Mage Hand Question

[N0Man]

Anyone can get bull-rushed off a 200 foot cliff, and damage from the fall won't vary much, regardless of level.

External factors should be balanced with other external factors, not at-wills.
Dropping a 20 lb. rock with mage hand (from the side) on someone is not much different from dropping a 20 lb. rock you have in your hands, without getting to look directly down on them.

The factors of damage and such shouldn't take powers into consideration.
Sure, you may be using different stats, but a falling rock is a falling rock.

In regards to your cliff example, I actually gave a specific mention to encouraging players doing things on the fly in response to the environment that are within reason. I have no problem with the cliff, because it is a neutral hazard. A player can bullrush a monster off a cliff (or other height), but a monster can do the same thing to the player.

If a DM allows players to make a habit of leading enemies to heights just to bullrush them off, without enemies making attempts to do the same to the players, then that DM is being a poor DM.

It's my belief that when players attempt creative actions to make the game more vibrant, exciting, and entertaining, then by all means, allow them a reasonable bonus or advantage to them, but do so in moderation or within reason.

What I am trying to discourage is people who are trying to plan and scheme of tactics that they can use to give them unbalanced advantages that they repeatedly use over their enemies, just because the DM will let them get away with it. I'll let them have their shticks, but I'm not going to let them carry around gallons of oil all the time and have them successfully use it to deal the equivalent damage of powers 5 of 10 levels higher than their level all the time.

Giving a player an overpowered at-will ability isn't a good idea.

 

[Pielorinho]

What I am trying to discourage is people who are trying to plan and scheme of tactics that they can use to give them unbalanced advantages that they repeatedly use over their enemies, just because the DM will let them get away with it.

Agreed--I call these "magic bullet" solutions. If you light grease on fire once, that's cool; if you plan to do it in every fight, it gets tiresome. As a very vague rule of thumb, I'll grant a +2 bonus to the first time a creative action is used, but not thereafter; if the player pushes, I'll come up with an in-game reason, and from then on, that player doesn't get any more +2 bonuses. That encourages players to continually come up with new creative ideas in combat; not only are the cinematic players encouraged, but also the wargamer players are encouraged.

As for this example, it seems to me that it'd be very difficult to drop a rock on someone's head using mage hand unless they can't see the rock moving. After the first time the tactic is used, I'd probably apply a penalty to the to-hit roll.


Daniel

 

[Danceofmasks]

And this sort of tactic is different from murdering their foes in their sleep, how?
Not very dramatic or heroic, but group ninja tactics is the sort of thing where the word of how doesn't get out.

Maybe I'm the sort of player who despised Lawful Good with a passion, but my point stands.
If you give villains a chance of winning, then you've already failed in your duty.

 

[erik_the_guy]

Some of these uses of mage hand are not only allowable, they suck. Why drop a rock on an enemy when you can launch a magic missile. You can spend a turn to dump oil on the enemy using mage hand and deal an extra 1d4 fire damage with a spell, or, you can spend a turn to use magic missile, and do an extra 2d4+3 or more.

I'm not discouraging creative use of mage hand. It's when your characters use the mage hand to drop lava or acid on the opponent that I would reward them for creativity. In 3e, I used mage hand to apply "dust of dryness" to a water elemental without getting too close. This is not a bad idea.

Most characters however, can do more damage with an at will spell than they will using mage hand to drop stuff.

Creative uses for mage hand:
Touch enemy with hazardous material (lava, acid, holy water) without having to go near the material or the enemy.
Disarm an enemy (by pulling arrows out of quivers, weapons out of scabbards, etc)

 

[Danceofmasks]

Unfortunately you can't disarm anyone with mage hand ... 'cos those are attended objects.
I know it's silly for attended objects and unattended objects to be so very different, but that's D&D for ya.

 

[renau1g]

Some of these uses of mage hand are not only allowable, they suck. Why drop a rock on an enemy when you can launch a magic missile. You can spend a turn to dump oil on the enemy using mage hand and deal an extra 1d4 fire damage with a spell, or, you can spend a turn to use magic missile, and do an extra 2d4+3 or more.

I'm not discouraging creative use of mage hand. It's when your characters use the mage hand to drop lava or acid on the opponent that I would reward them for creativity. In 3e, I used mage hand to apply "dust of dryness" to a water elemental without getting too close. This is not a bad idea.

Most characters however, can do more damage with an at will spell than they will using mage hand to drop stuff.

It's a minor action to drop an item with Mage Hand, so it can be combined with their regular actions in 4e. The wizard cast the spell before the battle, placed the oil in the air above the breach point caused by the enemies and waited for them to come. I'm with you N0Man on the excessive cheese tactics. My players know from experience that abusing loopholes in the system has dire consequences. I don't subscribe to that sort of power/meta -aming as it isn't the purpose or spirit of the game, at least to me.

 

[Toras]

Creative uses for spells are half the fun. Using a scorching ray to toast a goblin is all well and good, but using it to detonate the powder room on the bad guys sky ship or the barrel of oil that the fighter just kicked into the middle of the enemy formation. So creative mage hand is always good. Another good use, having it goose the queen right when your political rival is passing by.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Goose the queen! LOL

 

[pukunui]

When I was doing a "playtest" using the stuff gleaned from DDXP, one of my players wanted to do the same thing. I didn't see any reason not to let him and I ended up making it a reflex attack, I think. And had it just do 1d6 or something. Now that I've got the full rules, if anyone tries to do it again, I'll probably either use that wonderful table in the DMG or else just make it an improvised weapon attack.

 

[DemonLord57]

Well, the thing is, players can choose to do something with their actions each round.
If that something isn't more beneficial, why should they choose it over an at-will?
(In this case, giving up their ineffectual attack this round for a slightly better attack next round)

That said, if a player uses prestidigitation to light the fuse for a nuke which blows up the world, it's not the prestidigitation that blew up the world, it's the nuke.

Shouldn't be trying to balance properties inherent in 3rd party objects with at-wills.

I agree with this. I don't think "balancing" damage relative to at-will powers makes much sense, or is really any fun. I can understand a concern that it will be used in all of their fights, but I really don't think that's very likely., or even a problem if they do.

How about this: the players push an enemy off a cliff, and it does HUGE damage, since they fell 200 ft. or more. Should you limit the damage, because they'll try this whenever it is possible because it is effective? No. It's perfectly fine, because it is is a good tactic.

Who cares if it's not "creative" after the first time. That doesn't stop players from using their powers for the thousandth time, and it shouldn't stop them from paying attention to their environment, and how it can be used to help them.

If your players come up with a tactic that is effective, easy to transport around, and is extremely cost-effective, then good for them! I don't see why they need to use their at-wills if they have something better. If you are worried about game balance, (it'd have to be extremely effective for you to reasonably worry about that) just balance it by either 1) getting them into a situation where they can't use it, 2) having enemies use the tactic, or 3) making the encounters harder to counter-balance the increase in strength the party has.