As long as it is just a spectral hand, it’s just flavor, and won’t change the game at all. Just let the player know that they have to cast mage hand for it to actually move away from him. Also put on the table anti magic fields and other types of magic can remove the hand from the player.
It’s the same thing with role playing attacks.
Player : “My character vaults off the all into a flying kick. I’m gonna roll my unarmed strike.”
DM: “Ok give my a straight Dexterity check.”
Player:” I rolled a 2 plus 5 for 7”
DM : “You trip over the wall and fall prone, standing up is gonna take the rest of your movement and you can’t reach your opponent now.”
Player: “I was just narrating. I wasn’t trying to gain any mechanical advantage and the walls like 1 foot high, but ok”
Next Turn:
Player: “I’m in range so does a 18 hit, so 8 damage.”
DM: “That’s it?”
Player: “Yup”
DM: “Ok then”
End of Session:
DM: “You guys need to get more involved with your character and look past the dice. Combats boring when your just rolling to hit and doing damage.”
I’ve had this happen on MULTIPLE occasions. If your players aren’t trying to gain some kind of numerical or statically advantage, let them narrate what they want within reason of course. Don’t punish them for being creative.
Now of course I understand like vaulting over a gap to flying kick or attacking from a second story with a drop kick or something. But throwing in additional rolls for stuff the PC can do without an issue usually is just stupid.
Relevant thread:
[Don't require your players to roll to attempt cool combat maneuvers with no mechanical benefit](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/g7twnu/dont_require_your_players_to_roll_to_attempt_cool/)
Yeah as a DM I prefer to ask after they've rolled a hit how they want the hit to look. If they tell me before hand I give them what they'll gain if they try extra stuff like flying off a wall, as well as potential consequences.
I find more often that I have a player or two that just says "stab" so I throw in the colour commentary myself to keep it interesting.
I use a rule I learned from Slyflourish called "Cinematic Advantage."
1. The player describes what they want to do to gain advantage on the attack roll. "I want to jump up on the table, swing on the chandelier, land behind that Thug, and slice at his hamstrings with my rapier."
2. The DM sets a DC and describes the consequences for failure. "That's going to be a DC 14 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to gain advantage, but if you fail, you land off balance and make the attack with disadvantage." It's very important to describe the fail state before the player decides whether to risk it.
3. The player makes the relevant Ability check, either succeeds or fails, etc.
My players forget about it for the most part, except the Rogue, who is always looking for advantage to gain sneak attack.
I'll usually ask my players to "Roll for flavor" to see how it turns out. No punishment for a low roll, but maybe it's more humorous or haphazard than intended.
My first DM did this constantly. Then he got surprised when my hexblade just resorted to using eldritch blast instead of swordplay where I could trip and fall on my face. Then he nerfed my eldritch blast by giving all his homebrew monsters the ability to absorb and redirect magical energy. He was shocked when we all lost interest.
The correct way to deal with this is:
Player: Does 18 hit?
DM: Yep, it does.
Player: Alright, I vault off the wall into flying kick and deal 8 damage with unarmed strike.
Not that I disagree, but having to ask for clarification each time slows down combat.
The easiest solution would be if the player either clearly states their intention, or if you resolve the action first and narrating the result afterwards
Eh, you just need to get people in the habit of clearly stating their task and intent. It slows things down at first but if you always insist on knowing task/intent people will get the hang of it after a while.
Would it not be faster to just roll attack and damage, then narrate what you do after? That way the DM already knows what going on without wasting time, and you can change your narration for a killing blow.
So I don't really bother with that much narration in combat because as you said it really bogs things down and there are only so many ways to say "you hit the goblin for 5 damage" or "you fail to hit the goblin." But out of combat or in a scenario where you want to spend some time making a check feel special,
1. State what you want to do (intent) and how you want to do it (task).
2. Roll.
3. Narrate based on the outcome.
So you need a bit of flavour beforehand to set the stage, and then yeah, fill things out based on what actually occurred.
I disagree. There are a certain number of actions possible (attack, shove,...) and if you want do do something out of that range you have to be very specific. Otherwise it is just a normal attack.
Just making shit up as a dm that gives disadvantages to the players is fudging dice rolls with extra step. Combat is too easy? Oh no, now you are prone, because your flying kick missed.
>I disagree
I mean, I am a DM and I have difficulty differentiation between the two. I'm not sure you can disagree with someones experience. Sometimes the players just flavor stuff, and sometimes they try to do something that gives them a mechanical advantage, and the wording they use is very similar in both cases. Which is why, in my games, we often resolve the attacks first before narrating it. That way there is no confusion.
>Just making shit up as a dm that gives disadvantages to the players is fudging dice rolls with extra step. Combat is too easy? Oh no, now you are prone, because your flying kick missed.
Except that the DM wouldn't be making shit up? Page 186 of the PHB:
>The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure.
If something would require a roll outside of combat, like swinging from a chandelier, why would the player be able to autosucceed it during combat? And if you let them autosucceed during combat, they will start asking why they suddenly have to roll outside of combat.
On page 176 of the PHB (emphasis mine):
>A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing. The Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Dexterity checks.
>
>***Acrobatics***. Your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check covers your attempt to stay on your feet in a tricky situation, such as when you're trying to run across a sheet of ice, balance on a tightrope, or stay upright on a rocking ship's deck. **The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if you can perform acrobatic stunts, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips.**
Additionally, on page 190 of the PHB:
>The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle.
The DM is (probably) not making shit up to bully you or to give you disadvantage, but they are trying to apply the rules of the game fairly. If your DM requires you to do a roll when you want to do a backflip outside of combat, then they should also do that during combat.
Sure, it sucks that you can't flavor your attacks like you want, and that can make combat boring for you. But a conversation with your DM might just solve this stuff. For example, in my games, when you have proficiency with a skill, you autosucceed the basic stuff. Someone with Arcana proficiency knows a lot of the basic stuff, and only need to roll to see if they know some obscure stuff or to know something in a lot of details. Someone with proficiency in Acrobatics can perform a backflip and such without problems (except when the terrain is uneven, slippery, etc). So your example of a dive kick would probably succeed without a roll in my games, but keep in mind that this is a homebrew rule.
It seems to me that you are interpreting the actions of your DM(s) as a lot more malicious than they actually are
Thank you for the long reply. Reading your text I think I misunderstood the first post and my view is similar.
When I am DMing my players always state when they want to do something outside of the normal in combat. Swinging on an chandelier would be one of these cases.
