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.
Wait, What? This whole thread was started because someone fairly thought that the rules as written were not clear. It happens over and over again.
Arguing over minutia? Looking for an honest solution I fairly wrote:
The RAW is dysfunctional and requires homebrew to make it work.
The easiest thing in the world might be to say, as per first draft response, ~"yeah, sure, let's make it work". Instead, we get is edited responses wanting to argue over minutia.
In this case, what exactly is the benefit of the range of 60 feet without applying it to the entire spell?
As written, nothing. It's been spotted a long time ago by various people on forums, site and other online plateforms if you do a quick research. But i highly doubt that many people play it that way. ☺
Instead of working on an agreement on comments on how people work with the rules, the response was pure confrontation.
Per my comments here, it would have been really easy for WotC to have written their content so that issues like the one brought up in this thread don't need to get raised.
The texts have problems. If that were not the case this thread would not exist.
Pretending that the texts don't have evident problems gives WotC a blank cheque to continue producing dysfunctional texts.
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.
You are mistaken, I am considering the arguments made up to an including the insistence that because RAW has some linguistic concerns elsewhere, that there must be problems here. By your own admission, the intention of the spell and feat are both clear and that your own interpretation of the feat is what breaks the feat. This is a you problem, not a problem with RAW. Once again, 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 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.
Wait, What? This whole thread was started because someone fairly thought that the rules as written were not clear. It happens over and over again.
Arguing over minutia? Looking for an honest solution I fairly wrote:
The RAW is dysfunctional and requires homebrew to make it work.
The easiest thing in the world might be to say, as per first draft response, ~"yeah, sure, let's make it work". Instead, we get is edited responses wanting to argue over minutia.
In this case, what exactly is the benefit of the range of 60 feet without applying it to the entire spell?
As written, nothing. It's been spotted a long time ago by various people on forums, site and other online plateforms if you do a quick research. But i highly doubt that many people play it that way. ☺
Instead of working on an agreement on comments on how people work with the rules, the response was pure confrontation.
Per my comments here, it would have been really easy for WotC to have written their content so that issues like the one brought up in this thread don't need to get raised.
The texts have problems. If that were not the case this thread would not exist.
Pretending that the texts don't have evident problems gives WotC a blank cheque to continue producing dysfunctional texts.
This comment is missing context. The OP asked about total distance that the hand can move in a turn, not the effective range of the spell. There is some irony in this misrepresentation on the topic of precision of language.
Further, this is a case of putting words in the mouth of your opponent. I did not object to the assertion that there are problems with the text anywhere. Please see my original post. My original comment dismissed the current discussion as trivial and that the aggression from some users was and still is entirely unnecessary.
By your own admission, the intention of the spell and feat are both clear and that your own interpretation of the feat is what breaks the feat.
If that is what you took from my post then I'm sorry that I was unclear. I do think that both the text and intention of the spell is clear and I do think that both the text and intention of the feat is clear. However I do not think that those texts or intentions work together in any workable way and that has nothing to do with my interpretation of the feat but all to do with what the spellcasting rules say. The fact that I would allow the intention of the feat to overrule the RAW changes nothing of that.
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.
Wait, What? This whole thread was started because someone fairly thought that the rules as written were not clear. It happens over and over again.
Arguing over minutia? Looking for an honest solution I fairly wrote:
The RAW is dysfunctional and requires homebrew to make it work.
The easiest thing in the world might be to say, as per first draft response, ~"yeah, sure, let's make it work". Instead, we get is edited responses wanting to argue over minutia.
In this case, what exactly is the benefit of the range of 60 feet without applying it to the entire spell?
As written, nothing. It's been spotted a long time ago by various people on forums, site and other online plateforms if you do a quick research. But i highly doubt that many people play it that way. ☺
Instead of working on an agreement on comments on how people work with the rules, the response was pure confrontation.
Per my comments here, it would have been really easy for WotC to have written their content so that issues like the one brought up in this thread don't need to get raised.
The texts have problems. If that were not the case this thread would not exist.
Pretending that the texts don't have evident problems gives WotC a blank cheque to continue producing dysfunctional texts.
This comment is missing context. The OP asked about total distance that the hand can move in a turn, not the effective range of the spell. There is some irony in this misrepresentation on the topic of precision of language.
Further, this is a case of putting words in the mouth of your opponent. I did not object to the assertion that there are problems with the text anywhere. Please see my original post. My original comment dismissed the current discussion as trivial and that the aggression from some users was and still is entirely unnecessary.
