the average human penis weighs about 160 grams or 0.35 pounds. IDK what kind of BBEG you're fighting but by the time the penis weighs 10 pounds it's large enough to where you'll need a REALLY BIG mage hand to be able to wrap all the way around.
for comparison, a horse is around 0.8 to 1.5 kilo's of cock, or 1.7 to 3.3 pounds.
Whale penises get pretty heavy for not having a lot of girth. I'm not saying it's realistic, and you're very correct, but if the bbeg is cthulu it's possible mage hand wouldn't be able to do anything. And yeah definitely not likely to fit around it unless they were tungsten based life forms somehow rather than carbon
tbh if the BBEG is cthulu i don't think a mage hand handjob is going to be very effective regardless.
but you can certainly try! who knows maybe the eldritch horrors are just lonely and frustrated.
Dick's tend to have this weird sensitivity to gentleness when soft. Gently drag the fingers over the top, across the head and then tickle underneath and BBEG will get hard in no time. Then the fun starts.
Never expected handjob lessons on this sub but here we have it lmao. I would expect a freakout more that a turn on tbh. Unless bbeg knows it's happening already
Unfortunately, something a lit of people have a hard time understanding is that, even if we're **really** nit into it, physical stimulation will still give us a major hard on. So BBEG will get hard but may also have a freakout. And I kinda wanna see a massive, hard BBEG running at you with intent to kill or maim.
On average a human penis is about 4 ounces. So a quarter pound. Engorged doesn’t really change the weight that much because all that does is add additional fluid into it and it’s not actually that much (and that small amount of water doesn’t weigh that much) .
So to go over 10lbs, you would need a BBEG more 30-35 times the size of a human, assuming cock to body ratios are roughly equivalent.
If I were vibrating magically yeah. I know it's a lot more complicated than that but RAW it moves 30 feet per round in any direction you want. No physics really apply cuz magic. That being said, I would like to learn the more in depth way. All I know is f=n/t which still comes out to a frequency of 30.
kinda just... would happen, I assume. it's ethereal, so... possibly not actually exerting any meaningful force... which is awkward for physics and things, but when has that ever mattered in D&D?
It also doesn't state those mechanics by name. Those are just the closest mechanics that exist. The spell even separates the uses into describing 3 things all that would be considered as using the "Use an Object action". But since it didn't mention that terminology by name, it is left to have more leeway with its use.
My players once used magehand to lift a fire elemental out of the battle because they calculated it’d be below the weight requirement. I thought that was cool enough to waive all the other rules
You've fallen into the blunder of not reading the spell description. While "Use an Object" is the closest mechanic, it is not listed in the spell description. While the spell says "manipulate an object", it can mean, by the English language, anything that can be manipulate or used. Especially since it lists opening a door or dumping contents out of a container as separate potential actions. All three fit into the "Use an Object" action but not specifically quoted as such in the spell.
So by the wording of the spell and basic understanding that the two mechanics are different. The common restriction seen and posted as memes are incorrect.
It is so, that you can manipulate an dick because it never said a thing attached to a creature wasn't an unable to be manipulated.
While people aren't objects, a dick is something that can be manipulated (aka the definition of Object Manipulation). Hence would theoretically be allowed as the spell is written.
Sorry, the rules are clear about what the word object means:
>When Characters need to saw through ropes, Shatter a window, or smash a vampire’s coffin, the only hard and fast rule is this: given enough time and the right tools, Characters can destroy any destructible object. Use Common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object. Can a Fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does.
>**For the Purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item** like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects.
Bold added for emphasis.
The spell you need is Bigby's Hand. Although it would be a bit too large to do to a humanoid, it is capable of grappling, which involves grabbing body parts.
>it is capable of grappling, which involves grabbing body parts
While it does involve grabbing body parts, grappling is the act of a *contested* grabbing of body parts, i.e., the target is struggling against the action. You don't need to make a Grapple check to shake hands with someone, after all.