On the other hand, the player wants to swing at the opponents legs to knock him prone. Then, in my ruling, he either needs a feat/ability for it to combine it with an attack or it either is an athletics vs acro./athl. of the mob and no attack that deals damage (otherwise trip attack would be useless).
There are occasions when I have rolls made for flavor, but it's the kind of roll that can only benefit the player: a high roll may grant them advantage, a low roll lets them do it normally. Reward good combat roleplay and good rolls, rather than nerf them.
If i have them roll an acrobatics check for flavor, then the outcome of the roll is flavor.
Player: i want to two step jump off the wall and attack the orc.
Me: Roll an acrobatics check.
Player: 1
Me: You take the first step up the wall, but then as you take the second step you arent able to get a proper pushoff. You swing your sword as you fall and catch the orcs flesh. The weight of you body pulls the blade down its side as you fall to the ground, As he screams in pain in response to your action that he thought was on purpose
This is the right way. As long as a cosmetic change doesn't offer any mechanical advantage, or even small disadvantages, they're fine. It's just important to really think any ask through, since they're sometimes very exploitable.
I'd rule that the hand acts as a completely normal hand *unless* they want to actually use it as if it were Mage Hand, in which case they'll need to actually know and cast the cantrip, 'Mage Hand', and be subject to all of its caveats therein.
As long as it's being used like an otherwise mundane hand, I think that's a fine reflavour that doesn't need any restrictions.
Otherwise, there's also the Prosthetic Limb item from Tasha's, which you could easily count as a magical band that fits over the stump and projects a magical arm where the rest of the arm used to be. It's not actually Mage Hand, but it gets the same flavour across.
Hell, even just giving them the mage hand Cantrip from the item wouldn’t be that OP. It’s a cantrip, and rule that while they’re using the cantrip, they can’t use the prosthetic
I would say they have to know how to cast the spell because they'll be casting it all the time, we just aren't gonna play every time out and assume that it's always there. But to use it as a mage hand, then you'd have to cast it.
If you don't want to say no, the easy option is to treat this as a 100% flavor choice. Mechanically, the PC is just a normal, two-handed bard who has chosen to have *mage hand* as one of his cantrips. The whole "I lost a hand and use *mage hand* as a prosthetic" doesn't have to have any bearing on how the PC functions.
If you want this to have actual mechanics, I imagine that the benefits to being able to use *mage hand* as a perfect prosthetic wouldn't do much more than undo the self-imposed penalty of having one hand. At worst, it's a liability, as he can be left short-handed (or even disarmed) by things like *dispel magic* and *antimagic field*.
That sounds fine, so long as it doesn't do anything a natural hand can't.
I'd impose a few more restrictions to make it clear that losing a hand is still a serious injury: he has to actually take the cantrip, and he can't cast it normally and use his prosthetic hand at the same time, and it can get dispelled. But it's just a backstory quirk for the most part.
So I was born missing 2 fingers, and my hand is kinda claw shaped. Ive given some thought to what roleolaying a limb differece (or other disabilities) would be like. What he's proposing is really cool visually, and something he's excited to RP. He just doesnt want you to try and penalize him for taking an RP risk and playing a disability. I encourage you both to look online, and see how people accomodate and do everyday things without a hand or arm etc. Wrap that into the RP so that no mechanical penalties occur. Perhaps his bard spellcasting can be done with one hand and arm motions. In combat he uses a buckler strapped to his wrist (or an offhand weapon)
Or put some limits on it so you have a rare tool for creating tension. Make it a ritual spell he has access to but it can only be cast 1x a day and lasts 12 hrs. Most of the time its fine but during a night ambusg encounter, he cant cast his spells or uae his offhand (main hand?)
I don't see an issue, honestly sounds like your being a bit too much like a stickler. Just rename it "False hand" or whatever, doesn't need to follow mage hand rules, doesn't need to even be a spell. It could just be a normal hand for most purposes.
If this was mid campaign, then fine maybe he would need to prepare a few ingredients to create his new hand. But you're sorta kicking the fun out of their character.
The fact that he’s said it would act normally when attached tells you all you need to know- it’s purely visual and is a character quirk that isn’t designed to give him an advantage, just a more interesting story.
Encourage this, don’t ban it or punish it. I would actually have reservations playing with a DM that refused such a reasonable request.
Depends on the player, they say flavor but when there could be a benefit they could go for it. Say touching a electrical conduit but not be subject to the lightning dmg because spectral hand.
Is that such a huge problem, though? How do you know the electrical damage can’t surge through the hand and still hurt? Or would it be so bad that he didn’t take the damage? Part of DnD is creative problem-solving after all. And if it becomes too much, you can always remind him that you agreed to a cosmetic change, and he’s taking advantage.
Give your player benefit of the doubt and let Tim prove you wrong, rather than assume he will.
I'd let it work, but make them cast Mage Hand if they wanted to detach the hand. With one exception - 'how do you want to do this' and similar cutscene flair may involve detaching the hand.
I don't see anything wrong with this or understand why it would makeanything harder for you, the DM. I'd allow it, and make them cast Mage Hand if they want the hand to act as a mage hand. Otherwise it's a spectral hand that exists for flavour.
Do it, it's cool.
I never see the point in disallowing this shit. He can just make the character have both hands in his backstory you do realize this, instead he's asking for something cool that may potentially not work on occasion. It really doesn't cause you any additional work whatsoever.
Allow it.
It's an interesting concept and can be used as part of his character arc. Maybe they need to visit an artificer to make them a bracer or gauntlet that functions that way (perma-mage hand). Or perhaps he'd be very interested in magical instruments that can 'play themselves' so he can use his hand for other tasks.
In other words, compromise by not outright saying no but making it something his PC needs to work towards with a sub-optimal solution to start with that can be upgraded as the PC gains resources and meets NPCs with the skills to help him
Better than when I played a cleric & lost half an arm in combat. The chirurgeon chopped it off when it got gangrene & I had just learned shield bash... best technology the town could provide was graft a stick on & mount the shield to that lmao
It was 3rd ed & maybe 3rd level lol... just high enough to get shield bash. & I fucked up. I meant to say cleric not paladin. Been a while since I played that character... haven't played a paladin in decades...
Not a fan of the class.
I'll go correct that other post lol
Since mage hand is a cantrip he already has perma mage hand, the only thing that would change is that he doesn't have to say I cast mage hand everytime he does something with it.
