Does Mage Hand block movement?

[Nifft]

They really made a mess of Conjuration.

What is the current difference between a Conjuration effect and a Zone effect? They are mechanically identical so far as I can tell.

I'd rather they just made Wall of Fire / Wall of Fog into Zones, and removed the Conjuration keyword from Mage Hand, rather than make the Conjuration keyword meaningless.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Runestar]

It would be interesting for the wizard to stand in his own flaming sphere and burn anyone who got too close...

 

[Nifft]

It would be interesting for the wizard to stand in his own flaming sphere and burn anyone who got too close...

It'd be smarter to have the Paladin stand in the Flaming Sphere.

Cheers, -- N

 

[fba827]

It'd be smarter to have the Paladin stand in the Flaming Sphere.

Cheers, -- N

For a double-win, make that a Tiefling paladin

fire-resistance marking man (or woman) that burns all that comes near him (or her)

 

[Runestar]

Fire resistance seems superfluous here, since of the moment, you don't take damage for standing in a flaming sphere.

 

[fba827]

Fire resistance seems superfluous here, since of the moment, you don't take damage for standing in a flaming sphere.

I realize that, but, come on, you're standing in a ball of fire.
Something has to be said for the reasonability (did I just make up a word?) that it would cause fire damage.

(I know, shame on me for trying to be reasonable in the middle of a rules discussion)

 

[Runestar]

I suppose you could say that it is a ring of fire or something, or that the ball is hollow. Though you technically have to pass through the flaming sphere to be able to stand inside it (and should logically take fire damage at least once), but so long as you start your turn adjacent to it...

(I know, shame on me for trying to be reasonable in the middle of a rules discussion)

There is no shame here really. However, this does make me wonder when one ought to insert common sense into a rules argument, and when common sense should be disregarded in favour of rules that were clearly not designed with realism in mind.

The rules for instance, seem to allow for square fireballs with no apparent height limitation (more like a column of flame than a ball of fire), so you can evidently fireball the horde of enemies hovering miles overhead simply by blasting the floor beneath them. Is this how the rules are meant to work (in that 4e is more like a 3D game with a 2D battlefield), or should we adjudicate using common sense (which may then cause the spells to work differently from the way they were intended to)?

 

[Nifft]

I realize that, but, come on, you're standing in a ball of fire.
Something has to be said for the reasonability (did I just make up a word?) that it would cause fire damage.

(I know, shame on me for trying to be reasonable in the middle of a rules discussion)

IMHO it's important to know what the rules actually say before adding reasonable to the conversation.

When you inject reasonable, note that you're adding your own views on how it should work rather than trying to illustrate / illuminate how it does work (by default, in the RAW).

Otherwise, you're asking to be misunderstood, and risking a fruitless & frustrating discussion.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mostlyjoe]

For a few days, one of the wizard's premium control spells was 'Mage Hand'. Just a bit silly, and all that

Talk to the Hand, Bigby's Hand!