Mage Handed-weapons


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Imagine, if you will, a desperate wizard. She sees someone menacing a vital character nearby, not paying attention to her in her invisibility, and also nearby is a warhammer from a fallen foe. Could this brave wizard use Mage Hand on that 5lb warhammer and do anything useful with it? (I'm guessing it'd work as a melee attack, -2 for being distant, based on casting stat, with any proficiency issues too.) And what if she used the full Telekinesis spell?


Qaianna wrote:
Imagine, if you will, a desperate wizard. She sees someone menacing a vital character nearby, not paying attention to her in her invisibility, and also nearby is a warhammer from a fallen foe. Could this brave wizard use Mage Hand on that 5lb warhammer and do anything useful with it? (I'm guessing it'd work as a melee attack, -2 for being distant, based on casting stat, with any proficiency issues too.) And what if she used the full Telekinesis spell?

With Telekinesis (specifically, the violent thrust section of the spell), the weapon would simply do it's base damage, with nothing added to damage. You get one attack per object hurled, at your base attack bonus + Int modifier.

I doubt that Mage Hand can exert enough force to attack.


Mage Hand can't be used to make attacks.


Mage Hand exerts 5 pounds worth of force. Technically by actual physics, that means you can do nothing but counter gravity and make the warhammer float in the air. If you tried to move it at any sort of angle, the force would not be directed upwards and the warhammer would slowly drift to the ground.

But as a more practical rules answer, no. You cannot use mage hand to wield a weapon to damage people, regardless of weight. Mage hand is a very weak form of levitation. If you want to slam people with your magical powers, get telekinesis.


Maybe drop it on someone's foot? Make it a tripping hazard?


CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Mage Hand exerts 5 pounds worth of force. Technically by actual physics, that means you can do nothing but counter gravity and make the warhammer float in the air. If you tried to move it at any sort of angle, the force would not be directed upwards and the warhammer would slowly drift to the ground.

But as a more practical rules answer, no. You cannot use mage hand to wield a weapon to damage people, regardless of weight. Mage hand is a very weak form of levitation. If you want to slam people with your magical powers, get telekinesis.

Yep, it only exerts 5 lb of force for the purpose of lifting. Otherwise you get situations like this.


Thanks for the info. I'd been wondering about this for a while, with both spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I once had a player who tried to pull some Eragon-style magic system crap on me, claiming he could use mage hand to move a target's brainstem to instantly kill him. I laughed and then struck with him with an adamantium lightning bolt.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Qaianna wrote:
Imagine, if you will, a desperate wizard. She sees someone menacing a vital character nearby, not paying attention to her in her invisibility, and also nearby is a warhammer from a fallen foe. Could this brave wizard use Mage Hand on that 5lb warhammer and do anything useful with it? (I'm guessing it'd work as a melee attack, -2 for being distant, based on casting stat, with any proficiency issues too.) And what if she used the full Telekinesis spell?

1. No.. 5lbs of force might not be enough to lift the mace let alone swing it with any force.

1.b. If however your desparte Wizard was a Universalist, he could use Hand of the Apprentice to hurl the hammer forth and back.

2. Treat it as a hurled 5lb object as per the rules of the Telekinesis spell. When you read the effects, you'll find that a much better use of the TK spell would be a combat maneuver.


CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S

EFFECT
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one non-magical, unattended object weighing up to 5 lbs.
Duration concentration
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

DESCRIPTION
You point your finger at an object and can lift it and move it at will from a distance. As a move action, you can propel the object as far as 15 feet in any direction, though the spell ends if the distance between you and the object ever exceeds the spell's range.

..................................

Sure you can use it to make melee attack with it as long as the object is 5 lb or less.

Gauntlet, daggers, punching daggers, spiked gauntlet, only weigh 1 lb.
Club's Shortspears, Starknife, Handaxes, only weigh 3 lbs.
Flail weigh 5 lbs.