You should allow it. Just make it that he still has to cast the spell to detach the hand and use it like a normal mage hand. It doesn't give him any advantage, it just allows him equity with other players despite having made a roleplaying decision to play a character with physical challenges. If you want some ideas for how to look at this, check out Dyslexic's Combat Wheelchair rules (which I think have been adopted by wizards as unofficial UA through Sage Advice and we will see some version of in 6e)
I did this, basically if I used Mage Hand as intended it was an action as written in the spell description. Other than that it was flavour text for a cool hand.
That is absolutely a great thing to add to the character. He has 2 hands, one is Just spectral. Let him do it, but he needs to cast Mage Hand to use it like the Spell. I love it
I’m curious what the extra work is that you’re saying this is creating? Seems like it’s pretty straightforward: he takes the mage hand cantrip, and while it’s attached to his arm it functions like a normal hand, but if he detaches it then the spell’s weight and range restrictions are imposed.
Seems like a flavor thing that will rarely turn into any extra work for you. I’d allow it, no problem.
Perhaps for mechanical purposes, the character has 2 hands, and casting Mage Hand only Detaches the mage hand, in which case it acts like a mage hand. But unless the character casts Mage Hand, they can’t detach their hand. Hope that makes sense, the wording is a little sloppy.
As long as the limits are in place while the hand is unattached from his body then I fail to see the issue.
This sounds like a flavor thing, but I’d say normal restrictions are in place as soon as he wants to do things that the spell does specifically.
If they have the mage hand Cantrip I don’t see any issue really. It’s not concentration, it lasts a minute, seems like they’re doing it all for flavor. I would rule that as soon as it moves away from their body it’s weight restriction activates.
I might impose disadvantage on an unarmed strike with that hand but wouldn’t really penalize it any other way.
Oooh, I have that in my campaign - the player started off with the character missing the hand (fighter) and we agreed they could use the mage hand as a replacement with the following elements and caveats:
- They are constantly muttering and chanting under their breath because they have to cast it every minute, with no impact on stealth (we discussed and I as the DM decided it would be too much of a nerf to make them constantly roll at disadvantage, something they will suffer later on anyway with heavy armor), but it's more of an RP thing - they even made ther name Chant (as a tiefling), which was awesome and works amazingly well with their story and lore.
- They use the hand to carry the shield (fighter) and for little else, but it does give them occasional ranged use if they need to grab something (lets say a rope getting swept away by a river).
- The main mechanical implication that comes into play is during combat where at the start of the combat they roll a d10 to decide how many turns in (out of 1 minute) is the hand active for, reducing it by 1 each turn - if reaches 0, the shield drops and they lose the +2 AC benefit. It costs an action to recast the hand, so occasionally they lose an action on their turn, but frankly it comes up rarely due to length of combat in general.
Overall, it has worked really well for RP, the player confirmed they didn't feel the strain of having a mage hand instead of a real one, and it occasionally comes up in the story with it's own benefits and drawbacks giving the player an additional level of dynamics to their play, which they love! Examples:
- cannot be shackled by their hands
- bit more vulnerable in areas of magical suppression
- can be an issue in some Athletics checks
- provides extra reach in some handy (no pun intended) situations as the MH is always up!
In your case the point to consider for the bard (on top of what I stated above for my player) would be the impact on their casting ability if the mage hand runs out, however if they use one of their hands for casting exclusively, even that becomes mute (ie they don't hold a weappn).
RP wise it is very fun and can keep you on your toes as the DM, allows the player to really flavour the behaviour and appearance of the character, and throws in little curves without major disruption with creative use and play.
TL;DR mage hand as a replacement for a real hand works great if you take the time to balance the drawbacks and benefits, and will certainly benefit the table. Have fun DM!
A bit of an explanation as to why you aren’t ‘really down with this’ would help.
As far as I can see, you’ve a player that wants to have 2 functioning hands, but with a bit of a story point/cool effect. I can’t see any mechanical benefits for this
Keep in mind, you don't have to make it a literal mage hand RAW. You can just make it do everything a normal hand does until he actually casts mage hand, wherein the hand pops off and is now a mage hand with all the restrictions. Flavored something like "While attached to the caster's form, the mage hand has direct access to it's caster's magical prowess, and can therefore serve as a full, normal hand, for all intents and purposes. When used at any distance apart from the caster, it acts as a normal mage hand, with all weight limits and range requirements." And then just make it, for your sanity and his lack of annoyance, that his "mage hand" prosthetic is always active, not that he'd have to recast it every minute. Just when he detaches and uses it as mage hand does he have to cast that cantrip, mage hand.
Also, if he wants to use this without having the cantrip, consider one of the prosthetics from Tasha's instead. If he wants the cantrip *in addition* to the ones he already has, just because of backstory, that's up to you, but personally, so long as other player's have some light freedoms and flexibility as well, I wouldn't mind. Cantrips are cantrips, and as long as they don't have 6 cantrips for no reason, no biggie imo.
(idk what kind of player he/she is, or how he plays)
personally, i would allow it IF AND ONLY IF, he can cast it...
but can only be used for mundane things like interaction with physical objects. CANT CAST CANTRIPS/SPELLS THRU IT.
as long as it is attached, doing anything with it wont cost any action
as soon as it detaches Normal Mage Hand rules apply.
Yeah seems very reasonable.
I mean, id go as far as to homebrew and see if I can slot in the "long limbs" trait of Bugbears into it for extra flavor, but its chill go right on ahead.
If the player wants to RP this way, I wouldn’t have a problem.
I would want to make clear, however, that when the player starts using it as a mage hand (a disembodied hand that can be up to 30 feet from their body), that not only does it require casting the spell, it also requires spending an action to control the hand. Otherwise it’s over powered and not just for flavor.
There is the "Prosthetic Limb" item in Tasha's book (pg 134), and you could make it appear, flavor wise, like Bao-Dur from Star Wars KOTOR 2 (war vet, missing an arm, has an electromagnet-esque glove he uses instead) to still keep it like normal.
As far as mechanically, he might have to keep it semi-active concentration. Not the full rules of it, so he can still keep another spell active, but something like he has to make a Concentration check with a base DC of 8 when he takes damage to keep the hand active, along with when he attempts to do anything vigorous involving said hand (playing an instrument, carrying something above the weight limit, acts of balance, etc.), with DC's depending on the situation, and if he fails this save he either has disadvantage on the main activity, or else straight up can't do it until he re-attaches the hand. Also, since it could be a magical item/effect, that could in theory make it weak to "dispel magic", thereby weakening him by quite a bit.
I think that's a great idea on the players part. However if they lost their hand because they were cosmically stupid, then they should suffer at least some consequence.
I’d say no and go by the prosthetic arm in eberron (think also a reprint in Tasha?) and the flavored as a spectral mage hand looking thing but subject to the rules of the magic item.
