D&D 5E How do you DM Mage Hand Legerdemain and oil/acid/holy water

[AtomicPope]

The knick is having the mage hand out though, because although you can use it with a BA, it takes an action to cast. So if it is not already out it when combat starts, it can be difficult to get it out.

As a DM we ran into this very early on, and yes it's a problem for Tricksters. Our AT got into the good habit of using his Mage Hand to open doors, thus always having the spell on and ready just in case. Not to mention, opening doors from a distance is quite safe.

 

[ECMO3]

RAW - the hand cannot attack.

It's really only useful in combat for an Arcane Trickster, as it allow them to disarm traps or administer a potion (neither are attacks) as a bonus action.

You can also use it to steal things from enemies in combat - weapons, spell foci and component pouches, as long as they are under the weight limit and not being held. Stealing things from people is in the description of MHL, so it is RAW.

You can also use it apply poison, either applying an injury poision to an allies weapon or using an inhaled or contact poison against an enemy. Those would be a use an object, which the hand can do.

You can't use it to administer a potion, because potions are magic items and the hand is not allowed to use magic items. You could try to stabilize someone though, or feed them a goodberry.

 

[ECMO3]

No one is claiming you can't. They're just pointing out that you can't dump it rapidly and accurately on someone as an attack, because the spell specifically prohibits making attacks.

It is not an attack, it is use an object. If you put the hand above an enemy and dump it out it is going to go somewhere.

The jug of oil is not invisible.

When you have invisibility, all objects worn or carried are also invisible. I believe Crawford confirmed this with Mage Hand Legerdemain specifically in Sage Advice.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It is not an attack, it is use an object. If you put the hand above an enemy and dump it out it is going to go somewhere.

Indeed. It is going to hit the ground.

If you want to splash a creature with the stream of oil that you're pouring out, you will need to make an attack roll. If you're prohibited from making attack rolls, you're not able to hit the creature, but the oil is still going to go on the ground.

See also "My familiar has the statistics of an owl, which include a claw attack. Therefore my familiar can attack!"

When you have invisibility, all objects worn or carried are also invisible. I believe Crawford confirmed this with Mage Hand Legerdemain specifically in Sage Advice.

Would you (and your DM!) actually accept Crawford's ruling on this? Those aren't always well-regarded for actual play.

 

[jgsugden]

As a DM, I'd follow the rules as written and not allow the Mage Hand to be used to make an attack role, and as an attack role is required to dump the material on he target ... not possible.

Then, I'd make sure I'd insert something into the game that allowed that PC to break that rule, and I'd provide them more opportunities to use the ability. Why? Because the players wants it to happen, it would be fun, and it doesn't break the game. It is part of their schtick, and being the one Arcane Trickster that can do it makes them feel special and cool. That is good for the game.

 

[ECMO3]

Indeed. It is going to hit the ground.

If you want to splash a creature with the stream of oil that you're pouring out, you will need to make an attack roll. If you're prohibited from making attack rolls, you're not able to hit the creature, but the oil is still going to go on the ground.

See also "My familiar has the statistics of an owl, which include a claw attack. Therefore my familiar can attack!"

Well I think you can do it with a contest, but even if it requires an attack roll; that does not necessarily make it part of the attack action. There is a difference between an attack roll and the attack action. Your familiar example actually illustrates this point.

From the Find Familiar Spell:
"..... when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell. Your familiar must be within 100 feet of you, and it must use its reaction to deliver the spell when you cast it. If the spell requires an attack roll, you use your attack modifier for the roll."

So even though a familiar "can't attack" (and I agree with you on that) you can within the limits of the spell, roll an attack roll for it to arbitrate success or failure for something other than the attack action that it can do. Your argument so far is you can't use oil in this way because using it requires an attack roll. An attack roll is different than the attack action and pouring oil on someone is not the attack action, it is use an object action.

The familiar cant take the attack action and as such can't use its claws but as the spell wording clearly demonstrates it is able to make an attack roll for things other than the attack action.

Would you (and your DM!) actually accept Crawford's ruling on this? Those aren't always well-regarded for actual play.