You will have to Concentrated on the action every round; and it will only effect one object of 5 lb or less. Once the object is selected you can not change the object, you can only use one move action every round to make the attack. The attack can not be further than the listed range or it fails, and if the object is grabed, then it is on longer "unattended", and you lose control of the object.

Also, i do not see were the spell grant proficiency with the object, so if you do not have the weapon proficiency, then you would take a -4 to your attack roll with the object.

The spell has a duration of Concentration. This mean that anything that can break the concentration of the caster casting a spell, can also break the concentration of the user using this spell. There by ending the spell ( as listed on page 206 CRB). This also mean, that you can not cast another spell, while you are using this spell.

.......................

Yes i would allow you to make one melee attack with a weapon of 5 lb or less, once per round, while using this spell. Have seen it done enough in old movies, so sure why not.

ps= Since you are using a physical object to make the attack... the attack would be a normal range attack, and you would have to get past the creature normal AC.
--- is not a touch attack, like normal spells ---


Oliver McShade Have you ever been hit with 5 pounds of force? It's completely negligible. Even if you ruled that you are allowed to make an attack roll with a mage-handed weapon (RAW you can't) the damage penalty would be greater than the highest possible damage roll. 5 pounds of force cannot hurt a human being unless applied directly to specific parts of the body like certain areas of the brain. Certainly not in the heat of battle where you only hit where you happen to by complete chance. A normal attack carries a few hundred pounds of force with it.

[/physics]


It is any 1-5 lb object, that can be thrown up to 15 feet in any direction.

Yes, I have been hit by a rock in school, it only weight about 1 lb. Any it hurt like crazy.

I was refereeing to using the spell, to make one melee attack with a un-attended weapon, once per round. I do not see this is ground breaking, overpowered, or against the rules, as listed in the spell.

........................................

The spell does not directly effect living creature, and will not go down that line of non-sense.


Oliver McShade wrote:

It is any 1-5 lb object, that can be thrown up to 15 feet in any direction.

Yes, I have been hit by a rock in school, it only weight about 1 lb. Any it hurt like crazy.

I was refereeing to using the spell, to make one melee attack with a un-attended weapon, once per round. I do not see this is ground breaking, overpowered, or against the rules, as listed in the spell.

........................................

The spell does not directly effect living creature, and will not go down that line of non-sense.

The weight of the rock and the force with which it struck you are two different things. It almost certainly exerted more than 1 lb of force on your body.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Oliver McShade wrote:

It is any 1-5 lb object, that can be thrown up to 15 feet in any direction.

Yes, I have been hit by a rock in school, it only weight about 1 lb. Any it hurt like crazy.

I was refereeing to using the spell, to make one melee attack with a un-attended weapon, once per round. I do not see this is ground breaking, overpowered, or against the rules, as listed in the spell.

........................................

The spell does not directly effect living creature, and will not go down that line of non-sense.

1 lbs of force is not the same as the force of a 1 lbs object traveling at some unknown velocity.

An object that moves 15 ft/6 seconds is moving at less that 2 mph (around 1.7). The average human WALKING speed is 3 mph.

Imagine the force of a human accidentally strolling into you. Now imagine that human weighs the same as four sticks of butter.

EDIT:

In fact, imagine someone gently tosses a pack of butter (four sticks) underhanded to you and you let it hit you in the chest. That force is several times the maximum force Mage Hand could exert.


Ask your DM.

As the spell is written, i would allow it to be used to throw any 1 to 5 lb object up to 15 feet in any direction.

The spell does not say how much Force or Velocity the object has, while being moved.

Have seen enough old movie, were wizard cause a dagger to fly off a bookshelf, to make an attack. That i would allow it. But I an old timer.

................................
A few note to my player if they read this tho.

You need weapon proficiency, if used on a weapon: or -4 to attack
You will be attack the creature normal AC: physical object are not touch attacks.
The attack is considered a range attack = does cause AoO
The weapon does suffer -5 to the damage ( minimum of 1 tho ).