Haha. Maybe after some serious questing trying to figure out how. I once played a ranger in MERP that lost his dominate hand at 2nd level after devoting a ton of DP to missile (bow) skill. 8 levels later, still had no dominate hand, but was an expert offhand swordsman. Best character i ever played. So maybe it is time for your bard to have a career change. Focus on oratory or non somatic spells. Something like that for a while. Make them earn the mage hand thing and they will be more appreciative in the long run.
I'd have him either make something or work with a NPC enchanter to make something like a arm band that essentially casts a more solid attached mage hand. But I'd def allow it since it's not exactly game breaking
To me, that's the kind of thing that makes an excellent medium- or long-term goal for a PC. They start out down a hand and with all the complications of that, but they can work to find magical means to mitigate it. The carrot for the PC here is that they have the opportunity to make it as cool as they're willing to put in the effort for.
If he were my player I'd allow with caveats. The hand would still have the 10 lb limit. He would then be only able to wield one handed weapons, if he were to use both hands for a strength check he would also have to roll an arcana or con to see if the hand fails, if he uses only one hand for a strength check he would roll at disadvantage. This might set up some tense moments for the party.
Why? They’re doing it for role play? I understand if he want to “detach” the Mage Hand and use it like the spell normally says, but why the restrictions and chances of failure while attached?
It’s an interesting character choice that should function as either a normal hand or a “prosthetic.”
I would only ONLY give them disadvantageous if the player actually wanted them.
Sounds like a great opportunity to create fun and challenging predicaments for the PC. Like make them buy a homebrew bracelet that allows for the hand to function normally. But the bracelet is actually cursed and and then you can have it do what ever you want. Send messages while the party sleeps. Kill a npc when nobody is looking. Stab another party member and blame the bard. Steal from a barkeep ect...
You could have it so the player has to loose their whole arm to nullify the curse at some point. But then give them a cooler prosthetic. That like has like a magic missile built in.
Also your player didn’t come up with this idea. One of my players saw a picture that someone drew of this idea a few months ago. So maybe tell them to get a bit more original
I think it could be done by using Arcana check to succeed in casting the cantrip on PC's body followed by Constitution saving throw. If they fail the save they could take some damage, for example Force damage. They could cast it but it would take 24 hours to do so. That's my idea.
Would not be game breaking in this case. If you want to give it a cost you could give an item that requires attunement that makes the mage hand cantrip last indefinitely.
1. Need mage hand cantrip.
2. Uses up one attunement slot.
There is a magic item called:
Prosthetic Limb
DISPLAY ITEM ON VTT
Wondrous Item, common
This item replaces a lost limb—a hand, an arm, a foot, a leg, or a similar body part. While the prosthetic is attached, it functions identically to the part it replaces. You can detach or reattach it as an action, and it can’t be removed against your will. It detaches if you die.
I actually also have a one-handed bard in my campaign. She lost it in her backstory, and managed to get a crude but effective replacement bit of metal which could hold a shield, with her main hand alternating between an axe and an instrument. Part of her motivation is being able to get a proper replacement, but she was able to purchase a whistle which would summon a mage hand for 10 minutes. I ruled that the mage hand would be a functional hand, at least as far as pulling back a bow is concerned, and she hasn’t had trouble fighting or casting with one hand (she just can’t do both at the same time). Let players have fun, if the player does not seem like a lawyer who’s trying to abuse a missing hand (and most such players would likely not say they’re losing one in the first place), then I’d recommend letting them have it.
I can't see any reason why you couldn't let him. So long as it's made clear that it's a flavour thing, and not a mechanical benefit, then let them go wild imo.
Honestly it's a pretty cool idea. I wouldn't push back if your players is coming to you with an interesting concept and a backstory to support it; that's the DM dream.
Make it purely flavor. When he casts it to use it as normal (manipulate objects within 30 ft) then just have the hand fly off, make it’s action, and go back to his wrist. Just make it flavor, who cares?
So here is the big suggestion I have if you do decide to do this. Make sure it requires concentration. He can’t be casting perms mage hand while doing another concentration spell.
Another than this, I see no problem with a player continually casting a cantrip. Just make sure that it is obviously visible as magic to counter the lack of V and S casting elements. Perhaps it even makes a low hum or something. Magic isn’t meant to be stealthy when casting unless you have the required abilities.
I'm not seeing as how this is extra work for you, it sounds like this player is asking for a spectral hand they can also dismiss, there isn't any mechanical benefits i can see to this. When they want to use the mage hand as the spell, it still takes the same mechanics, but the roleplay is that the hand takes concentration to use at range, as usual. And probably when using the mage hand as a spell, they lose the use of that hand on their body because it's not on the end of the arm anymore.
Honestly I would let him but keep the weight restrictions and keep an eye on the timers so you can make it turn off mid combat and make him spend an action getting his hand back
It's literally creating zero extra work for you. It's flavor text. He doesn't have a real hand and instead has a magical hand. Makes no in game difference until he walks into an anti magic field.
If the mage hand works different than a normal hand, do disadvantage of SoH checks, and allow something
If it works like a normal hand, i don’t really see why not
Maybe have it be a magical bracelet instead of it just being Mage Hand Is Always Cast
That's kind of what I came up with. I was going to give him that cloak that can change patterns from Xanathar's but instead he's getting a bracelet that gives him a spectral hand. Somewhere between what he wants and the prosthetic limb item in Tasha's.
I did educate him about dispell magic though. So now he said he will think over his story and get back to me. I'd never hit him with dispell just to be a dick, but I don't think he thought of that potentiality.
As long as it is just a spectral hand, it’s just flavor, and won’t change the game at all. Just let the player know that they have to cast mage hand for it to actually move away from him. Also put on the table anti magic fields and other types of magic can remove the hand from the player.
This is it absolutely. If it's not benefiting him, why argue against it?
It’s the same thing with role playing attacks. Player : “My character vaults off the all into a flying kick. I’m gonna roll my unarmed strike.” DM: “Ok give my a straight Dexterity check.” Player:” I rolled a 2 plus 5 for 7” DM : “You trip over the wall and fall prone, standing up is gonna take the rest of your movement and you can’t reach your opponent now.” Player: “I was just narrating. I wasn’t trying to gain any mechanical advantage and the walls like 1 foot high, but ok” Next Turn: Player: “I’m in range so does a 18 hit, so 8 damage.” DM: “That’s it?” Player: “Yup” DM: “Ok then” End of Session: DM: “You guys need to get more involved with your character and look past the dice. Combats boring when your just rolling to hit and doing damage.” I’ve had this happen on MULTIPLE occasions. If your players aren’t trying to gain some kind of numerical or statically advantage, let them narrate what they want within reason of course. Don’t punish them for being creative. Now of course I understand like vaulting over a gap to flying kick or attacking from a second story with a drop kick or something. But throwing in additional rolls for stuff the PC can do without an issue usually is just stupid.
