Mage Hand "propel" meaning

[Grcles de Cross]

My DM and I talked about this last night, but I wanted to be sure to get this right.

I am a Rogue with Minor Magic. I chose Mage Hand. The spell says that it can "propel" a less than 5 lb object 12 feet.
1) Would this allow me to propel a sharp object with enough force to do damage? If so want kind of rolls would be involved?
2) How accurate would the motion of the Mage hand be? Could I hit a vital spot on an enemy?
3) How fast is the "propelled" object? Would a flying object, coming up on the enemy's right side be fast enough to provoke them to turn toward it and allow me to get an attack on the left?

Thanks for the rules help.

[Melkiador]

The spell can’t do direct damage, because it doesn’t list damage. You could possibly lift the dagger above them and release it, which then requires the falling object rules.

The game doesn’t have facing so everyone is assumed to be facing in all directions simultaneously.

[Name Violation]

Grcles de Cross wrote:

My DM and I talked about this last night, but I wanted to be sure to get this right.

I am a Rogue with Minor Magic. I chose Mage Hand. The spell says that it can "propel" a less than 5 lb object 12 feet.
1) Would this allow me to propel a sharp object with enough force to do damage? If so want kind of rolls would be involved?
2) How accurate would the motion of the Mage hand be? Could I hit a vital spot on an enemy?
3) How fast is the "propelled" object? Would a flying object, coming up on the enemy's right side be fast enough to provoke them to turn toward it and allow me to get an attack on the left?

Thanks for the rules help.

1) no. There's a completely different spell for that. Telekinetic Projectile.

2) you can't actually attack with mage hand.
3) that's a feint combat maneuver. Look up the rules for fainting in combat. You're gonna need a few feats to actually feint and attack in the same turn

[Azothath]

Magic is wonderful, complicated, and probably not going to do what you think it can do.
PFS runs very close to RAW(rules as written) so unless the spell says you can do something or infers it, it probably can't.

If you really want to do magic, ditch the Minor Magic and just take 2 levels in Arcanist & Dimensional Slide or 1 level in Sorcerer or 1 level in Diviner Wizard (depends on your highest Ability score) along with retraining into Magical Knack. That will open up all arcane items and make Use Magic Device somewhat redundant.

Some things in the d20 model aren't very realistic, it is just a game. So when you want to say, "that's crazy", just say "it's a game".

[Grcles de Cross]

Thanks all. I still wonder why the word "Propel" was put into the description. But what is - is, and it is just a game and not real (Thank God, I would not want to turn the corner and face a Litch).

[Jeff Wilder]

As others have said:

(1) You can't "propel" anything for damage with mage hand.

(2) I think it would be reasonably accurate. If you're looking for something precise (e.g., in the course of entertaining someone, you use it to propel a grape into a cooperating friend's mouth), I'd ask for a ranged touch attack, just to gauge the accuracy. (I'd put the AC of my example at about a 12, BTW.)

(3) It's propelled 15 feet in one move action. Whether or not a GM would allow you to use the spell to distract someone, therefore giving you the chance to silently move up and sneak attack, is going to vary. Me, I'd allow it, but you would need to be pretty close, because you'd have to make a Stealth check and then move, which would be at half speed if you're not taking a penalty to Stealth.

The problem with overdoing the "there is no facing" general truism of Pathfinder is that it means a guard in the center of a featureless corridor can never be taken unawares, and that flies in the face of every action adventure book and movie that ever existed. There's a reason the game has a GM, and this is an example of why.

(As an aside, there are clear-cut exceptions to the "no facing" general rule. Flying creatures, for instance, barring hovering, must indicate facing. A creature in the throes of a suggestion to examine the wall completely and minutely, as another example of "no facing" being only a general rule, can be snuck up on. Any GM who says otherwise isn't a GM you want.)

[Grcles de Cross]

Jeff, thanks for the ideas! I will use my imagination to come up with some interesting ideas. :)

[Dave Justus]

Jeff Wilder wrote:

Flying creatures, for instance, barring hovering, must indicate facing.

This is untrue. The change direction rules for flight only apply during movement. When not moving, the creature doesn't have an facing (actually it never has facing, but it has direction), and, for example, could move west on one turn, and then east on the next turn (180 degree difference) without having to make any fly checks.

[bbangerter]

Jeff Wilder wrote:

The problem with overdoing the "there is no facing" general truism of Pathfinder is that it means a guard in the center of a featureless corridor can never be taken unawares, and that flies in the face of every action adventure book and movie that ever existed.

Actually you can if you can reach the guard within a single move. The blog on stealth a few years back states that you remain under stealth until you either attack or end your turn without cover.

But in general, yes a GM should at times 'invent' a facing for purposes of storytelling, or add circumstantial bonuses, etc.

[thaX]

Adding to what BB said, that is for the latest revision of Stealth. It is true that it hasn't always been that way, and the change to this (and having to Stealth at the beginning and end of turn to keep in stealth) is a good one.

If you have an older print of the Core Rulebook, look at the Errata for Stealth.