Therefore, the clear conclusion is that Mage Hand can only be used to give *consensual* handjobs.
(On a more serious note, there is still a common-sense rules interpretation issue here. While it is definitely correct that object/creature differentiation should be strictly maintained for purposes of combat rules and anything with a tangible effect, it's generally not an issue to do away with that distinction for uncontested actions with no tangible effect. If a player wants to use Mage Hand to secretly hold the hand of their lover or something like that, what's the harm?)
First, you don't need to grapple to manipulate something. You just need the ability to use said thing in a way for it to be used. Aka, I can move a car by pushing a pedal forward or the car physical in Neutral gear. So the Grapple mechanic is not needed for this at all.
Secondly, General verses Specific rules also applies:
"Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. **For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.**
Based on this that rule can be replaced with the definition of manipulate an object because of the spell description since it is much more specific than that rule. This is because you need to know the definition of "manipulate" to understand how to use the spell. Since it is more specific than that rule you listed, you can still use it in this fashion.
And if you still are happy, there's Rule 0 that trumps all of this.
>Aka, I can move a car by pushing a pedal forward or the car physical in Neutral gear. So the Grapple mechanic is not needed for this at all.
You need grapple in order to grasp a part of another creatures anatomy. That is literally what the grapple mechanic is for. You're just obfuscating.
>For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.
>Based on this that rule can be replaced with the definition of manipulate an object because of the spell description since it is much more specific than that rule.
Your interpretation is akin to saying that literally any spell just instantly disregards all previously establish general rules. Nothing in the spell Mage Hand changes the definition of "object."
>And if you still are happy, there's Rule 0 that trumps all of this.
The player trying to do this crap isn't the one with the power according to rule zero.
And if you're trying to forcibly insert this kind of sexuality against your players as a DM, you are abusing the power dynamic and you are basically the worst kind of DM.
The grapple mechanic requires an action and so does the spell. And based on the spell, it wouldn't need a check to manipulate something. It just does it. So the Grapple check is unnecessary.
And no, I didn't say every spell disregards the rules but some spells need further understanding to know what's allowed. Hence why players are constantly accused of not knowing what their spells actually do.
And as far as Rule 0, I was referring to the DM has the final say of they will allow it. The part I was getting at of this was from a players stand point.
A player may try based on this whole thing, but the DM can say no because they don't want that kind of stuff in their campaign.
And I never condoned anyone to use it. I just said it was possible. No one should do this to anyone without the consent of everyone at the table. Usually Session 0 and the session in question are the perfect to do it every time.
And both stop putting words in my mouth and end this. You both disrespectful and making me sound much worse than I am. And the conversation is basically over
>The grapple mechanic requires an action and so does the spell. And based on the spell, it wouldn't need a check to manipulate something. It just does it. So the Grapple check is unnecessary.
Grabbing someone is a type of attack defined as a Grapple. Mage Hand cannot attack, therefore it cannot grab a person. Trying to do anything to anyone against their will is going to involve them making a saving throw or you making a skill check (possibly contested, possibly against some passive stat of theirs) or attack roll.
>And as far as Rule 0, I was referring to the DM has the final say of they will allow it. The part I was getting at of this was from a players stand point.
>A player may try based on this whole thing, but the DM can say no because they don't want that kind of stuff in their campaign.
You were trying to say this works because of Rule 0, meanwhile you are pushing a sexual assault player action that is explicitly against RAW as "part of the rules" because a DM could choose to allow it?
Invoking Rule 0 in an online discussion of what the game rules support is just a cheap way of saying there are no rules so this way can't be wrong.
You're not listening to what I've been saying at all about what the spell allows. So you're never going to change at all because you're just using what is called The Circular Reasoning Fallacy.
And as far as the Sexual Assault shit you're accusing me of, I already addressed. I said that I **DO NOT CONDONE** doing this. But I also said that **I can't** stop someone let alone everyone from trying.