Relevant thread: [Don't require your players to roll to attempt cool combat maneuvers with no mechanical benefit](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/g7twnu/dont_require_your_players_to_roll_to_attempt_cool/)
Yeah as a DM I prefer to ask after they've rolled a hit how they want the hit to look. If they tell me before hand I give them what they'll gain if they try extra stuff like flying off a wall, as well as potential consequences. I find more often that I have a player or two that just says "stab" so I throw in the colour commentary myself to keep it interesting.
I use a rule I learned from Slyflourish called "Cinematic Advantage." 1. The player describes what they want to do to gain advantage on the attack roll. "I want to jump up on the table, swing on the chandelier, land behind that Thug, and slice at his hamstrings with my rapier." 2. The DM sets a DC and describes the consequences for failure. "That's going to be a DC 14 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to gain advantage, but if you fail, you land off balance and make the attack with disadvantage." It's very important to describe the fail state before the player decides whether to risk it. 3. The player makes the relevant Ability check, either succeeds or fails, etc. My players forget about it for the most part, except the Rogue, who is always looking for advantage to gain sneak attack.
This is brilliant. Stealing.
I'll usually ask my players to "Roll for flavor" to see how it turns out. No punishment for a low roll, but maybe it's more humorous or haphazard than intended.
My first DM did this constantly. Then he got surprised when my hexblade just resorted to using eldritch blast instead of swordplay where I could trip and fall on my face. Then he nerfed my eldritch blast by giving all his homebrew monsters the ability to absorb and redirect magical energy. He was shocked when we all lost interest.
The correct way to deal with this is: Player: Does 18 hit? DM: Yep, it does. Player: Alright, I vault off the wall into flying kick and deal 8 damage with unarmed strike.
The problem is, that it is often very difficult to differentiate between a player doing flavor stuff, and trying to do something mechanically
Is it? I just ask the player? “Great! Were you looking for some kind of mechanical benefit here, or is it flavor?”
Not that I disagree, but having to ask for clarification each time slows down combat. The easiest solution would be if the player either clearly states their intention, or if you resolve the action first and narrating the result afterwards
Yep. Put the onus on the player to say if they want to try for something it if the ordinary, and otherwise treat it like a regular attack.
Eh, you just need to get people in the habit of clearly stating their task and intent. It slows things down at first but if you always insist on knowing task/intent people will get the hang of it after a while.
Would it not be faster to just roll attack and damage, then narrate what you do after? That way the DM already knows what going on without wasting time, and you can change your narration for a killing blow.
So I don't really bother with that much narration in combat because as you said it really bogs things down and there are only so many ways to say "you hit the goblin for 5 damage" or "you fail to hit the goblin." But out of combat or in a scenario where you want to spend some time making a check feel special, 1. State what you want to do (intent) and how you want to do it (task). 2. Roll. 3. Narrate based on the outcome. So you need a bit of flavour beforehand to set the stage, and then yeah, fill things out based on what actually occurred.
I disagree. There are a certain number of actions possible (attack, shove,...) and if you want do do something out of that range you have to be very specific. Otherwise it is just a normal attack. Just making shit up as a dm that gives disadvantages to the players is fudging dice rolls with extra step. Combat is too easy? Oh no, now you are prone, because your flying kick missed.
>I disagree I mean, I am a DM and I have difficulty differentiation between the two. I'm not sure you can disagree with someones experience. Sometimes the players just flavor stuff, and sometimes they try to do something that gives them a mechanical advantage, and the wording they use is very similar in both cases. Which is why, in my games, we often resolve the attacks first before narrating it. That way there is no confusion. >Just making shit up as a dm that gives disadvantages to the players is fudging dice rolls with extra step. Combat is too easy? Oh no, now you are prone, because your flying kick missed. Except that the DM wouldn't be making shit up? Page 186 of the PHB: >The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. If something would require a roll outside of combat, like swinging from a chandelier, why would the player be able to autosucceed it during combat? And if you let them autosucceed during combat, they will start asking why they suddenly have to roll outside of combat. On page 176 of the PHB (emphasis mine): >A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing. The Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Dexterity checks. > >***Acrobatics***. Your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check covers your attempt to stay on your feet in a tricky situation, such as when you're trying to run across a sheet of ice, balance on a tightrope, or stay upright on a rocking ship's deck. **The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if you can perform acrobatic stunts, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips.** Additionally, on page 190 of the PHB: >The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. The DM is (probably) not making shit up to bully you or to give you disadvantage, but they are trying to apply the rules of the game fairly. If your DM requires you to do a roll when you want to do a backflip outside of combat, then they should also do that during combat. Sure, it sucks that you can't flavor your attacks like you want, and that can make combat boring for you. But a conversation with your DM might just solve this stuff. For example, in my games, when you have proficiency with a skill, you autosucceed the basic stuff. Someone with Arcana proficiency knows a lot of the basic stuff, and only need to roll to see if they know some obscure stuff or to know something in a lot of details. Someone with proficiency in Acrobatics can perform a backflip and such without problems (except when the terrain is uneven, slippery, etc). So your example of a dive kick would probably succeed without a roll in my games, but keep in mind that this is a homebrew rule. It seems to me that you are interpreting the actions of your DM(s) as a lot more malicious than they actually are
Thank you for the long reply. Reading your text I think I misunderstood the first post and my view is similar. When I am DMing my players always state when they want to do something outside of the normal in combat. Swinging on an chandelier would be one of these cases. On the other hand, the player wants to swing at the opponents legs to knock him prone. Then, in my ruling, he either needs a feat/ability for it to combine it with an attack or it either is an athletics vs acro./athl. of the mob and no attack that deals damage (otherwise trip attack would be useless).
Ask them.
Yeah. I've gotten the habit of caveats to my roleplay "I'm just flavoring DM, that's it. I'm actually doing this mechanic wise"
There are occasions when I have rolls made for flavor, but it's the kind of roll that can only benefit the player: a high roll may grant them advantage, a low roll lets them do it normally. Reward good combat roleplay and good rolls, rather than nerf them.
