D&D 5E Could Mage Hand carry wand of Orcus?

[plisnithus8]

On the first note, the "Wand of Orcus" isn't really a "wand." Even shrinking down to a mortal's size, it's more of a mace or a morningstar than a "wand." I'd say it is certainly over 5 or 10 lbs.

On the second note, in any event, I would definitely not rule that a Mage Hand counts as a "user" of anything. Even the Arcane Trickster's "Legerdemain" specifically calls out the use of thieves' tool [at a distance]-notably light, slender picks and such- and picking pockets as something that can do. Picking up a mace sized/weighted object, I think is clearly outside the feature's purview.

But, ya know, that's me and my rulings. Other DMs' rulings may vary.

Orcus is size huge (OotA p.245), but the wand changes to fit the hand of user. Both a standard mace and morning star are 4 lbs. each according to the PHB p. 149.

As for Mage Hand using it, I think that part it settled, but whether a player holding it gets any features without attuning seems still to be debated.

 

[neogod22]

Orcus is size huge (OotA p.245), but the wand changes to fit the hand of user. Both a standard mace and morning star are 4 lbs. each according to the PHB p. 149.

As for Mage Hand using it, I think that part it settled, but whether a player holding it gets any features without attuning seems still to be debated.

That's not a debate. Read attunement in the DM's guide. I quoted from that. A person not attuned would only be able to use the wand as a nonmagical mace.

Being that this is an artifact that is made by and used by a god, I as a DM would have the wand force attuned to whomever is holding it. 4th Ed. had alignment points for sentient items. I think they should've brought that back.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[plisnithus8]

That's not a debate.

While I think you may have the better arguement and would likely rule on your side, just because you feel you are correct doesn't mean there isn't a debate.

 

[steeldragons]

Both a standard mace and morning star are 4 lbs. each according to the PHB p. 149.

Well, that's patently ridiculous. Certainly not using that as "reality" in game.

As for Mage Hand using it, I think that part it settled,

Yes, I suppose it is. I've settled it...were it to come up at my table. It's a "no."

 

[neogod22]

While I think you may have the better arguement and would likely rule on your side, just because you feel you are correct doesn't mean there isn't a debate.

Page 138 in the DMG. RAW it's a no. If you as a DM decide to change the rules, that's on you.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[plisnithus8]

Page 138 in the DMG. RAW it's a no. If you as a DM decide to change the rules, that's on you.

Again, I'm agreeing with you that I think the ambiguous wording leans toward needing attunement, but the wording is not a clear RAW issue.
On page 138 of the DMG, it says, "Without becoming attuned to an item that requires attunement, a creature gains only its nonmagical benefits, UNLESS its description states otherwise." The part after the UNLESS (my capitalization) is what makes the rest of the sentence lose power and keep the debate alive.

 

[neogod22]

Again, I'm agreeing with you that I think the ambiguous wording leans toward needing attunement, but the wording is not a clear RAW issue.
On page 138 of the DMG, it says, "Without becoming attuned to an item that requires attunement, a creature gains only its nonmagical benefits, UNLESS its description states otherwise." The part after the UNLESS (my capitalization) is what makes the rest of the sentence lose power and keep the debate alive.

I see that, but after unless, it says specifically otherwise meaning, it has to say the words "doesn't need attunement." And I think that is to give the DM latitude when creating magic items, since I believe none of them in the book has that exception.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[neogod22]

An example of that exception is 2nd ed. Holy Avenger. In the hands of anyone other than a paladin, it's a +2 sword, but in the hands of a paladin, it's a +5 with the other abilities.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[plisnithus8]

I see that, but after unless, it says specifically otherwise meaning, it has to say the words "doesn't need attunement." And I think that is to give the DM latitude when creating magic items, since I believe none of them in the book has that exception.

How would you know it needs those exact words? Is that stated somewhere? As you mention, there are no examples of those words being used. Someone taking the opposite side of the debate (again, not me) could say it must have something else in the description, and they would have as many examples of being correct.

Also, I don't think 5e RAW refer back to anything in 2nd edition.