Like so many magic spells.... you would be better off just picking up a chair, rock, or old log and throwing it at the creature, and do more damage that way.


I did not say a 5 pound object. I said 5 pounds of force. Force is entirely different from weight. A bullet weighs nearly nothing but the force it carries from its extreme velocity can cause devastating damage. Similarly, a 500 pound object can not even hurt at all if it hits you slowly enough. Again, force is vastly different from weight.

Yes, the spell very clearly defines how much force it can exert. 5 pounds moved 15 feet as a move action (with a move action lasting half a round, or 3 seconds). We know that F=ma, and we know that the maximum mass is 5 pounds, as defined by the spell. To calculate maximum acceleration we use distance/time^2, which is 15 ft./(3s)^2, or 1.67 ft./s^2. Now we put that back into the F=ma equation since we know both maximum mass and maximum acceleration for the spell, so F=(5 pounds)*(1.67 ft./s^2) = 8.33 pounds of force.

8.33 pounds of force. That means an object that weighs 1 pound that drops 1 foot generates nearly 4 times as much force as mage hand can possibly create. A 1 pound object dropping 1 foot with only gravity acting on it. Divided by 4. That's how much force mage hand can generate at absolute maximum.

An attack roll? You couldn't even wake somebody up with that.

[/physics]

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Rememmber this basic equation.

Force Equals Mass Times Velocity Squared.


This is bringing me back to the days when I compared the wattages of various cantrips.

Turns out Summon Instrument is the clear winner - enormous bonfires of burning guitars are quite effective (and, since they disappear rapidly, entirely pollutant free).

Mage Hand...not so much.


Oliver McShade wrote:


The spell does not say how much Force or Velocity the object has, while being moved.

Yes it does. Force equals mass times acceleration. The upper limit on the velocity is 15 ft/rd or 2.5ft/sec, from which we could derive acceleration at the moment of impact (or we can just pretend it accelerated smoothly over 6 seconds). Mass is capped at 5 lbs in normal gravity. It comes out to 1.13 Newtons, which is around 0.25 lbs of force, and that assumes the object is actually 5 lbs. Less weight would have even less force behind it.

(These calculations are rough, and make some crazy assumptions about the acceleration because I'm too lazy to do Calculus right now, but I'm pretty sure the error actually pushes the total up.)

Your anecdote about the dagger flying off the shelf doesn't hold up, because the dagger here floats sedately across the room and stands a decent chance to deflect off of skin, let alone clothing or armor. Never mind the triviality of dodging, blocking or parrying it. The only way you could be hit by a Mage Hand-weilded weapon is to let it, and it's STR bonus would be so negative that it wouldn't do damage anyway.

EDIT:

I got F (newtons) = 5 lbs * .45 kg/lbs * 1.67 ft/s^2 * 0.3 m/ft = 1.13 kg*m/s^2 or N which is .25 lbs of force. Don't you have to convert to metric to use F=ma ?


Dallium wrote:
Oliver McShade wrote:


The spell does not say how much Force or Velocity the object has, while being moved.

Yes it does. Force equals mass times acceleration. The upper limit on the velocity is 15 ft/rd or 2.5ft/sec, from which we could derive acceleration at the moment of impact (or we can just pretend it accelerated smoothly over 6 seconds). Mass is capped at 5 lbs in normal gravity. It comes out to 1.13 Newtons, which is around 0.25 lbs of force, and that assumes the object is actually 5 lbs. Less weight would have even less force behind it.

(These calculations are rough, and make some crazy assumptions about the acceleration because I'm too lazy to do Calculus right now, but I'm pretty sure the error actually pushes the total up.)

Your anecdote about the dagger flying off the shelf doesn't hold up, because the dagger here floats sedately across the room and stands a decent chance to deflect off of skin, let alone clothing or armor. Never mind the triviality of dodging, blocking or parrying it. The only way you could be hit by a Mage Hand-weilded weapon is to let it, and it's STR bonus would be so negative that it wouldn't do damage anyway.