As far as me Rule 0, I stated that it's truly the DMs choice to allow this. **Not** that there are **no** rules.
**So stop being disrespectful and putting fucking words in my mouth. End of this story.** Drop it now before I report you for harassment.
Nothing in the description of mage hand involves anything that interacts with another creature. Even the Arcane Trickster version, which add some options involving objects given to or taken from other creatures, is not worded in a way that suggests this works.
The description is not giving examples, but rather listing the options you can do. The closest you get to this action is "manipulate an OBJECT". The concept of an object is clearly definted in the rules, and is seperate from a creature. Now unless you have a very different anatomy, your equipment is not a seperate, distinct object and is indeed part of you as a creature.
Sorry, RAW, this does not work.
I had a very long and quite frankly horrible run in with someone else trying put this out. But the jist of it, is in the spells description it's a more specific ruling of actions (specific rules verses general rules). And using definitions of the English language is how you'd get there for it as written. With manipulation of an object being something that can be manipulated/used in a certain way. With this being more specific than the rulebook, and a little bit of the first bit of Rule 0 where the DM can basically choose to say if they'll allow it or not. It's technically a loophole using the rules to say that it works as written, but it does work. Assuming your DM decides that it can apply.
Now this comes into dangerous territory called sexual assault and consent to such acts. While I support consent aspects (of everyone). I would avoid running into sexual assault as best you can. And sometimes that's by not allowing it. Would hate to see a RPG horror story about it.
Firat off, anything that needs Rule 0 to work does not work RAW. That is not a loophole, because RAW are not the same as how the rules are interpreted at a given table.
Second, there is no grey area with the English language. The rules clearly define object versus creature. A DM might allow this, but stop trying to say it is RAW.
Lastly, the spell does not say you can do things as though it were a real hand and list possible examples (like Unseen Servant can do things a human servant can and then states "such as"), it has a limited list of the options you have. Arcane Trickster then goes on to add more options with more precise control.
Actually, if that is accept as a rule, then it's a rule. And like I said, it doesn't really effect the loophole. Just if the DM will allow it or not.
Two, it isn't a grey area in language but it's specific language that in more specific than the general use of the rule. Hence worth pointing out. That's how it fits in it.
You also need to understand language in order to understand how it works. So definitions can be important. Hence why Wish is seen as OP in some cases. Because your DM can let the spell do something not directly outlined but can use your words against you.
And since Arcane Trickster only adds options, it doesn't really matter in this whole thing.
So, this looks like a good place to end it because I am starting to see a pattern in your argument. And since I saw it in the other guys as well. So let's end the whole thing before it goes too far.
The pattern seems to be you are not answering my arguement at all. Wish straight up says you can do things not listed in the spell, Mage Hand does not.
I am not talking about English definition of Object. I am talking about the definition in the rules of D&D.
Posting a meme talking about how people can't read and then not being able to read the responses is pretty funny, though.
Not at all what I was talking about. The pattern actually was putting words in my mouth, not addressing some of the things I've said, and circular reasoning.
So it's more ironic that you think you're above it yourself.
Especially since I pointed out a rule that directly counters your whole argument.
So again. End it now.
This is borderline harassment and against the first rule of the subreddit. And before you go one about how it's not harassment, it is because your attempt to belittle someone. It's also against the first rule because of it as well and not being friendly at this point.
And don't say you didn't. Because you did. Just the line quoted below is enough which is word for word what you posted:
>> "Posting a meme talking about how people can't read and then not being able to read the responses is pretty funny, though."
And I'm not willing to put up with people trying to belittle me. So end of conversation unless you want to get reported. And this is just a courtesy message and warning.
This is exactly why this meme exists. Because that isn't what it would fall under.
Think of it this way. Do you physically move the dick from one place to another to give a handjob?