My bad for my mix up re the OP. Embarrassingly I got to thinking of the similar issues raised in previous threads and later in this one.
I didn't intend a suggestion to say you objected to the assertion that there are problems with the text anywhere. I can't speak for other contributors but, for me, it's the issue of problems in the texts that I hope can be recognised and, perhaps in a future edition or errata, dealt with.
It's in this context, as we try to raise issues with texts, that it gets frustrating when other contributors make assertions regarding the text being fine. Yes, we are being pedantic but we're not attempting to create issues where there are none. We're trying to highlight problems when we see them in the positive hope they might be solved.
By your own admission, the intention of the spell and feat are both clear and that your own interpretation of the feat is what breaks the feat.
If that is what you took from my post then I'm sorry that I was unclear. I do think that both the text and intention of the spell is clear and I do think that both the text and intention of the feat is clear. However I do not think that those texts or intentions work together in any workable way and that has nothing to do with my interpretation of the feat but all to do with what the spellcasting rules say. The fact that I would allow the intention of the feat to overrule the RAW changes nothing of that.
They work together just fine. In order for the feat to function (which must happen), it alters the limitations of the spell (which is stated in the text). Additionally, when I dismiss some comments as pedantic arguments over minutia, it is not a sufficient rebuttal to address that dismissive comment by arguing further over minutiae. However, this argument has long since gone in circles and has never been on topic to begin with, so I will bow out. You win.
My bad for my mix up re the OP. Embarrassingly I got to thinking of the similar issues raised in previous threads and later in this one.
I didn't intend a suggestion to say you objected to the assertion that there are problems with the text anywhere. I can't speak for other contributors but, for me, it's the issue of problems in the texts that I hope can be recognised and, perhaps in a future edition or errata, dealt with.
It's in this context, as we try to raise issues with texts, that it gets frustrating when other contributors make assertions regarding the text being fine. Yes, we are being pedantic but we're not attempting to create issues where there are none. We're trying to highlight problems when we see them in the positive hope they might be solved.
That sounds reasonable. Thank you for the clarification. I think I understand your motivations a bit better now. :)
They work together just fine. In order for the feat to function (which must happen), it alters the limitations of the spell (which is stated in the text).
Well I guess this is where we differ somewhat. From a rules-mechanics POW (we are where we are after all) I don't think the feat HAS to function. If the designers write poor text that doesn't interact well with the existing rules then you could absolutely end up with feats (or other things) that is completely or partially unusable.
From a game-play POW then I agree that the feat have to work and that is why you make a RAI ruling and move on, just as I've said I would do.
Additionally, when I dismiss some comments as pedantic arguments over minutia, it is not a sufficient rebuttal to address that dismissive comment by arguing further over minutiae. However, this argument has long since gone in circles and has never been on topic to begin with, so I will bow out. You win.
I'm not looking to win anything. I come here with the same intent as Gerg mentioned. I come to learn more about the rules, to help others learn more about the rules and, for the instances where the rules doesn't work, look for good ways to get around RAW problems. And with a slight hope that the things that doesn't work well (or not at all) can in the future be made to work better.
For example the issue discussed here, it isn't covered in the SAC nor have I seen it being asked to Crawford on Twitter. Now I don't use Twitter so I can't do it but it would be interesting to hear his answer to how Mage Hand (and other similarly written spells) interact with the Telekinetic feat and/or the Distant Spell Metamagic.
They work together just fine. In order for the feat to function (which must happen), it alters the limitations of the spell (which is stated in the text).
Well I guess this is where we differ somewhat. From a rules-mechanics POW (we are where we are after all) I don't think the feat HAS to function. If the designers write poor text that doesn't interact well with the existing rules then you could absolutely end up with feats (or other things) that is completely or partially unusable.
From a game-play POW then I agree that the feat have to work and that is why you make a RAI ruling and move on, just as I've said I would do.
Additionally, when I dismiss some comments as pedantic arguments over minutia, it is not a sufficient rebuttal to address that dismissive comment by arguing further over minutiae. However, this argument has long since gone in circles and has never been on topic to begin with, so I will bow out. You win.
I'm not looking to win anything. I come here with the same intent as Gerg mentioned. I come to learn more about the rules, to help others learn more about the rules and, for the instances where the rules doesn't work, look for good ways to get around RAW problems. And with a slight hope that the things that doesn't work well (or not at all) can in the future be made to work better.