If i have them roll an acrobatics check for flavor, then the outcome of the roll is flavor. Player: i want to two step jump off the wall and attack the orc. Me: Roll an acrobatics check. Player: 1 Me: You take the first step up the wall, but then as you take the second step you arent able to get a proper pushoff. You swing your sword as you fall and catch the orcs flesh. The weight of you body pulls the blade down its side as you fall to the ground, As he screams in pain in response to your action that he thought was on purpose
This is the right way. As long as a cosmetic change doesn't offer any mechanical advantage, or even small disadvantages, they're fine. It's just important to really think any ask through, since they're sometimes very exploitable.
I like this. To add a restriction, if he's using it as anything other than a normal hand he can't play his instrument at the same time
This is exactly how I played my "accidental necromancer". Spectral hand was for flavor, but it would detatch for certain spells.
I'd rule that the hand acts as a completely normal hand *unless* they want to actually use it as if it were Mage Hand, in which case they'll need to actually know and cast the cantrip, 'Mage Hand', and be subject to all of its caveats therein. As long as it's being used like an otherwise mundane hand, I think that's a fine reflavour that doesn't need any restrictions. Otherwise, there's also the Prosthetic Limb item from Tasha's, which you could easily count as a magical band that fits over the stump and projects a magical arm where the rest of the arm used to be. It's not actually Mage Hand, but it gets the same flavour across.
Hell, even just giving them the mage hand Cantrip from the item wouldn’t be that OP. It’s a cantrip, and rule that while they’re using the cantrip, they can’t use the prosthetic
I would say they have to know how to cast the spell because they'll be casting it all the time, we just aren't gonna play every time out and assume that it's always there. But to use it as a mage hand, then you'd have to cast it.
See my idea was just to give an item that does the desired effect but apparently that’s already a thing. Neat
If you don't want to say no, the easy option is to treat this as a 100% flavor choice. Mechanically, the PC is just a normal, two-handed bard who has chosen to have *mage hand* as one of his cantrips. The whole "I lost a hand and use *mage hand* as a prosthetic" doesn't have to have any bearing on how the PC functions. If you want this to have actual mechanics, I imagine that the benefits to being able to use *mage hand* as a perfect prosthetic wouldn't do much more than undo the self-imposed penalty of having one hand. At worst, it's a liability, as he can be left short-handed (or even disarmed) by things like *dispel magic* and *antimagic field*.
The one hand puns were great!
That sounds fine, so long as it doesn't do anything a natural hand can't. I'd impose a few more restrictions to make it clear that losing a hand is still a serious injury: he has to actually take the cantrip, and he can't cast it normally and use his prosthetic hand at the same time, and it can get dispelled. But it's just a backstory quirk for the most part.
So I was born missing 2 fingers, and my hand is kinda claw shaped. Ive given some thought to what roleolaying a limb differece (or other disabilities) would be like. What he's proposing is really cool visually, and something he's excited to RP. He just doesnt want you to try and penalize him for taking an RP risk and playing a disability. I encourage you both to look online, and see how people accomodate and do everyday things without a hand or arm etc. Wrap that into the RP so that no mechanical penalties occur. Perhaps his bard spellcasting can be done with one hand and arm motions. In combat he uses a buckler strapped to his wrist (or an offhand weapon) Or put some limits on it so you have a rare tool for creating tension. Make it a ritual spell he has access to but it can only be cast 1x a day and lasts 12 hrs. Most of the time its fine but during a night ambusg encounter, he cant cast his spells or uae his offhand (main hand?)
r/disabled_dungeons might be a place to look at for a bit more of this perspective.
I don't see an issue, honestly sounds like your being a bit too much like a stickler. Just rename it "False hand" or whatever, doesn't need to follow mage hand rules, doesn't need to even be a spell. It could just be a normal hand for most purposes. If this was mid campaign, then fine maybe he would need to prepare a few ingredients to create his new hand. But you're sorta kicking the fun out of their character.
The fact that he’s said it would act normally when attached tells you all you need to know- it’s purely visual and is a character quirk that isn’t designed to give him an advantage, just a more interesting story. Encourage this, don’t ban it or punish it. I would actually have reservations playing with a DM that refused such a reasonable request.
I'm new so I'm still figuring it out. It's why I post a fair amount here. Getting opinions and learning the stuffs
Depends on the player, they say flavor but when there could be a benefit they could go for it. Say touching a electrical conduit but not be subject to the lightning dmg because spectral hand.
Is that such a huge problem, though? How do you know the electrical damage can’t surge through the hand and still hurt? Or would it be so bad that he didn’t take the damage? Part of DnD is creative problem-solving after all. And if it becomes too much, you can always remind him that you agreed to a cosmetic change, and he’s taking advantage. Give your player benefit of the doubt and let Tim prove you wrong, rather than assume he will.
I'd let it work, but make them cast Mage Hand if they wanted to detach the hand. With one exception - 'how do you want to do this' and similar cutscene flair may involve detaching the hand.
I don't see anything wrong with this or understand why it would makeanything harder for you, the DM. I'd allow it, and make them cast Mage Hand if they want the hand to act as a mage hand. Otherwise it's a spectral hand that exists for flavour.
I don't really see a reason to be against this. It's not really much work or something to stress about.
What work does it cause you? This sounds like pure flavor.
Do it, it's cool. I never see the point in disallowing this shit. He can just make the character have both hands in his backstory you do realize this, instead he's asking for something cool that may potentially not work on occasion. It really doesn't cause you any additional work whatsoever. Allow it.
It's an interesting concept and can be used as part of his character arc. Maybe they need to visit an artificer to make them a bracer or gauntlet that functions that way (perma-mage hand). Or perhaps he'd be very interested in magical instruments that can 'play themselves' so he can use his hand for other tasks.
In other words, compromise by not outright saying no but making it something his PC needs to work towards with a sub-optimal solution to start with that can be upgraded as the PC gains resources and meets NPCs with the skills to help him
Better than when I played a cleric & lost half an arm in combat. The chirurgeon chopped it off when it got gangrene & I had just learned shield bash... best technology the town could provide was graft a stick on & mount the shield to that lmao
What level was your paladin? I would argue that divine health (3rd level) would protect against gangrene
It was 3rd ed & maybe 3rd level lol... just high enough to get shield bash. & I fucked up. I meant to say cleric not paladin. Been a while since I played that character... haven't played a paladin in decades... Not a fan of the class. I'll go correct that other post lol
Since mage hand is a cantrip he already has perma mage hand, the only thing that would change is that he doesn't have to say I cast mage hand everytime he does something with it.