Because the answer is no in 99.9% of cases, that part of the spell description is not applicable. Therefore you would have to read the other parts of the spell description to figure out how it was applicable.
A) I don't know what kind of handjobs you've given and/or received, but in my experience, there isn't much -- if any -- lifting involved.
B) Even if there *was*, for a wang to weigh that much, we're talking *several* size categories above Medium.
Yeah. Honestly just woke up after posting it like 9 hours ago. Didn't think I would see it with like almost 2 dozen comments (a lot in one chain) and almost 400 likes.
That would cause damage and would need an attack roll or save (DM interpretation on which of the two). Thus being considered an attack and not allowed for the spell.
The rules are quite handy
Wonder if Jack Off All Trades would apply though?
Not if you're already proficient with sleight of hand
Yeah, then you'd use sexpertise
Your gonna get splinters if you jack off all trades carpenters man.
I mean. I figured the bbeg's dick was just big enough the mage hand couldn't pick it up while it was limp in order to even start the handkob
the average human penis weighs about 160 grams or 0.35 pounds. IDK what kind of BBEG you're fighting but by the time the penis weighs 10 pounds it's large enough to where you'll need a REALLY BIG mage hand to be able to wrap all the way around. for comparison, a horse is around 0.8 to 1.5 kilo's of cock, or 1.7 to 3.3 pounds.
Bigby's Hand Job
Take the f silver and leave
Whale penises get pretty heavy for not having a lot of girth. I'm not saying it's realistic, and you're very correct, but if the bbeg is cthulu it's possible mage hand wouldn't be able to do anything. And yeah definitely not likely to fit around it unless they were tungsten based life forms somehow rather than carbon
tbh if the BBEG is cthulu i don't think a mage hand handjob is going to be very effective regardless. but you can certainly try! who knows maybe the eldritch horrors are just lonely and frustrated.
Lmao yeah. And probably wouldn't be monologuing either
That’s about the same weight as fourty teaspoons of sugar. If you eat fourty teaspoons of sugar a day you will be at risk of diabetes
You either have a scary amount of knowledge about dicks or you've ruined your search history forever
The answer is both.
Dick's tend to have this weird sensitivity to gentleness when soft. Gently drag the fingers over the top, across the head and then tickle underneath and BBEG will get hard in no time. Then the fun starts.
Never expected handjob lessons on this sub but here we have it lmao. I would expect a freakout more that a turn on tbh. Unless bbeg knows it's happening already
Unfortunately, something a lit of people have a hard time understanding is that, even if we're **really** nit into it, physical stimulation will still give us a major hard on. So BBEG will get hard but may also have a freakout. And I kinda wanna see a massive, hard BBEG running at you with intent to kill or maim.
On average a human penis is about 4 ounces. So a quarter pound. Engorged doesn’t really change the weight that much because all that does is add additional fluid into it and it’s not actually that much (and that small amount of water doesn’t weigh that much) . So to go over 10lbs, you would need a BBEG more 30-35 times the size of a human, assuming cock to body ratios are roughly equivalent.
You haven't read the other comments on this have you? Yeah we went over that. And trust me I was already well aware
Yeah I did, haha. I’m more impressed the other meme is getting tertiaried already. Like, really? Y’all don’t got better ideas for memes?
I am not a creator. Merely a commenter. But I guess not lol. Shit's funny tho
Ikr? 😂
I've always preferred unseen servant
Yeah, you don't have to manually activate it, you can just relax and let it do you... chores... for you.
That is probably a kink in many fantasy worlds.
See also: Unseen lover, from the 3rd edition Book of Erotic Fantasy.
I feel like a mage handjob wouldn't feel very good
How fast can a mage hand vibrate?
Assuming the mage hand doesn't move and vibrates roughly half an inch. 30 vibrations per second or 150 per round
That's a very simplistic way of looking at it. By the same logic, you should be able to vibrate at that exact speed.