EDIT:

I got F (newtons) = 5 lbs * .45 kg/lbs * 1.67 ft/s^2 * 0.3 m/ft = 1.13 kg*m/s^2 or N which is .25 lbs of force. Don't you have to convert to metric to use F=ma ?

To answer your last question: No. But the math is easier because the units aren't f***ing idiotic. (I can say that our units are idiotic because I'm a proud, flag-waving 'murican).

But force isn't the correct measurement. You're looking for impulse, which is the change in momentum over a period of time. But considering that a warhammer is going to have a very brief moment of impact (steel isn't very elastic), you're really looking at weight and velocity. A 2 kg hammer moving at .3 m/s is moving with an insanely small amount of momentum.

The bottom line - it's not going to hurt you at that velocity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What if you drop said hammer from a height onto someones head?


alexd1976 wrote:
What if you drop said hammer from a height onto someones head?

I would definitely allow some damage, depending on the height. Gravity is definitely more powerful than Mage hand.


"You win again Gravity!"

Shadow Lodge

Paizo.com/PRD wrote:

Mage Hand

School transmutation; Level bard 0, sorcerer/wizard 0

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Target one nonmagical, unattended object weighing up to 5 lbs.

Duration concentration

Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

You point your finger at an object and can lift it and move it at will from a distance. As a move action, you can propel the object as far as 15 feet in any direction, though the spell ends if the distance between you and the object ever exceeds the spell's range.

There is absolutely nothing in the spell which indicates any quantity of force which can or cannot be exerted on the object simply that you can only lift or move an object weighing no greater than 5 pounds.

It is at there very least within the purview of this spell to lift a 5lb object over an enemies head and then drop it causing whatever falling damage might apply to the object to be inflicted both on the object and the target. assuming a successful ranged attack with whatever circumstance bonuses or penalties a fair GM wants to impose.

By Raw, since there is no mention of velocity, there is nothing preventing me from moving the object 15 feet at speeds great enough to turn the surrounding air into plasma from friction. Go Mage Hand lightning bolt!

Additionally if you want to make the argument be about the quantity of force (which is totally 100% irrelevent to the question), the amount of force exerted on one end of an object is not the same as the amount of force produced on the other end. Take for example sewing pin with a flat head, 5lbs of force on the back end will be amplified sufficiently at the point to drive it through a persons hand entirely. If you don't believe me, feel free to experiment at home, but i am not responsible for the results.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Mage Hand is not Hand of the Apprentice.

You could (eventually) more your five pound object and drop it over top of someone, but that's slow and clumsy. See This thread. Anything else is unsupported by RAW. Generally, spells do what they say but nothing more.

I disagree with the statement above about there being no mention of velocity. There is. 15 foot / per move action. About 5 fps.


I'm not trying to be rude, but almost everything you've just said is nonsense. Point by point:

Gol Zayvian wrote:
There is absolutely nothing in the spell which indicates any quantity of force which can or cannot be exerted on the object simply that you can only lift or move an object weighing no greater than 5 pounds.

The spell gives a magnitude and a maximum speed, and the rules tell us how long a round is. That's all you need to calculate force.

Gol Zayvian wrote:
It is at there very least within the purview of this spell to lift a 5lb object over an enemies head and then drop it causing whatever falling damage might apply to the object to be inflicted both on the object and the target. assuming a successful ranged attack with whatever circumstance bonuses or penalties a fair GM wants to impose.

Yes you could do this.

Gol Zayvian wrote:
By Raw, since there is no mention of velocity, there is nothing preventing me from moving the object 15 feet at speeds great enough to turn the surrounding air into plasma from friction. Go Mage Hand lightning bolt!

Firstly, that isn't "by RAW." Nothing in the RAW says anything like that. You might have a leg to stand on if you said because the rules are silent it has infinite acceleration. Because magic.

