heated discourse.
Honestly, it never actually occurred to me that the spell’s statement that the hand disappears if it is ever more than 30 feet away would have conceivably been as an independent measurement separate from the spell’s range. The only reason Mage hand has any such statement is because other spells only care about range when cast, and of a persisting effect can later get moved then they are free to exceed the spell’s casting range without issue.The fact that the feat increases the range of the spell automatically meant in my mind that the hand would now not disappear at 30 feet anymore, but rather at 60 feet now. The RAW for the feat is fine, it’s the spell that has now proven to be clunkilly worded. It’ll likely get an errata in the next round to change that line to read that the hand disappears if it is ever beyond the spell’s range, because that was obviously RAI. If it doesn’t get an errata it will be because they might not bother with another one since they’re already doing the whole reboot in ‘24. Obviously when they wrote the PHB more than 7 years ago, they had no reason to ever anticipate this issue because:
They likely never considered that anyone would separate both instances mention the exact same 30-foot distance.
They also likely never conceived of any situation that would modify the spell’s range.
And they probably never imagined back the that Psionics would end up as Spellcasting because it’s a silly notion pushed by people who simply couldn’t imagine anything other than what they’re used to because people.
I will say though that the D&D design team at WotC really should have known better. The D&D team work for the same company that makes M:tG for crying out loud. They started making mistakes so long ago that TSR still published D&D. M:tG had to trip over these exact same kinds of issues caused by the exact same kind of shortsightedness for at least a decade before they finally their 💩 together. The multiple various iterations of Lord of Atlantis alone should have been a warning on and example of the importance of consistent wording. 🤷♂️
The feat says it increases the range to 60ft. End. Period. The spell now works out to a range of 60ft. Whatever you think you need to change to allow it to fulfil that functional range, change it. Because that's what the feat does.
No. The rules are very clear that the range a spell can be cast at and the distance a spell effect can exist/be used at are two separate things. So changing the range to 60ft has not functional effect here as the spell description hard codes it to vanish at 30ft.
But of course no one actually plays it like that. It's just a f**k up by the one who wrote the feat (it is somewhat annoying that they haven't bothered to errata it though). If you allow the feat in your game then of course you should allow the vanish distance to increase to 60ft just as the range is increased. The one thing I wouldn't change though is the 30ft distance you can move it in a turn, no reason that this instance of Mage Hand should be any quicker that a regular one IMO.
It moves 60ft in a turn because that is the new range of the spell after being modified by the feat. There is no issue here. The RAW is fine.
Also wrong. The fact that you can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it has nothing to do with its range and its therefore not affected by game elements changing the spell's range. For it to be the case, Mage Hand would have to say that you can move the hand up to any other spot within range each time you use it, like Dancing Lights, Silent Image or Major Image.
The RAW is dysfunctional and requires homebrew to make it work.
The RAW is fine.
The feat says it increases the range to 60ft. End. Period. The spell now works out to a range of 60ft. Whatever you think you need to change to allow it to fulfil that functional range, change it. Because that's what the feat does.
The RAW is dysfunctional - and I'd like to cite 3, going on 4 pages of this thread as evidence to that effect. (I liked your first draft of this replied to post better. It could have saved us from further, pointless, timewasting argument).
RAW:
Telekinetic You learn to move things with your mind, granting you the following benefits:...
You learn the mage hand cantrip. You can cast it without verbal or somatic components, and you can make the spectral hand invisible. If you already know this spell, its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it. Its spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat. ...
RAimhoshbW:
"If you already know this spell, its range and operational distance increase by 30 feet when you cast it."
RAW
Mage Hand RANGE/AREA 30 ft 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.
RAimhoshbW:
"The hand vanishes if you cast this spell again or if it is ever more than its range distance from you."
In either case, the RAW could have worked with effect that repeated threads like this would have been unnecessary.
Honestly, it never actually occurred to me that the spell’s statement that the hand disappears if it is ever more than 30 feet away would have conceivably been as an independent measurement separate from the spell’s range. The only reason Mage hand has any such statement is because other spells only care about range when cast, and of a persisting effect can later get moved then they are free to exceed the spell’s casting range without issue.The fact that the feat increases the range of the spell automatically meant in my mind that the hand would now not disappear at 30 feet anymore, but rather at 60 feet now.