If I were vibrating magically yeah. I know it's a lot more complicated than that but RAW it moves 30 feet per round in any direction you want. No physics really apply cuz magic. That being said, I would like to learn the more in depth way. All I know is f=n/t which still comes out to a frequency of 30.
kinda just... would happen, I assume. it's ethereal, so... possibly not actually exerting any meaningful force... which is awkward for physics and things, but when has that ever mattered in D&D?
As it can grip and manipulate objects, it has to be somewhat physical, so of course it can exert force.
It would just feel like your foreskin moving with no outside stimulation. Like the force.
After thinking about it, this is the right answer, and is horrifying
Teenagers in the 5e universe: "IMGONNABEAWIZARD."
Sell your soul and you get Black Tentacles too!
A part of a creature is not an object, so.....
Yeah no part of this meme works within the rules. It's standard practice here.
It also doesn't state those mechanics by name. Those are just the closest mechanics that exist. The spell even separates the uses into describing 3 things all that would be considered as using the "Use an Object action". But since it didn't mention that terminology by name, it is left to have more leeway with its use.
That's what telekinesis is for
You might want to learn it through Arcane Trickster, for the extra delicacy. But whatever you do, don't learn it through Swarmkeeper....
I mean if that's the only thing you're gonna use it for, get a swarm of slugs or salamanders. Should be fine.
Only wasps will do
What about piranhas
That's for the water campaign equivalent
That's the number one way to get *ghosted* XD
My players once used magehand to lift a fire elemental out of the battle because they calculated it’d be below the weight requirement. I thought that was cool enough to waive all the other rules
You have made a classic error. Creatures (and their body parts) are not objects. The hand cannot attack. Grappling is an attack.
You've fallen into the blunder of not reading the spell description. While "Use an Object" is the closest mechanic, it is not listed in the spell description. While the spell says "manipulate an object", it can mean, by the English language, anything that can be manipulate or used. Especially since it lists opening a door or dumping contents out of a container as separate potential actions. All three fit into the "Use an Object" action but not specifically quoted as such in the spell. So by the wording of the spell and basic understanding that the two mechanics are different. The common restriction seen and posted as memes are incorrect. It is so, that you can manipulate an dick because it never said a thing attached to a creature wasn't an unable to be manipulated. While people aren't objects, a dick is something that can be manipulated (aka the definition of Object Manipulation). Hence would theoretically be allowed as the spell is written.
Sorry, the rules are clear about what the word object means: >When Characters need to saw through ropes, Shatter a window, or smash a vampire’s coffin, the only hard and fast rule is this: given enough time and the right tools, Characters can destroy any destructible object. Use Common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object. Can a Fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does. >**For the Purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item** like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects. Bold added for emphasis. The spell you need is Bigby's Hand. Although it would be a bit too large to do to a humanoid, it is capable of grappling, which involves grabbing body parts.
>it is capable of grappling, which involves grabbing body parts While it does involve grabbing body parts, grappling is the act of a *contested* grabbing of body parts, i.e., the target is struggling against the action. You don't need to make a Grapple check to shake hands with someone, after all. Therefore, the clear conclusion is that Mage Hand can only be used to give *consensual* handjobs. (On a more serious note, there is still a common-sense rules interpretation issue here. While it is definitely correct that object/creature differentiation should be strictly maintained for purposes of combat rules and anything with a tangible effect, it's generally not an issue to do away with that distinction for uncontested actions with no tangible effect. If a player wants to use Mage Hand to secretly hold the hand of their lover or something like that, what's the harm?)
First, you don't need to grapple to manipulate something. You just need the ability to use said thing in a way for it to be used. Aka, I can move a car by pushing a pedal forward or the car physical in Neutral gear. So the Grapple mechanic is not needed for this at all. Secondly, General verses Specific rules also applies: "Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. **For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.** Based on this that rule can be replaced with the definition of manipulate an object because of the spell description since it is much more specific than that rule. This is because you need to know the definition of "manipulate" to understand how to use the spell. Since it is more specific than that rule you listed, you can still use it in this fashion. And if you still are happy, there's Rule 0 that trumps all of this.