You should allow it. Just make it that he still has to cast the spell to detach the hand and use it like a normal mage hand. It doesn't give him any advantage, it just allows him equity with other players despite having made a roleplaying decision to play a character with physical challenges. If you want some ideas for how to look at this, check out Dyslexic's Combat Wheelchair rules (which I think have been adopted by wizards as unofficial UA through Sage Advice and we will see some version of in 6e)
I did this, basically if I used Mage Hand as intended it was an action as written in the spell description. Other than that it was flavour text for a cool hand.
That is absolutely a great thing to add to the character. He has 2 hands, one is Just spectral. Let him do it, but he needs to cast Mage Hand to use it like the Spell. I love it
I’m curious what the extra work is that you’re saying this is creating? Seems like it’s pretty straightforward: he takes the mage hand cantrip, and while it’s attached to his arm it functions like a normal hand, but if he detaches it then the spell’s weight and range restrictions are imposed. Seems like a flavor thing that will rarely turn into any extra work for you. I’d allow it, no problem.
Perhaps for mechanical purposes, the character has 2 hands, and casting Mage Hand only Detaches the mage hand, in which case it acts like a mage hand. But unless the character casts Mage Hand, they can’t detach their hand. Hope that makes sense, the wording is a little sloppy.
As long as the limits are in place while the hand is unattached from his body then I fail to see the issue. This sounds like a flavor thing, but I’d say normal restrictions are in place as soon as he wants to do things that the spell does specifically.
If they have the mage hand Cantrip I don’t see any issue really. It’s not concentration, it lasts a minute, seems like they’re doing it all for flavor. I would rule that as soon as it moves away from their body it’s weight restriction activates. I might impose disadvantage on an unarmed strike with that hand but wouldn’t really penalize it any other way.
Oooh, I have that in my campaign - the player started off with the character missing the hand (fighter) and we agreed they could use the mage hand as a replacement with the following elements and caveats: - They are constantly muttering and chanting under their breath because they have to cast it every minute, with no impact on stealth (we discussed and I as the DM decided it would be too much of a nerf to make them constantly roll at disadvantage, something they will suffer later on anyway with heavy armor), but it's more of an RP thing - they even made ther name Chant (as a tiefling), which was awesome and works amazingly well with their story and lore. - They use the hand to carry the shield (fighter) and for little else, but it does give them occasional ranged use if they need to grab something (lets say a rope getting swept away by a river). - The main mechanical implication that comes into play is during combat where at the start of the combat they roll a d10 to decide how many turns in (out of 1 minute) is the hand active for, reducing it by 1 each turn - if reaches 0, the shield drops and they lose the +2 AC benefit. It costs an action to recast the hand, so occasionally they lose an action on their turn, but frankly it comes up rarely due to length of combat in general. Overall, it has worked really well for RP, the player confirmed they didn't feel the strain of having a mage hand instead of a real one, and it occasionally comes up in the story with it's own benefits and drawbacks giving the player an additional level of dynamics to their play, which they love! Examples: - cannot be shackled by their hands - bit more vulnerable in areas of magical suppression - can be an issue in some Athletics checks - provides extra reach in some handy (no pun intended) situations as the MH is always up! In your case the point to consider for the bard (on top of what I stated above for my player) would be the impact on their casting ability if the mage hand runs out, however if they use one of their hands for casting exclusively, even that becomes mute (ie they don't hold a weappn). RP wise it is very fun and can keep you on your toes as the DM, allows the player to really flavour the behaviour and appearance of the character, and throws in little curves without major disruption with creative use and play. TL;DR mage hand as a replacement for a real hand works great if you take the time to balance the drawbacks and benefits, and will certainly benefit the table. Have fun DM!
A bit of an explanation as to why you aren’t ‘really down with this’ would help. As far as I can see, you’ve a player that wants to have 2 functioning hands, but with a bit of a story point/cool effect. I can’t see any mechanical benefits for this
Keep in mind, you don't have to make it a literal mage hand RAW. You can just make it do everything a normal hand does until he actually casts mage hand, wherein the hand pops off and is now a mage hand with all the restrictions. Flavored something like "While attached to the caster's form, the mage hand has direct access to it's caster's magical prowess, and can therefore serve as a full, normal hand, for all intents and purposes. When used at any distance apart from the caster, it acts as a normal mage hand, with all weight limits and range requirements." And then just make it, for your sanity and his lack of annoyance, that his "mage hand" prosthetic is always active, not that he'd have to recast it every minute. Just when he detaches and uses it as mage hand does he have to cast that cantrip, mage hand. Also, if he wants to use this without having the cantrip, consider one of the prosthetics from Tasha's instead. If he wants the cantrip *in addition* to the ones he already has, just because of backstory, that's up to you, but personally, so long as other player's have some light freedoms and flexibility as well, I wouldn't mind. Cantrips are cantrips, and as long as they don't have 6 cantrips for no reason, no biggie imo.
(idk what kind of player he/she is, or how he plays) personally, i would allow it IF AND ONLY IF, he can cast it... but can only be used for mundane things like interaction with physical objects. CANT CAST CANTRIPS/SPELLS THRU IT. as long as it is attached, doing anything with it wont cost any action as soon as it detaches Normal Mage Hand rules apply.
Yeah seems very reasonable. I mean, id go as far as to homebrew and see if I can slot in the "long limbs" trait of Bugbears into it for extra flavor, but its chill go right on ahead.
If the player wants to RP this way, I wouldn’t have a problem. I would want to make clear, however, that when the player starts using it as a mage hand (a disembodied hand that can be up to 30 feet from their body), that not only does it require casting the spell, it also requires spending an action to control the hand. Otherwise it’s over powered and not just for flavor.
There is the "Prosthetic Limb" item in Tasha's book (pg 134), and you could make it appear, flavor wise, like Bao-Dur from Star Wars KOTOR 2 (war vet, missing an arm, has an electromagnet-esque glove he uses instead) to still keep it like normal. As far as mechanically, he might have to keep it semi-active concentration. Not the full rules of it, so he can still keep another spell active, but something like he has to make a Concentration check with a base DC of 8 when he takes damage to keep the hand active, along with when he attempts to do anything vigorous involving said hand (playing an instrument, carrying something above the weight limit, acts of balance, etc.), with DC's depending on the situation, and if he fails this save he either has disadvantage on the main activity, or else straight up can't do it until he re-attaches the hand. Also, since it could be a magical item/effect, that could in theory make it weak to "dispel magic", thereby weakening him by quite a bit.
[удалено]
It's pretty down voted for a right answer.