Some spells, like Spiritual Weapon, have no limitation on its continual effect. Other spells, like Silent Image, uses "range" as its limit. And some spells, like Faithful Hound, uses a specified distance in feet as its limit. That's three different ways they chose to word the limitations (or non-limitation) and they work somewhat differently and I see no reason to just ignore that. And Mage Hand quite clearly is worded with an "X ft" limitation and not a "range" limitation.
The RAW for the feat is fine, it’s the spell that has now proven to be clunkilly worded. It’ll likely get an errata in the next round to change that line to read that the hand disappears if it is ever beyond the spell’s range, because that was obviously RAI. If it doesn’t get an errata it will be because they might not bother with another one since they’re already doing the whole reboot in ‘24. Obviously when they wrote the PHB more than 7 years ago, they had no reason to ever anticipate this issue because:
I'm not sure I would put all of the blame on the spell tbh. Sure its wording means that it is harder to apply additions/changes to than a spell that uses "range" in its description. But why do it at all? The feat would have been just fine with just giving access to Mage Hand, adding extra range wasn't needed.
They likely never considered that anyone would separate both instances mention the exact same 30-foot distance.
I can understand why players would go "30ft there, 30ft there and 30ft there" and just assume that it's the same 30ft in all places but why would you assume that the designers would too, they clearly knew the difference between "range" and "X ft" and chose to vary the wording of spells. Why couldn't it have been intended for balancing reasons?
It seems pretty clear from the wording that the feat modifies the spell. The mage hand spell is getting an increase in power. It's utility is expanded to cover 60ft (which necessarily modifies the original 30ft limitation), and the things it can do within the original 30ft has also been expanded. I do not see the issue here. I am surprised this has gotten so much heated discourse.
The intent of the feat is very clear, unfortunately it is just an unworkable change due to the wording of the spell and the discourse comes from some being unable to accept that.
As I've said before I would absolutely allow someone with the feat to use the hand at the full 60ft distance. But I do so with the knowledge that I'm making a RAI ruling to do so.
The spell is clearly at fault in the sense that any game element that increase a spell's range such as the feat Telekinetic or the feature Distant Spell will not benefit Mage Hand as currently written, since the hand will erupt at a farther range and immediately vanish being more than 30 feet away from you.
The spell is clearly at fault in the sense that any game element that increase a spell's range such as the feat Telekinetic or the feature Distant Spell will not benefit Mage Hand as currently written, since the hand will erupt at a farther range and immediately vanish being more than 30 feet away from you.
That's certainly how it is.
Mage Hand, as per Basic Rules, was no problem until Tasha's came along. The wording certainly wasn't future-proofed and was a bit cobbled together but, with nothing much testing it, it worked fine.
Then Tasha's brought in its telekinetic feat with reference solely that "its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it" with stated effects that failed to fit with the wording of Mage Hand. It was really down to the writers of Tasha's to make sure that their contributions could work unambiguously with even cobbled together texts that had come before. This is something that, given some thought, they could easily have done.
It seems pretty clear from the wording that the feat modifies the spell. The mage hand spell is getting an increase in power. It's utility is expanded to cover 60ft (which necessarily modifies the original 30ft limitation), and the things it can do within the original 30ft has also been expanded. I do not see the issue here. I am surprised this has gotten so much heated discourse.
The intent of the feat is very clear, unfortunately it is just an unworkable change due to the wording of the spell and the discourse comes from some being unable to accept that.
As I've said before I would absolutely allow someone with the feat to use the hand at the full 60ft distance. But I do so with the knowledge that I'm making a RAI ruling to do so.
Precisely, RAW is clearly shown to be dysfunctional especially when parallel references are taken from Sorcerer's Distant Spell.
It can be readily "fixed" with the application of RAI.
As I've said before I would absolutely allow someone with the feat to use the hand at the full 60ft distance. But I do so with the knowledge that I'm making a RAI ruling to do so.
I'd also throw in RAF as it's more fun to make it work than not to. ☺
It seems pretty clear from the wording that the feat modifies the spell. The mage hand spell is getting an increase in power. It's utility is expanded to cover 60ft (which necessarily modifies the original 30ft limitation), and the things it can do within the original 30ft has also been expanded. I do not see the issue here. I am surprised this has gotten so much heated discourse.