Yes, because there is not much point in the hand being invisible if what it is carrying is not invisible also. That would be largely irrelevant.

 

[S'mon]

OK, I've read over Mage Hand and Mage Hand Legerdemain, and slept on this. One of my campaigns has an Arcane Trickster so it seemed worth putting the effort in.

My conclusion: the AT can pour out a vial (or similar) as a bonus action. They can pour it out while it's above a monster. There is a risk to the monster of it getting liquid on it, but the hand cannot make an attack roll, and the Arcane Trickster can't make an attack through the hand.

Therefore my ruling is that the monster should have to make a DEX save to avoid the liquid. I'd say DEX DC 5 if Tiny, DC 10 if Small-Medium, DC 15 if Large, DC 20 if Huge, DC 25 if Collossal looks about right. On a fail, some of the liquid goes over the monster.

Edit: I absolutely positively would never make picked up/carried items become invisible, though.

 

[Yaarel]

So I play a lot of Arcane Tricksters and I have played with a lot of DMs and I have found a wide variance on how much they allow with Mage Hand Legerdemain in combat.

For example - the mage hand is out/active and the rogue is in combat. He wants to use a bonus action to pull a flask of oil (or holy water or acid) out of his pack and dump in on BBEG. Dumping oil is clearly allowed as it is in the description of mage hand.

Ranking the DMs I have played with 1-6 easiest to hardest.

1. The Santa Clause DM - It is one bonus action and it automatically gets on the BBEG.
2. It is one bonus action and you need to roll a slight of hand contested by acrobatics to see if you successfully dump it on him.
3. It is one bonus action and you need to roll a dexterity-based improvised weapon attack
4. It is one bonus action and you need to roll Arcana against his AC (thematically I really like this)
5. It is one bonus action to take it out of your pack and a 2nd bonus action to dump it on an enemy, so it takes 2 turns. It is a strength-based improvised weapon attack to hit with it.
6. The Grinch DM - Even though it says in the spell description you can dump out oil, you are not allowed to dump it on an enemy.

I have seen all of these examples with DMs and because the rules are ambiguous, all of these are defendable. I played with DMs that did all of these and 1 to 6 it DRAMATICALLY changes the power level of an Arcane Trickster Rogue in tier 2.

How do you play it? Which is best?

I rule that the Mage Hand spell cannot be used to make an attack.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Well I think you can do it with a contest, but even if it requires an attack roll; that does not necessarily make it part of the attack action. There is a difference between an attack roll and the attack action. Your familiar example actually illustrates this point.

From the Find Familiar Spell:
"..... when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell. Your familiar must be within 100 feet of you, and it must use its reaction to deliver the spell when you cast it. If the spell requires an attack roll, you use your attack modifier for the roll."

So even though a familiar "can't attack" (and I agree with you on that) you can within the limits of the spell, roll an attack roll for it to arbitrate success or failure for something other than the attack action that it can do. Your argument so far is you can't use oil in this way because using it requires an attack roll. An attack roll is different than the attack action and pouring oil on someone is not the attack action, it is use an object action.

The familiar cant take the attack action and as such can't use its claws but as the spell wording clearly demonstrates it is able to make an attack roll for things other than the attack action.

I do not believe that "cannot attack" has the same meaning as "cannot take the attack action", and believe that familiars have the former restriction, not the latter. There are ways of attacking that do not require taking the attack action. Trying to weasel around the prohibitions isn't like using the existing rules stating that the familiar can deliver your own spell attacks.

Yes, because there is not much point in the hand being invisible if what it is carrying is not invisible also. That would be largely irrelevant.

I do not believe Crawford shares your opinion, so I think it unlikely that you would actually accept his ruling.

 

[DEFCON 1]

A penny dropped from a skyscraper can still kill.

Ahem! snort [stands up, pushes glasses up nose] AKSHUALLY... the Mythbusters proved in Season 2003 Episode 4 that a penny does not have enough mass to penetrate a human skull nor the concrete on the ground, even when falling at its terminal velocity. If it hits you it will sting, but it cannot kill you on its own.

[sits back down with arms crossed smugly, then looks around and sees no one gives a crap about his anal retentive bullshite and his face drops in shame]