Secondly, the reason the object can't move more than 15 ft in a round is because you can't make it go any faster. If you could move it faster, it could go farther. That's the entire basis of speed in PF (and real life, but real life isn't necessarily relevant right now). If your speed is 30, you can go 30 ft in a single move action because that's as fast as you can go in 3 seconds and still take a standard action.

And because the spell uses the word "propel," we know it physically moves through the intervening space.

Gol Zayvian wrote:

Additionally if you want to make the argument be about the quantity of force (which is totally 100% irrelevent to the question), the amount of force exerted on one end of an object is not the same as the amount of force produced on the other end. Take for example sewing pin with a flat head, 5lbs of force on the back end will be amplified sufficiently at the point to drive it through a persons hand entirely.

When posters say, "You can attack with this because you can move a weapon," it's completely relevant to say "Maybe, except you couldn't possibly hit or do damage because physics."

Every single vaild target for Mage Hand has the exact same acceleration curve. Mage Hand allows you to move n lbs at around 5ft/s, where n <= 5. If the object is 5 lbs, it moves at 5ft/s. If it's a gram, it still moves at 5ft/s. Which means the force behind it is directly proportional to it's mass. Which means the impulse on contact is significantly lower with the sewing needle than the 5lb weapon. To give a more accurate example of your sewing needle senario, hold the needle an inch (which is probably generous) above your skin and drop it. That you can try at home.

Would you rather be hit by a semi at 30 mph, or a butterfly at 30 mph?

Community Manager

Removed a post. Please be civil, thank you!


Quote:
It is at there very least within the purview of this spell to lift a 5lb object over an enemies head and then drop it causing whatever falling damage might apply to the object to be inflicted both on the object and the target. assuming a successful ranged attack with whatever circumstance bonuses or penalties a fair GM wants to impose.

As a weapon sized for a medium-sized wielder, a warhammer is a small object. Small objects that fall less than 30 feet deal 1d6 damage, 2d6 damage up up to 150 feet, and 4d6 damage if it falls more than that.

Based on the range of mage hand, that would mean either 1d6 or 2d6 damage.

As for hitting:

Quote:
Dropping an object on a creature requires a ranged touch attack. Such attacks generally have a range increment of 20 feet. If an object falls on a creature (instead of being thrown), that creature can make a DC 15 Reflex save to halve the damage if he is aware of the object. Falling objects that are part of a trap use the trap rules instead of these general guidelines

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some of the "physics" in this thread makes me sad, but I agree that mage hand just isn't going to push with enough oomph to damage anything.

Oliver, if you want the movie effect of fast flying sharp objects, telekinesis is the spell you're looking for.

Mage hand is a cantrip. It's already a pretty useful one - moving nonmagical light objects without touching them has many applications for the clever player.

If you really want to house rule that mage hand can attack, I suggest including improvised weapon penalties and giving the spell a strength score of 1. -9 to hit and -5 damage seems about right if you were to allow this at all.


ryric wrote:
If you really want to house rule that mage hand can attack, I suggest including improvised weapon penalties and giving the spell a strength score of 1. -9 to hit and -5 damage seems about right if you were to allow this at all.

That sounds appropriate for a cantrip.

However, I did once allow a sorcerer to threaten somebody with a mage-hand wielded dagger. It was against a thug and I used intimidate vs. sense motive with a +2 bonus for being something unusual. Of course this only worked because the thug didn't know any spellcraft. If he had any knowledge of magic he would have realized that it was a useless bluff.

Shadow Lodge

Dallium wrote:
Spoiler:
Dallium wrote:

I'm not trying to be rude, but almost everything you've just said is nonsense. Point by point:

Gol Zayvian wrote:
There is absolutely nothing in the spell which indicates any quantity of force which can or cannot be exerted on the object simply that you can only lift or move an object weighing no greater than 5 pounds.

The spell gives a magnitude and a maximum speed, and the rules tell us how long a round is. That's all you need to calculate force.