The intent of the feat is very clear, unfortunately it is just an unworkable change due to the wording of the spell and the discourse comes from some being unable to accept that.
As I've said before I would absolutely allow someone with the feat to use the hand at the full 60ft distance. But I do so with the knowledge that I'm making a RAI ruling to do so.
The wording of the spell clearly is there to prevent people from casting at the maximum range, and then moving the hand beyond that 30ft. Feats modify the baseline by design.
It seems pretty clear from the wording that the feat modifies the spell. The mage hand spell is getting an increase in power. It's utility is expanded to cover 60ft (which necessarily modifies the original 30ft limitation), and the things it can do within the original 30ft has also been expanded. I do not see the issue here. I am surprised this has gotten so much heated discourse.
The intent of the feat is very clear, unfortunately it is just an unworkable change due to the wording of the spell and the discourse comes from some being unable to accept that.
As I've said before I would absolutely allow someone with the feat to use the hand at the full 60ft distance. But I do so with the knowledge that I'm making a RAI ruling to do so.
The wording of the spell clearly is there to prevent people from casting at the maximum range, and then moving the hand beyond that 30ft. Feats modify the baseline by design.
That's the same clear RAI interpretation that Thezzaruz is making.
It seems pretty clear from the wording that the feat modifies the spell. The mage hand spell is getting an increase in power. It's utility is expanded to cover 60ft (which necessarily modifies the original 30ft limitation), and the things it can do within the original 30ft has also been expanded. I do not see the issue here. I am surprised this has gotten so much heated discourse.
The intent of the feat is very clear, unfortunately it is just an unworkable change due to the wording of the spell and the discourse comes from some being unable to accept that.
As I've said before I would absolutely allow someone with the feat to use the hand at the full 60ft distance. But I do so with the knowledge that I'm making a RAI ruling to do so.
The wording of the spell clearly is there to prevent people from casting at the maximum range, and then moving the hand beyond that 30ft. Feats modify the baseline by design.
That's the same clear RAI interpretation that Thezzaruz is making.
I understand the argument being made. It is a pedantic argument that attempts to create an issue where there is none by splitting hairs. The rules as written are clear to anyone who is not looking for a reason to argue over minutia.
Honestly, it never actually occurred to me that the spell’s statement that the hand disappears if it is ever more than 30 feet away would have conceivably been as an independent measurement separate from the spell’s range. The only reason Mage hand has any such statement is because other spells only care about range when cast, and of a persisting effect can later get moved then they are free to exceed the spell’s casting range without issue.The fact that the feat increases the range of the spell automatically meant in my mind that the hand would now not disappear at 30 feet anymore, but rather at 60 feet now.
Some spells, like Spiritual Weapon, have no limitation on its continual effect. Other spells, like Silent Image, uses "range" as its limit. And some spells, like Faithful Hound, uses a specified distance in feet as its limit. That's three different ways they chose to word the limitations (or non-limitation) and they work somewhat differently and I see no reason to just ignore that. And Mage Hand quite clearly is worded with an "X ft" limitation and not a "range" limitation.
🤦♂️
I didn’t say “all other spells only care about range when cast…” I just said “other spells….” You yourself conveniently linked the RAW stating “Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise” which stands in direct support of my statement. You then followed up by presenting spiritual weapon as an example of “some [of the] spells [that] have no limitation on [their] continual effect[s],” so by your own admission there exists more than one spell that function the same way, further supporting my statement.
In addition, I did not state that they used the specific wording “the hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you…” as the sole instance of “a spell’s description say[ing] otherwise.” I also did not say that every other instance of such a caveat used the same, or even similar wording. Nor did I even allude to their either using, or not using “range” as a way of “say[ing] otherwise” in a spell’s description. What I actually wrote merely commented on the reason they included “any such statement.” To be clear, the reason they included “any such statement” is because: “Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise” and they wanted to “say otherwise.”
Your own arguments used in an attempt to contradict my statement stand as proof that, yes, what I wrote in fact, “is simply true.” For someone so apparently inclined to nitpick the bejeepers out of the minutia associated with specific verbiage, you sure missed the mark on this one chummer.