For example the issue discussed here, it isn't covered in the SAC nor have I seen it being asked to Crawford on Twitter. Now I don't use Twitter so I can't do it but it would be interesting to hear his answer to how Mage Hand (and other similarly written spells) interact with the Telekinetic feat and/or the Distant Spell Metamagic.
My personal suspicion is that the writers did not intend to write a non-functional feat. RAW they might arguably have done so but, even then, that could remain a matter of interpretation.
I agree with you "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." As mage hand states that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you", a direct reading of this RAW content would indicate that a large section of the second bullet point of the feat does not work.
According to interpretation, the feat could effectively read:
Telekinetic You learn to move things with your mind, granting you the following benefits:
Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You learn the mage hand cantrip. You can cast it without verbal or somatic components, and you can make the spectral hand invisible. ...
As a bonus action, you can try to telekinetically shove one creature you can see within 30 feet of you. When you do so, the target must succeed on a Strength saving throw (DC 8 + your proficiency bonus + the ability modifier of the score increased by this feat) or be moved 5 feet toward you or away from you. A creature can willingly fail this save.
RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another.
When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.
It's possible that they meant to write a non-functioning rule but, from interviews I've heard and other content I've read, they seem to be trying to write functioning content and, on this view, I think it's reasonable to suppose that, RAI, they would have wanted the later content of the second bullet point to function.
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.
Firstly, the "If you already know this spell, its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it." bit can only have a sustained effect if the rule that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you" is superseded.
Secondly, WTF is the "Its spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat" bit all about?
What is the spellcasting ability of:
Mage Hand RANGE/AREA 30 ft DURATION 1 Minute ATTACK/SAVE None DAMAGE/EFFECT Utility
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 an angle that I've not considered before but I think it's possible to consider that the "increased" "spellcasting ability" covers the bit that says that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again" and potentially even the bit that says "You can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it." There's a lot potentially up for interpretation and the feat text certainly isn't in the form I'd have liked to have written it.
I'd likely have written different mistakes.
None-the-less, a logical interpretation of RAI is that as, specifically, mage hand's "spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat", that the hand can persist at a distance 60 "feet away from you" at a distance that corresponds to the spell's range.
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.
...
Secondly, WTF is the "Its spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat" bit all about?
What is the spellcasting ability of:
Mage Hand RANGE/AREA 30 ft DURATION 1 Minute ATTACK/SAVE None DAMAGE/EFFECT Utility
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 an angle that I've not considered before but I think it's possible to consider that the "increased" "spellcasting ability" covers the bit that says that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again" and potentially even the bit that says "You can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it." There's a lot potentially up for interpretation and the feat text certainly isn't in the form I'd have liked to have written it.
I'd likely have written different mistakes.
None-the-less, a logical interpretation of RAI is that as, specifically, mage hand's "spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat", that the hand can persist at a distance 60 "feet away from you" at a distance that corresponds to the spell's range.
Nah, Spellcasting ability is just the ability (Int, Wis, Cha) that is used to make any attack rolls or generate a DC for effects of a given spell. While Mage Hand has no specific attack or DC roll situations described, the rules are careful to ensure all spellcasting has an associated ability just in case a DC interaction is required. The ability you chose to give a +1 in the first point of the feat is your Spellcasting ability for Mage Hand if you don't know it through some other feature.
I think everyone in this thread is otherwise in agreement on the key RAI question: that the "disappears at 30ft" must become "at 60ft". Whether the movement speed of the hand becomes 60 is open, but not very important.
Telekinetic You learn to move things with your mind, granting you the following benefits:
Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You learn the mage hand cantrip. You can cast it without verbal or somatic components, and you can make the spectral hand invisible. ...
As a bonus action, you can try to telekinetically shove one creature you can see within 30 feet of you. When you do so, the target must succeed on a Strength saving throw (DC 8 + your proficiency bonus + the ability modifier of the score increased by this feat) or be moved 5 feet toward you or away from you. A creature can willingly fail this save.
RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another.
When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.
It's possible that they meant to write a non-functioning rule but, from interviews I've heard and other content I've read, they seem to be trying to write functioning content and, on this view, I think it's reasonable to suppose that, RAI, they would have wanted the later content of the second bullet point to function.
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.
Firstly, the "If you already know this spell, its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it." bit can only have a sustained effect if the rule that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you" is superseded.
Secondly, WTF is the "Its spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat" bit all about?
"The ability increased this feat" is referring to the +1 from the Telekinetic Feat that you applied to either INT, WIS or CHA.