Gol Zayvian wrote:
It is at there very least within the purview of this spell to lift a 5lb object over an enemies head and then drop it causing whatever falling damage might apply to the object to be inflicted both on the object and the target. assuming a successful ranged attack with whatever circumstance bonuses or penalties a fair GM wants to impose.

Yes you could do this.

Gol Zayvian wrote:
By Raw, since there is no mention of velocity, there is nothing preventing me from moving the object 15 feet at speeds great enough to turn the surrounding air into plasma from friction. Go Mage Hand lightning bolt!

Firstly, that isn't "by RAW." Nothing in the RAW says anything like that. You might have a leg to stand on if you said because the rules are silent it has infinite acceleration. Because magic.

Secondly, the reason the object can't move more than 15 ft in a round is because you can't make it go any faster. If you could move it faster, it could go farther. That's the entire basis of speed in PF (and real life, but real life isn't necessarily relevant right now). If your speed is 30, you can go 30 ft in a single move action because that's as fast as you can go in 3 seconds and still take a standard action.

And because the spell uses the word "propel," we know it physically moves through the intervening space.

Gol Zayvian wrote:
Additionally if you want to make the argument be about the quantity of force (which is totally 100% irrelevent to the question), the amount of force exerted on
...

I will respond in kind:

1. A large portion of what I said was meant to be nonsense. I often employ Hyperbole to illustrate my points.

2.

Quote:
The spell gives a magnitude and a maximum speed, and the rules tell us how long a round is. That's all you need to calculate force.

It does not give speed, it gives maximum distance. Meaning, if the object starts at point A, then by the end of a 6 second period it can be no farther than point B 15' distant from A and no greater than max range from caster.

3.
Quote:
Yes you could do this.

Glad you agree. ;)

4.
Quote:

Firstly, that isn't "by RAW." Nothing in the RAW says anything like that. You might have a leg to stand on if you said because the rules are silent it has infinite acceleration. Because magic.

Secondly, the reason the object can't move more than 15 ft in a round is because you can't make it go any faster. If you could move it faster, it could go farther. That's the entire basis of speed in PF (and real life, but real life isn't necessarily relevant right now). If your speed is 30, you can go 30 ft in a single move action because that's as fast as you can go in 3 seconds and still take a standard action.

And because the spell uses the word "propel," we know it physically moves through the intervening space.

No where does it specify that it takes the entire 6 seconds to arrive at its destination, and in fact since concentrating to move it is a move action, it's reasonable to assume it takes less. I posit that for rules purposes it matters not at all whether it arrives at the 15' extent in 6 seconds or less than 1 nano second. It's a game and it's magic there fore real world physics plays no roll in it. And Mage Hand Lightning Bolt, is clearly a hyperbole used to illustrate that i think many of the arguments in this thread are ridiculous.

5.
Quote:

When posters say, "You can attack with this because you can move a weapon," it's completely relevant to say "Maybe, except you couldn't possibly hit or do damage because physics."

Every single vaild target for Mage Hand has the exact same acceleration curve. Mage Hand allows you to move n lbs at around 5ft/s, where n <= 5. If the object is 5 lbs, it moves at 5ft/s. If it's a gram, it still moves at 5ft/s. Which means the force behind it is directly proportional to it's mass. Which means the impulse on contact is significantly lower with the sewing needle than the 5lb weapon. To give a more accurate example of your sewing needle senario, hold the needle an inch (which is probably generous) above your skin and drop it. That you can try at home.

Would you rather be hit by a semi at 30 mph, or a butterfly at 30 mph?

The butterfly clearly. And arguments consisting of "Because Physics" are invalid because magic.

Silver Crusade

Meh, this is boring. Let's argue about whether or not you can achieve nuclear fission with prestidigitation. I like that one more.

Anyway, throw me firmly in the "no" camp. Drop it on them, sure. Attack them, nope.

EDIT: and, if you have line of sight and cantrips available, you're probably better off just using acid splash, ray of frost, daze, or possibly even spark.


I want to know, assuming DROPPING the hammer is okay...