The RAW for the feat is fine, it’s the spell that has now proven to be clunkilly worded. It’ll likely get an errata in the next round to change that line to read that the hand disappears if it is ever beyond the spell’s range, because that was obviously RAI. If it doesn’t get an errata it will be because they might not bother with another one since they’re already doing the whole reboot in ‘24. Obviously when they wrote the PHB more than 7 years ago, they had no reason to ever anticipate this issue because:
I'm not sure I would put all of the blame on the spell tbh. Sure its wording means that it is harder to apply additions/changes to than a spell that uses "range" in its description. But why do it at all? The feat would have been just fine with just giving access to Mage Hand, adding extra range wasn't needed.
The feat itself isn’t “needed,” the spell isn’t “needed,” heck D&D isn’t “needed.” The necessity for the additional range is not in debate, so your statement as to its lack of necessity is irrelevant. In addition, your opinion that “the feat would have been just fine with just giving access to Mage Hand…” is also entirely irrelevant to the conversation. Whether or not it was necessary, and how you feel about it don’t contribute to the discussion regarding whether or not the stated distance at which the hand disappears is a cause for any malfunction with how the feat and spell interact.
They likely never considered that anyone would separate both instances mention the exact same 30-foot distance.
I can understand why players would go "30ft there, 30ft there and 30ft there" and just assume that it's the same 30ft in all places but why would you assume that the designers would too, they clearly knew the difference between "range" and "X ft" and chose to vary the wording of spells. Why couldn't it have been intended for balancing reasons?
I make that assumption based on the fact that 5e is absolutely riddled with examples of sloppy, inconsistent, and Ill-considered language, coupled with my low opinions of Jeremy Crawford’s decision making. If I were a betting man, and I am, I would put my chips on him thinking that the phrase “is ever more than 30 feet away from you” and “ever exceeds the spell’s range” were synonymous in this instance. I get it, he likely had more to do than scrutinize every single turn of phrase that went into the books. But had there been a focus on clear, consistent, standardized verbiage from day one then the pockmarked craters that litter the landscape of 5e RAW would be a lot more like a pane of glass, and ¾ of the threads in this forum would never have been created as there would not have been any need.
I understand the argument being made. It is a pedantic argument that attempts to create an issue where there is none by splitting hairs. The rules as written are clear to anyone who is not looking for a reason to argue over minutia.
It's only pedantic because you are looking at it as an isolated issue.
Before Tasha's I would only have allowed Distant Spell to increase the range of Mage Hand but not the vanish distance because, by RAW, it only doubles the range not any other distance. And I would use the same thinking for any spell that has a distance limit in its description that is "X ft". It would make such spells a extremely useless uses of the metamagic point but thems the breaks. They clearly chose to have some spells use "range", some use "X ft" and some have no limitations and seeing as there has been no errata and nothing in the SAC I would have to assume that they chose which had which wording for some intentional reason.
Of course now that the Telekinetic feat exists it is clear that they meant an increase in range to also increase other distance limitations in the description and thus I would, as I've said, allow the feat to increase both distances. But if I allow the feat to do it then why not allow Distant Spell to do the same, after all its doubling has the same effect.
So the effect of a poorly worded feat is that RAW and RAI no longer aligns. And the new RAI doesn't just affect how one feat and one spell interacts, it affects how one feat and one class feature interacts with several spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
RAW is riddled with a large number of well-documented problems...
Guys, the feat does what it says it does. You can use the mage hand out to 60ft. There is no need to overcomplicate this.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
if
No. The rules are very clear that the range a spell can be cast at and the distance a spell effect can exist/be used at are two separate things. So changing the range to 60ft has not functional effect here as the spell description hard codes it to vanish at 30ft.
But of course no one actually plays it like that. It's just a f**k up by the one who wrote the feat (it is somewhat annoying that they haven't bothered to errata it though). If you allow the feat in your game then of course you should allow the vanish distance to increase to 60ft just as the range is increased. The one thing I wouldn't change though is the 30ft distance you can move it in a turn, no reason that this instance of Mage Hand should be any quicker that a regular one IMO.