I guess it's fairly rare but I've seen rolls be required for the "manipulate an object" part. The more allowing the DM is with what the hand can be used for the more they might also want there to be a possibility of failure which might then necessitate a roll.
But mainly I think it is just some future proofing. Normally you need to have a spellcasting feature to get the spell and then your spellcasting ability/save DC is determined by that feature so here where you can get it without a spellcasting feature that info is lacking.
Could a druid shove something while in wild shape?
Yes.
Telekinetic with wildshape can also give a druid 8 rounds of flying time which can also be used with shove (which might be especially useful if your DM allowed you to shove objects as well as creatures).
You cast mage hand as an action (and, as a moon druid, wildshape as a bonus action). You wildshape as an action as a non-moon druid and jump on the mage hand. You use your actions in the remainder of the one-minute duration of mage hand to control the hand with up to 30 ft of movement per round. You can also shove as a bonus action.
Telekinetic with wildshape can also give a druid 8 rounds of flying time which can also be used with shove (which might be especially useful if your DM allowed you to shove objects as well as creatures).
You cast mage hand as an action (and, as a moon druid, wildshape as a bonus action). You wildshape as an action as a non-moon druid and jump on the mage hand. You use your actions in the remainder of the one-minute duration of mage hand to control the hand with up to 30 ft of movement per round. You can also shove as a bonus action.
You just need to remember the limitations of Mage Hand, "The hand can't attack, activate magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds.", so you better be rather picky of what you wildshape into as most of even the tiny beasts weigh more.
You just need to remember the limitations of Mage Hand, "The hand can't attack, activate magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds.", so you better be rather picky of what you wildshape into as most of even the tiny beasts weigh more.
Wait, What? This whole thread was started because someone fairly thought that the rules as written were not clear. It happens over and over again.
Arguing over minutia? Looking for an honest solution I fairly wrote:
The easiest thing in the world might be to say, as per first draft response, ~"yeah, sure, let's make it work". Instead, we get is edited responses wanting to argue over minutia.
Plaguescarred simply and factually wrote,
Instead of working on an agreement on comments on how people work with the rules, the response was pure confrontation.
Per my comments here, it would have been really easy for WotC to have written their content so that issues like the one brought up in this thread don't need to get raised.
The texts have problems. If that were not the case this thread would not exist.
Pretending that the texts don't have evident problems gives WotC a blank cheque to continue producing dysfunctional texts.
You are mistaken, I am considering the arguments made up to an including the insistence that because RAW has some linguistic concerns elsewhere, that there must be problems here. By your own admission, the intention of the spell and feat are both clear and that your own interpretation of the feat is what breaks the feat. This is a you problem, not a problem with RAW. Once again, 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
This comment is missing context. The OP asked about total distance that the hand can move in a turn, not the effective range of the spell. There is some irony in this misrepresentation on the topic of precision of language.
Further, this is a case of putting words in the mouth of your opponent. I did not object to the assertion that there are problems with the text anywhere. Please see my original post. My original comment dismissed the current discussion as trivial and that the aggression from some users was and still is entirely unnecessary.
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
If that is what you took from my post then I'm sorry that I was unclear. I do think that both the text and intention of the spell is clear and I do think that both the text and intention of the feat is clear. However I do not think that those texts or intentions work together in any workable way and that has nothing to do with my interpretation of the feat but all to do with what the spellcasting rules say.
The fact that I would allow the intention of the feat to overrule the RAW changes nothing of that.
My bad for my mix up re the OP. Embarrassingly I got to thinking of the similar issues raised in previous threads and later in this one.
I didn't intend a suggestion to say you objected to the assertion that there are problems with the text anywhere. I can't speak for other contributors but, for me, it's the issue of problems in the texts that I hope can be recognised and, perhaps in a future edition or errata, dealt with.
It's in this context, as we try to raise issues with texts, that it gets frustrating when other contributors make assertions regarding the text being fine. Yes, we are being pedantic but we're not attempting to create issues where there are none. We're trying to highlight problems when we see them in the positive hope they might be solved.
They work together just fine. In order for the feat to function (which must happen), it alters the limitations of the spell (which is stated in the text). Additionally, when I dismiss some comments as pedantic arguments over minutia, it is not a sufficient rebuttal to address that dismissive comment by arguing further over minutiae. However, this argument has long since gone in circles and has never been on topic to begin with, so I will bow out. You win.
