Mage Hand cantrip

[mach1.9pants]

Dunno about hypersmurf, but yeah, I can...

So can I ........with my teeth!

 

[hong]

We have seen Terry Byran catch the flu-flu fletched arrow that was shot to one side of him.

How do you think he would have faired if the archer used a real hunting arrow,at hunting velocities and fired it directly at his chest, and not to one side, with Terry standing there with his hand sticking out?

Stolen from an Anonymous..

Hong, why Int? Though I guess that would be better than Dex, actually, unless mage hand gives you physical control like an actual 3rd hand.. Hmm.

Because you're controlling it with your brane, and thus you don't have to worry so much about hand-eye coordination and physical reflexes and such. But really, as long as the players buy it, anything works.

 

[Exen Trik]

Could YOU grab an arrow in flight?

Yes. It would involve it going through my palm though.

But hey, a mage hand wouldn't have that problem right? It would probably be at a huge penalty, but I would allow that use.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does the rules need to define "unattended" if it doesn't differ from the common definition?

Let's assume the rules don't need to define "unattended".

But, once more, the Mage Hand cantrip as defined on Skamos' sheet from DDXP has no restriction to unattended objects.

It allows you to manipulate an adjacent object. Not an adjacent, unattended object... an adjacent object. Its status as regards attendedness is not addressed.

Do the rules need to define "red" if it doesn't differ from the common definition? Perhaps not... but since the Mage Hand cantrip doesn't restrict us to manipulating red objects, we don't care!

-Hyp.

 

[Shroomy]

Hypersmurf, I have no idea where I got "unattended" from. I must have misread the character sheet!

 

[Lackhand]

Let's assume the rules don't need to define "unattended".

But, once more, the Mage Hand cantrip as defined on Skamos' sheet from DDXP has no restriction to unattended objects.

It allows you to manipulate an adjacent object. Not an adjacent, unattended object... an adjacent object. Its status as regards attendedness is not addressed.

Do the rules need to define "red" if it doesn't differ from the common definition? Perhaps not... but since the Mage Hand cantrip doesn't restrict us to manipulating red objects, we don't care!

-Hyp.

"Object" in a rules sense may now always be attended, to prevent (e.g.) using Locate Object on Lord Whatsisbuckets' pants, because Locate Creature isn't yet available.

What you're looking for might be called Equipment, say.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"Object" in a rules sense may now always be attended, to prevent (e.g.) using Locate Object on Lord Whatsisbuckets' pants, because Locate Creature isn't yet available.

What you're looking for might be called Equipment, say.

Note that one of the uses of Mage Hand is to "move any one object carried or worn anywhere on your body". If any attended item was, by definition, not an object, then there could be no "object carried or worn anywhere on your body".

So I don't think this can be the case - an object is still an object, whether it's carried/worn or not.

-Hyp.

 

[grimslade]

I think Hong has the right of it. Let the player attempt it. A thievery check with a hefty penalty -2 to -4 seems about right to grab the knife with the Mage Hand and an attack vs Ref to cut the bow string with a penalty. Two separate rounds for each minor action or burn the standard to do it in 1 round. Why restrict it?

I am not sure about catching the arrow in mid flight. I don't know that the hand has enough time. If it were an immediate action sure or maybe in concert with a Snatch Arrow feat. Hefty penalties for this maneuver up to -8.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Hong: The Shogun of ENworld

Could YOU grab an arrow in flight?

Dunno about hypersmurf, but yeah, I can...

So can I ........with my teeth!

Catches arrows with his teeth? Arrows with his teeth?

Gamer pleaze ....

-Samir Asad

 

[Moon-Lancer]

nevermind. rethought what i was going to say.