It moves 60ft in a turn because that is the new range of the spell after being modified by the feat. There is no issue here. The RAW is fine.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It seems pretty clear from the wording that the feat modifies the spell. The mage hand spell is getting an increase in power. It's utility is expanded to cover 60ft (which necessarily modifies the original 30ft limitation), and the things it can do within the original 30ft has also been expanded. I do not see the issue here. I am surprised this has gotten so much heated discourse.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Honestly, it never actually occurred to me that the spell’s statement that the hand disappears if it is ever more than 30 feet away would have conceivably been as an independent measurement separate from the spell’s range. The only reason Mage hand has any such statement is because other spells only care about range when cast, and of a persisting effect can later get moved then they are free to exceed the spell’s casting range without issue.The fact that the feat increases the range of the spell automatically meant in my mind that the hand would now not disappear at 30 feet anymore, but rather at 60 feet now. The RAW for the feat is fine, it’s the spell that has now proven to be clunkilly worded. It’ll likely get an errata in the next round to change that line to read that the hand disappears if it is ever beyond the spell’s range, because that was obviously RAI. If it doesn’t get an errata it will be because they might not bother with another one since they’re already doing the whole reboot in ‘24. Obviously when they wrote the PHB more than 7 years ago, they had no reason to ever anticipate this issue because:
I will say though that the D&D design team at WotC really should have known better. The D&D team work for the same company that makes M:tG for crying out loud. They started making mistakes so long ago that TSR still published D&D. M:tG had to trip over these exact same kinds of issues caused by the exact same kind of shortsightedness for at least a decade before they finally their 💩 together. The multiple various iterations of Lord of Atlantis alone should have been a warning on and example of the importance of consistent wording. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Also wrong. The fact that you can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it has nothing to do with its range and its therefore not affected by game elements changing the spell's range. For it to be the case, Mage Hand would have to say that you can move the hand up to any other spot within range each time you use it, like Dancing Lights, Silent Image or Major Image.
Plenty of spells can be moved a distance with no ties to their range, such as Bigby's Hand, Flaming Sphere or Spiritual Weapon
The RAW is dysfunctional - and I'd like to cite 3, going on 4 pages of this thread as evidence to that effect.
(I liked your first draft of this replied to post better. It could have saved us from further, pointless, timewasting argument).
RAW:
RAimhoshbW:
"If you already know this spell, its range and operational distance increase by 30 feet when you cast it."
RAW
RAimhoshbW:
"The hand vanishes if you cast this spell again or if it is ever more than its range distance from you."
In either case, the RAW could have worked with effect that repeated threads like this would have been unnecessary.
That simply isn't true. The range section of the spellcasting rules says "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise." which allows for limitations and the designers clearly uses that from time to time.
Some spells, like Spiritual Weapon, have no limitation on its continual effect. Other spells, like Silent Image, uses "range" as its limit. And some spells, like Faithful Hound, uses a specified distance in feet as its limit. That's three different ways they chose to word the limitations (or non-limitation) and they work somewhat differently and I see no reason to just ignore that. And Mage Hand quite clearly is worded with an "X ft" limitation and not a "range" limitation.
I'm not sure I would put all of the blame on the spell tbh. Sure its wording means that it is harder to apply additions/changes to than a spell that uses "range" in its description. But why do it at all? The feat would have been just fine with just giving access to Mage Hand, adding extra range wasn't needed.
I can understand why players would go "30ft there, 30ft there and 30ft there" and just assume that it's the same 30ft in all places but why would you assume that the designers would too, they clearly knew the difference between "range" and "X ft" and chose to vary the wording of spells. Why couldn't it have been intended for balancing reasons?
The intent of the feat is very clear, unfortunately it is just an unworkable change due to the wording of the spell and the discourse comes from some being unable to accept that.
As I've said before I would absolutely allow someone with the feat to use the hand at the full 60ft distance. But I do so with the knowledge that I'm making a RAI ruling to do so.
The spell is clearly at fault in the sense that any game element that increase a spell's range such as the feat Telekinetic or the feature Distant Spell will not benefit Mage Hand as currently written, since the hand will erupt at a farther range and immediately vanish being more than 30 feet away from you.
That's certainly how it is.
Mage Hand, as per Basic Rules, was no problem until Tasha's came along. The wording certainly wasn't future-proofed and was a bit cobbled together but, with nothing much testing it, it worked fine.