1)Would you roll to hit?
2)What penalties (if any) would apply?
3)How much damage would it do?


Gol Zayvian, you show a textbook example of how reading strictly RAW without applying common sense can lead to absolute hilarity. It reminds me of the peasant railgun.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

alexd1976 wrote:

I want to know, assuming DROPPING the hammer is okay...

1)Would you roll to hit?
2)What penalties (if any) would apply?
3)How much damage would it do?

Jeraa answered this upthread:

1. Yes, ranged touch attack. Also DC 15 Reflex for half if the creature is aware of the object.
2. Range increment of 20 feet.
3. 1d6 if dropped less than 30 feet, 2d6 if dropped more than 30 but less than 150.


ryric wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I want to know, assuming DROPPING the hammer is okay...

1)Would you roll to hit?
2)What penalties (if any) would apply?
3)How much damage would it do?

Jeraa answered this upthread:

1. Yes, ranged touch attack. Also DC 15 Reflex for half if the creature is aware of the object.
2. Range increment of 20 feet.
3. 1d6 if dropped less than 30 feet, 2d6 if dropped more than 30 but less than 150.

I'm missing stuff left and right today.

Thanks!

Also, that's horrible performance, even for a cantrip. :)


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:

I want to know, assuming DROPPING the hammer is okay...

1)Would you roll to hit?
2)What penalties (if any) would apply?
3)How much damage would it do?

All of this is in "Ask your GM" land, but see This Thread that I referenced above.

See the Environment rules section on Falling Objects.

1) Yes. A dropped object requires a Ranged touch attack.

2) Unless you're dropping something intended to be used this way, you'll probably take the improvised weapon penalty. There's also a range penalty if you somehow manage to drop from more than 20 feet overhead. The target will get a DC15 reflex save to halve the damage if he can see it coming.

3) A warhammer intended for a medium creature is a small object (see the Equipment rules). As such, it might deal 1d6 (unless you're dropping it from high enough to get the 2d6), but since it's not especially dense like stone and isn't designed to be dropped, the GM is well within the purview of the rules to reduce that by up to half.

EDIT: ninja'd

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Yes, Mage Hand can be used to attack someone... just not very well.

As already noted, the pound-force here is tiny... about the equivalent of hitting them with a paper airplane.

Dropping from a height also works, though the maximum range from the caster is only 25' to 75' (for a 20th level caster).

Ignoring air friction, an object falling from 75' up takes about 2.5 seconds to hit the ground and would be travelling at about 80 feet per second at that point. That's about the speed at which a human would swing a warhammer... but the height of the person, the caster's level below 20, and the distance between the caster and target would all reduce the height and resulting force. Thus, MAYBE you could get normal weapon damage (no strength bonus) out of it... but I'd apply AT LEAST range penalties for the combined distance from the caster to the weapon and the weapon to the target.

Best bet... drop a splash weapon like acid or alchemist's fire on them. Gravity will give you enough force to break the vial and then the substance itself does the damage.

Shadow Lodge

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Gol Zayvian, you show a textbook example of how reading strictly RAW without applying common sense can lead to absolute hilarity. It reminds me of the peasant railgun.

This was intended, there is nothing quite as fun as a well placed hyperbole.

Note:

CampinCarl9127 wrote:


reading Gol Zayvian without applying common sense can lead to absolute hilarity.

Artistic license mine.


Can you use Mage Hand for something else combat related? Let's say you try to Trip someone with your Sickle, make a bad roll, then drop your Sickle rather than get Tripped yourself. Can you use your Hand of the Mage to pick up the Sickle as something less tedious than a Move Action that provokes an Attack of Opportunity?


Mage hand is a standard action, but yes you could use it to retrieve a weapon that weighs 5 pounds or less.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Mage hand is a standard action, but yes you could use it to retrieve a weapon that weighs 5 pounds or less.