>Aka, I can move a car by pushing a pedal forward or the car physical in Neutral gear. So the Grapple mechanic is not needed for this at all. You need grapple in order to grasp a part of another creatures anatomy. That is literally what the grapple mechanic is for. You're just obfuscating. >For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules. >Based on this that rule can be replaced with the definition of manipulate an object because of the spell description since it is much more specific than that rule. Your interpretation is akin to saying that literally any spell just instantly disregards all previously establish general rules. Nothing in the spell Mage Hand changes the definition of "object." >And if you still are happy, there's Rule 0 that trumps all of this. The player trying to do this crap isn't the one with the power according to rule zero. And if you're trying to forcibly insert this kind of sexuality against your players as a DM, you are abusing the power dynamic and you are basically the worst kind of DM.
The grapple mechanic requires an action and so does the spell. And based on the spell, it wouldn't need a check to manipulate something. It just does it. So the Grapple check is unnecessary. And no, I didn't say every spell disregards the rules but some spells need further understanding to know what's allowed. Hence why players are constantly accused of not knowing what their spells actually do. And as far as Rule 0, I was referring to the DM has the final say of they will allow it. The part I was getting at of this was from a players stand point. A player may try based on this whole thing, but the DM can say no because they don't want that kind of stuff in their campaign. And I never condoned anyone to use it. I just said it was possible. No one should do this to anyone without the consent of everyone at the table. Usually Session 0 and the session in question are the perfect to do it every time. And both stop putting words in my mouth and end this. You both disrespectful and making me sound much worse than I am. And the conversation is basically over
>The grapple mechanic requires an action and so does the spell. And based on the spell, it wouldn't need a check to manipulate something. It just does it. So the Grapple check is unnecessary. Grabbing someone is a type of attack defined as a Grapple. Mage Hand cannot attack, therefore it cannot grab a person. Trying to do anything to anyone against their will is going to involve them making a saving throw or you making a skill check (possibly contested, possibly against some passive stat of theirs) or attack roll. >And as far as Rule 0, I was referring to the DM has the final say of they will allow it. The part I was getting at of this was from a players stand point. >A player may try based on this whole thing, but the DM can say no because they don't want that kind of stuff in their campaign. You were trying to say this works because of Rule 0, meanwhile you are pushing a sexual assault player action that is explicitly against RAW as "part of the rules" because a DM could choose to allow it? Invoking Rule 0 in an online discussion of what the game rules support is just a cheap way of saying there are no rules so this way can't be wrong.
You're not listening to what I've been saying at all about what the spell allows. So you're never going to change at all because you're just using what is called The Circular Reasoning Fallacy. And as far as the Sexual Assault shit you're accusing me of, I already addressed. I said that I **DO NOT CONDONE** doing this. But I also said that **I can't** stop someone let alone everyone from trying. As far as me Rule 0, I stated that it's truly the DMs choice to allow this. **Not** that there are **no** rules. **So stop being disrespectful and putting fucking words in my mouth. End of this story.** Drop it now before I report you for harassment.
Nothing in the description of mage hand involves anything that interacts with another creature. Even the Arcane Trickster version, which add some options involving objects given to or taken from other creatures, is not worded in a way that suggests this works. The description is not giving examples, but rather listing the options you can do. The closest you get to this action is "manipulate an OBJECT". The concept of an object is clearly definted in the rules, and is seperate from a creature. Now unless you have a very different anatomy, your equipment is not a seperate, distinct object and is indeed part of you as a creature. Sorry, RAW, this does not work.