Then Tasha's brought in its telekinetic feat with reference solely that "its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it" with stated effects that failed to fit with the wording of Mage Hand. It was really down to the writers of Tasha's to make sure that their contributions could work unambiguously with even cobbled together texts that had come before. This is something that, given some thought, they could easily have done.
Precisely, RAW is clearly shown to be dysfunctional especially when parallel references are taken from Sorcerer's Distant Spell.
It can be readily "fixed" with the application of RAI.
I'd also throw in RAF as it's more fun to make it work than not to. ☺
The wording of the spell clearly is there to prevent people from casting at the maximum range, and then moving the hand beyond that 30ft. Feats modify the baseline by design.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
That's the same clear RAI interpretation that Thezzaruz is making.
I understand the argument being made. It is a pedantic argument that attempts to create an issue where there is none by splitting hairs. The rules as written are clear to anyone who is not looking for a reason to argue over minutia.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
🤦♂️
I didn’t say “all other spells only care about range when cast…” I just said “other spells….” You yourself conveniently linked the RAW stating “Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise” which stands in direct support of my statement. You then followed up by presenting spiritual weapon as an example of “some [of the] spells [that] have no limitation on [their] continual effect[s],” so by your own admission there exists more than one spell that function the same way, further supporting my statement.
In addition, I did not state that they used the specific wording “the hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you…” as the sole instance of “a spell’s description say[ing] otherwise.” I also did not say that every other instance of such a caveat used the same, or even similar wording. Nor did I even allude to their either using, or not using “range” as a way of “say[ing] otherwise” in a spell’s description. What I actually wrote merely commented on the reason they included “any such statement.” To be clear, the reason they included “any such statement” is because: “Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise” and they wanted to “say otherwise.”
Your own arguments used in an attempt to contradict my statement stand as proof that, yes, what I wrote in fact, “is simply true.” For someone so apparently inclined to nitpick the bejeepers out of the minutia associated with specific verbiage, you sure missed the mark on this one chummer.
The feat itself isn’t “needed,” the spell isn’t “needed,” heck D&D isn’t “needed.” The necessity for the additional range is not in debate, so your statement as to its lack of necessity is irrelevant. In addition, your opinion that “the feat would have been just fine with just giving access to Mage Hand…” is also entirely irrelevant to the conversation. Whether or not it was necessary, and how you feel about it don’t contribute to the discussion regarding whether or not the stated distance at which the hand disappears is a cause for any malfunction with how the feat and spell interact.
I make that assumption based on the fact that 5e is absolutely riddled with examples of sloppy, inconsistent, and Ill-considered language, coupled with my low opinions of Jeremy Crawford’s decision making. If I were a betting man, and I am, I would put my chips on him thinking that the phrase “is ever more than 30 feet away from you” and “ever exceeds the spell’s range” were synonymous in this instance. I get it, he likely had more to do than scrutinize every single turn of phrase that went into the books. But had there been a focus on clear, consistent, standardized verbiage from day one then the pockmarked craters that litter the landscape of 5e RAW would be a lot more like a pane of glass, and ¾ of the threads in this forum would never have been created as there would not have been any need.
Edit: Broken links repaired.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's only pedantic because you are looking at it as an isolated issue.
Before Tasha's I would only have allowed Distant Spell to increase the range of Mage Hand but not the vanish distance because, by RAW, it only doubles the range not any other distance. And I would use the same thinking for any spell that has a distance limit in its description that is "X ft". It would make such spells a extremely useless uses of the metamagic point but thems the breaks.
They clearly chose to have some spells use "range", some use "X ft" and some have no limitations and seeing as there has been no errata and nothing in the SAC I would have to assume that they chose which had which wording for some intentional reason.
Of course now that the Telekinetic feat exists it is clear that they meant an increase in range to also increase other distance limitations in the description and thus I would, as I've said, allow the feat to increase both distances. But if I allow the feat to do it then why not allow Distant Spell to do the same, after all its doubling has the same effect.
So the effect of a poorly worded feat is that RAW and RAI no longer aligns. And the new RAI doesn't just affect how one feat and one spell interacts, it affects how one feat and one class feature interacts with several spells.