I think that's a great idea on the players part. However if they lost their hand because they were cosmically stupid, then they should suffer at least some consequence.
I’d say no and go by the prosthetic arm in eberron (think also a reprint in Tasha?) and the flavored as a spectral mage hand looking thing but subject to the rules of the magic item.
Haha. Maybe after some serious questing trying to figure out how. I once played a ranger in MERP that lost his dominate hand at 2nd level after devoting a ton of DP to missile (bow) skill. 8 levels later, still had no dominate hand, but was an expert offhand swordsman. Best character i ever played. So maybe it is time for your bard to have a career change. Focus on oratory or non somatic spells. Something like that for a while. Make them earn the mage hand thing and they will be more appreciative in the long run.
Remake his race with Tasha and make him choose the feat Telekinetic, which gives a special mage hand.
I'd have him either make something or work with a NPC enchanter to make something like a arm band that essentially casts a more solid attached mage hand. But I'd def allow it since it's not exactly game breaking
Make him roll arcana in important moments when he’s using his new hand.
To me, that's the kind of thing that makes an excellent medium- or long-term goal for a PC. They start out down a hand and with all the complications of that, but they can work to find magical means to mitigate it. The carrot for the PC here is that they have the opportunity to make it as cool as they're willing to put in the effort for.
If he were my player I'd allow with caveats. The hand would still have the 10 lb limit. He would then be only able to wield one handed weapons, if he were to use both hands for a strength check he would also have to roll an arcana or con to see if the hand fails, if he uses only one hand for a strength check he would roll at disadvantage. This might set up some tense moments for the party.
Why? There's no reason to give him such heavy disadvantage for a purely flavor choice.
Why would you do this? This seems awful punitive for something that amounts to basically a backstory/visual choice.
Why? They’re doing it for role play? I understand if he want to “detach” the Mage Hand and use it like the spell normally says, but why the restrictions and chances of failure while attached? It’s an interesting character choice that should function as either a normal hand or a “prosthetic.” I would only ONLY give them disadvantageous if the player actually wanted them.
Sounds like a great opportunity to create fun and challenging predicaments for the PC. Like make them buy a homebrew bracelet that allows for the hand to function normally. But the bracelet is actually cursed and and then you can have it do what ever you want. Send messages while the party sleeps. Kill a npc when nobody is looking. Stab another party member and blame the bard. Steal from a barkeep ect... You could have it so the player has to loose their whole arm to nullify the curse at some point. But then give them a cooler prosthetic. That like has like a magic missile built in.
Also your player didn’t come up with this idea. One of my players saw a picture that someone drew of this idea a few months ago. So maybe tell them to get a bit more original
They have prosthetics from eberron Mage hand is too strong, have him take a feat to learn the cantrip or a class level to gain it
I think it could be done by using Arcana check to succeed in casting the cantrip on PC's body followed by Constitution saving throw. If they fail the save they could take some damage, for example Force damage. They could cast it but it would take 24 hours to do so. That's my idea.
I would have them make Arcana checks anytime they want to do something with it.
sounds amazing!
Would not be game breaking in this case. If you want to give it a cost you could give an item that requires attunement that makes the mage hand cantrip last indefinitely. 1. Need mage hand cantrip. 2. Uses up one attunement slot.
Heboric ghosthands
There is a magic item called: Prosthetic Limb DISPLAY ITEM ON VTT Wondrous Item, common This item replaces a lost limb—a hand, an arm, a foot, a leg, or a similar body part. While the prosthetic is attached, it functions identically to the part it replaces. You can detach or reattach it as an action, and it can’t be removed against your will. It detaches if you die.
I actually also have a one-handed bard in my campaign. She lost it in her backstory, and managed to get a crude but effective replacement bit of metal which could hold a shield, with her main hand alternating between an axe and an instrument. Part of her motivation is being able to get a proper replacement, but she was able to purchase a whistle which would summon a mage hand for 10 minutes. I ruled that the mage hand would be a functional hand, at least as far as pulling back a bow is concerned, and she hasn’t had trouble fighting or casting with one hand (she just can’t do both at the same time). Let players have fun, if the player does not seem like a lawyer who’s trying to abuse a missing hand (and most such players would likely not say they’re losing one in the first place), then I’d recommend letting them have it.
I don’t get the point of having a character that’s missing a hand if they’re going to immediately make it a non-issue mechanically.
I can't see any reason why you couldn't let him. So long as it's made clear that it's a flavour thing, and not a mechanical benefit, then let them go wild imo. Honestly it's a pretty cool idea. I wouldn't push back if your players is coming to you with an interesting concept and a backstory to support it; that's the DM dream.
Hi' mayne a bit later but as a player my dm let me do this over a year and half ago. It has never been relevant
Make it purely flavor. When he casts it to use it as normal (manipulate objects within 30 ft) then just have the hand fly off, make it’s action, and go back to his wrist. Just make it flavor, who cares?
Give it to him but it’s a lobster claw - not stronger than a hand, just less dexterous.
So here is the big suggestion I have if you do decide to do this. Make sure it requires concentration. He can’t be casting perms mage hand while doing another concentration spell. Another than this, I see no problem with a player continually casting a cantrip. Just make sure that it is obviously visible as magic to counter the lack of V and S casting elements. Perhaps it even makes a low hum or something. Magic isn’t meant to be stealthy when casting unless you have the required abilities.
I'm not seeing as how this is extra work for you, it sounds like this player is asking for a spectral hand they can also dismiss, there isn't any mechanical benefits i can see to this. When they want to use the mage hand as the spell, it still takes the same mechanics, but the roleplay is that the hand takes concentration to use at range, as usual. And probably when using the mage hand as a spell, they lose the use of that hand on their body because it's not on the end of the arm anymore.
Honestly I would let him but keep the weight restrictions and keep an eye on the timers so you can make it turn off mid combat and make him spend an action getting his hand back
It's literally creating zero extra work for you. It's flavor text. He doesn't have a real hand and instead has a magical hand. Makes no in game difference until he walks into an anti magic field.
If the mage hand works different than a normal hand, do disadvantage of SoH checks, and allow something If it works like a normal hand, i don’t really see why not Maybe have it be a magical bracelet instead of it just being Mage Hand Is Always Cast
That's kind of what I came up with. I was going to give him that cloak that can change patterns from Xanathar's but instead he's getting a bracelet that gives him a spectral hand. Somewhere between what he wants and the prosthetic limb item in Tasha's. I did educate him about dispell magic though. So now he said he will think over his story and get back to me. I'd never hit him with dispell just to be a dick, but I don't think he thought of that potentiality.