It's a standard action to cast it, but it's a move action to move the object, with a duration of concentration. I'm not sure the specific order of events described would allow it since you would have to have already cast it and been concentrating on it to keep it in effect, but you could certainly use mage hand as your move action to retrieve an object on the ground to avoid an AoO.


el cuervo wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Mage hand is a standard action, but yes you could use it to retrieve a weapon that weighs 5 pounds or less.
It's a standard action to cast it, but it's a move action to move the object, with a duration of concentration. I'm not sure the specific order of events described would allow it since you would have to have already cast it and been concentrating on it to keep it in effect, but you could certainly use mage hand as your move action to retrieve an object on the ground to avoid an AoO.

It is also a standard action to maintain concentration on a spell with a duration of concentration. So any round you maintain Mage Hand you aren't attacking, and any round you actually move something with Mage Hand you aren't doing anything else but a free action.


Jeraa wrote:
el cuervo wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Mage hand is a standard action, but yes you could use it to retrieve a weapon that weighs 5 pounds or less.
It's a standard action to cast it, but it's a move action to move the object, with a duration of concentration. I'm not sure the specific order of events described would allow it since you would have to have already cast it and been concentrating on it to keep it in effect, but you could certainly use mage hand as your move action to retrieve an object on the ground to avoid an AoO.
It is also a standard action to maintain concentration on a spell with a duration of concentration. So any round you maintain Mage Hand you aren't attacking, and any round you actually move something with Mage Hand you aren't doing anything else but a free action.

Hence the bolded part.


So you could use it to drop something on a helpless person.

Nice.

Dirty mages. ;)


All the discussion of force is missing a key variable. Applied surface area is incredibly important in that discussion.

Example: 5 lbs of force to push a needle with a point area of .0001" would yield a pressure of 50ksi. That's enough to punch thru flesh, make no mistake.

A warhammer has way too large of a surface area. So, a smaller weapon with a (sharp) point would be the way to go for realism. Granted, an adamantium needle (adamantium would be needed to even begin to hope to hold the shape) will penetrate lots of things, but the damage dice is very small.

A 1d4 dagger (with a sharpened tip, think adamantium tipped) should be able to do damage with only 5 lbs of force behind it, at least in the real world. So, what's the strength equivalent of lifting only 5 lbs? That would be STR of less than 1, but call it 1 because that's the min the chart will go.

1d4-5 damage is what I'd assign to that dagger. You are looking at doing ~1 non-lethal with it on an attack. I'd rule it a ranged attack using BAB plus INT (similar to Telekinesis). You can then start applying other bonuses to add to the damage, building up your attack.

+1/+1 Point Blank Shot
+0/+X Arcane Strike
-Y/+Z Deadly Aim
+1/+1 via +1 enchantment
etc.

So, you could (eventually) get an attack that does damage with Mage Hand.

Heck, I'd probably even allow you to do damage with the 1d6-5 warhammer if you really wanted to build around that concept in a game I ran.

Is it worth it? Probably not.


I once had a druid in a WotW game that used create water to perform coup de graces on his victims. Drowned them by filling their lungs with water.

Of course I only allowed that on helpless opponents, but it was still awesome thematically.


el cuervo wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
el cuervo wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Mage hand is a standard action, but yes you could use it to retrieve a weapon that weighs 5 pounds or less.
It's a standard action to cast it, but it's a move action to move the object, with a duration of concentration. I'm not sure the specific order of events described would allow it since you would have to have already cast it and been concentrating on it to keep it in effect, but you could certainly use mage hand as your move action to retrieve an object on the ground to avoid an AoO.
It is also a standard action to maintain concentration on a spell with a duration of concentration. So any round you maintain Mage Hand you aren't attacking, and any round you actually move something with Mage Hand you aren't doing anything else but a free action.
Hence the bolded part.

So that sounds like using a Hand of the Mage to retrieve an weapon dropped in combat might take both a Standard and a Move Action, but would not provoke an Attack of Opportunity.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Well, casting it would (provoke), but you could avoid that by casting defensively.

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Mage Handed-weapons All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.