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 sounds reasonable. Thank you for the clarification. I think I understand your motivations a bit better now. :)
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
Well I guess this is where we differ somewhat. From a rules-mechanics POW (we are where we are after all) I don't think the feat HAS to function. If the designers write poor text that doesn't interact well with the existing rules then you could absolutely end up with feats (or other things) that is completely or partially unusable.
From a game-play POW then I agree that the feat have to work and that is why you make a RAI ruling and move on, just as I've said I would do.
I'm not looking to win anything. I come here with the same intent as Gerg mentioned. I come to learn more about the rules, to help others learn more about the rules and, for the instances where the rules doesn't work, look for good ways to get around RAW problems. And with a slight hope that the things that doesn't work well (or not at all) can in the future be made to work better.
For example the issue discussed here, it isn't covered in the SAC nor have I seen it being asked to Crawford on Twitter. Now I don't use Twitter so I can't do it but it would be interesting to hear his answer to how Mage Hand (and other similarly written spells) interact with the Telekinetic feat and/or the Distant Spell Metamagic.
My personal suspicion is that the writers did not intend to write a non-functional feat. RAW they might arguably have done so but, even then, that could remain a matter of interpretation.
I agree with you "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." As mage hand states that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you", a direct reading of this RAW content would indicate that a large section of the second bullet point of the feat does not work.
According to interpretation, the feat could effectively read:
SAC presents:
...
RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another.
When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.
It's possible that they meant to write a non-functioning rule but, from interviews I've heard and other content I've read, they seem to be trying to write functioning content and, on this view, I think it's reasonable to suppose that, RAI, they would have wanted the later content of the second bullet point to function.
Firstly, the "If you already know this spell, its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it." bit can only have a sustained effect if the rule that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you" is superseded.
Secondly, WTF is the "Its spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat" bit all about?
What is the spellcasting ability of:
This is an angle that I've not considered before but I think it's possible to consider that the "increased" "spellcasting ability" covers the bit that says that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again" and potentially even the bit that says "You can move the hand up to 30 feet each time you use it." There's a lot potentially up for interpretation and the feat text certainly isn't in the form I'd have liked to have written it.
I'd likely have written different mistakes.
None-the-less, a logical interpretation of RAI is that as, specifically, mage hand's "spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat", that the hand can persist at a distance 60 "feet away from you" at a distance that corresponds to the spell's range.
Nah, Spellcasting ability is just the ability (Int, Wis, Cha) that is used to make any attack rolls or generate a DC for effects of a given spell. While Mage Hand has no specific attack or DC roll situations described, the rules are careful to ensure all spellcasting has an associated ability just in case a DC interaction is required. The ability you chose to give a +1 in the first point of the feat is your Spellcasting ability for Mage Hand if you don't know it through some other feature.
I think everyone in this thread is otherwise in agreement on the key RAI question: that the "disappears at 30ft" must become "at 60ft". Whether the movement speed of the hand becomes 60 is open, but not very important.
"The ability increased this feat" is referring to the +1 from the Telekinetic Feat that you applied to either INT, WIS or CHA.
Is there any known ways that a character would use its spell attack or save DC while using Mage Hand ?
I guess it's fairly rare but I've seen rolls be required for the "manipulate an object" part. The more allowing the DM is with what the hand can be used for the more they might also want there to be a possibility of failure which might then necessitate a roll.
But mainly I think it is just some future proofing. Normally you need to have a spellcasting feature to get the spell and then your spellcasting ability/save DC is determined by that feature so here where you can get it without a spellcasting feature that info is lacking.
Could a druid shove something while in wild shape?
Yes.
Telekinetic with wildshape can also give a druid 8 rounds of flying time which can also be used with shove (which might be especially useful if your DM allowed you to shove objects as well as creatures).
You cast mage hand as an action (and, as a moon druid, wildshape as a bonus action).
You wildshape as an action as a non-moon druid and jump on the mage hand.
You use your actions in the remainder of the one-minute duration of mage hand to control the hand with up to 30 ft of movement per round.
You can also shove as a bonus action.
You just need to remember the limitations of Mage Hand, "The hand can't attack, activate magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds.", so you better be rather picky of what you wildshape into as most of even the tiny beasts weigh more.
I rather think most tiny beasts weight less than 10 pounds on this list https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters?filter-search=&filter-size=2&filter-type=0&filter-type=2&page=2
Yea "most" probably was overstating it. Quite a few on page 1 like fox or cat or hare or badger does though.
The average weight of these are below 10 according to Google.