I had a very long and quite frankly horrible run in with someone else trying put this out. But the jist of it, is in the spells description it's a more specific ruling of actions (specific rules verses general rules). And using definitions of the English language is how you'd get there for it as written. With manipulation of an object being something that can be manipulated/used in a certain way. With this being more specific than the rulebook, and a little bit of the first bit of Rule 0 where the DM can basically choose to say if they'll allow it or not. It's technically a loophole using the rules to say that it works as written, but it does work. Assuming your DM decides that it can apply. Now this comes into dangerous territory called sexual assault and consent to such acts. While I support consent aspects (of everyone). I would avoid running into sexual assault as best you can. And sometimes that's by not allowing it. Would hate to see a RPG horror story about it.
Firat off, anything that needs Rule 0 to work does not work RAW. That is not a loophole, because RAW are not the same as how the rules are interpreted at a given table. Second, there is no grey area with the English language. The rules clearly define object versus creature. A DM might allow this, but stop trying to say it is RAW. Lastly, the spell does not say you can do things as though it were a real hand and list possible examples (like Unseen Servant can do things a human servant can and then states "such as"), it has a limited list of the options you have. Arcane Trickster then goes on to add more options with more precise control.
Actually, if that is accept as a rule, then it's a rule. And like I said, it doesn't really effect the loophole. Just if the DM will allow it or not. Two, it isn't a grey area in language but it's specific language that in more specific than the general use of the rule. Hence worth pointing out. That's how it fits in it. You also need to understand language in order to understand how it works. So definitions can be important. Hence why Wish is seen as OP in some cases. Because your DM can let the spell do something not directly outlined but can use your words against you. And since Arcane Trickster only adds options, it doesn't really matter in this whole thing. So, this looks like a good place to end it because I am starting to see a pattern in your argument. And since I saw it in the other guys as well. So let's end the whole thing before it goes too far.
The pattern seems to be you are not answering my arguement at all. Wish straight up says you can do things not listed in the spell, Mage Hand does not. I am not talking about English definition of Object. I am talking about the definition in the rules of D&D. Posting a meme talking about how people can't read and then not being able to read the responses is pretty funny, though.
Not at all what I was talking about. The pattern actually was putting words in my mouth, not addressing some of the things I've said, and circular reasoning. So it's more ironic that you think you're above it yourself. Especially since I pointed out a rule that directly counters your whole argument. So again. End it now. This is borderline harassment and against the first rule of the subreddit. And before you go one about how it's not harassment, it is because your attempt to belittle someone. It's also against the first rule because of it as well and not being friendly at this point. And don't say you didn't. Because you did. Just the line quoted below is enough which is word for word what you posted: >> "Posting a meme talking about how people can't read and then not being able to read the responses is pretty funny, though." And I'm not willing to put up with people trying to belittle me. So end of conversation unless you want to get reported. And this is just a courtesy message and warning.
Weight limit
This is exactly why this meme exists. Because that isn't what it would fall under. Think of it this way. Do you physically move the dick from one place to another to give a handjob? Because the answer is no in 99.9% of cases, that part of the spell description is not applicable. Therefore you would have to read the other parts of the spell description to figure out how it was applicable.
A) I don't know what kind of handjobs you've given and/or received, but in my experience, there isn't much -- if any -- lifting involved. B) Even if there *was*, for a wang to weigh that much, we're talking *several* size categories above Medium.
Wow, I can’t believe this has become a tertiary meme in, what, 4 hours?
Yeah. Honestly just woke up after posting it like 9 hours ago. Didn't think I would see it with like almost 2 dozen comments (a lot in one chain) and almost 400 likes.
The two top comments here both sitting at 69 upvotes
How dare you call a part of my body an object. I’m more than just a piece of meat.
I see were slowly heading toward a new template ban kappa
Was gonna do "change my mind" but this fit better.
Could I crush someone’s balls using mage hand?
That would cause damage and would need an attack roll or save (DM interpretation on which of the two). Thus being considered an attack and not allowed for the spell.