D&D is great because it allows for creative freedom and doesn’t require that everything be explicitly permitted in the written rules. It is always the DM’s prerogative to set a DC for any action and make the player roll for it, then roleplay the outcome, which is a lot more fun than just saying “no, you can’t do that because it’s not described in the rule book”.
This isn’t “homebrew”, it’s the right way to play.
I’d go so far as to say it’s not just the DM’s prerogative to set DCs for actions the players want to take but literally part of their job as specifically outlined in the core rules on ability checks.
The fact that the DM presumably set a DC for the intimidate check is also not the part here that’s in question.
The intimidate check granting a +2 to hit as a free action
Using Mage Hand to manipulate items that are worn/held by a creature
The damage against the floor is a minor thing, and smashing up the place as a consequence of fighting there is a reasonable bit of extra flavour. I’m not against it.
A free action that grants a skill check to get +2 to hit on your next attack as a reward for missing is wildly disproportionate. There are feats worse than that. If this is a thing people can do why would literally everyone playing not be constantly chewing up the floor in every encounter?
Broadly speaking objects that are worn or held are exempted from automatic manipulation by spells and effects, though this is usually called out in the description of the effect. Telekinesis, which is much stronger than Mage Hand, is one such spell which grants the wearer a save. Then you have things like Catapult, Daylight, or Fireball’s ignition effect, from which held or carried items are flatly immune. Personally I’d consider that grounds to extend that same restriction to Mage Hand.
A free action that grants a skill check to get +2 to hit on your next attack as a reward for missing is wildly disproportionate. There are feats worse than that. If this is a thing people can do why would literally everyone playing not be constantly chewing up the floor in every encounter?
Ok, yes I can see the potential problems but I think they’re easy to handle by just carrying out the action to its logical outcome - which is that the player just ate a handful of gravel. Now if they’re a dwarf maybe that’s not an issue, but also a dwarf eating gravel might not be any more intimidating than a human eating popcorn. On the other hand if they’re an elf or a human or something, well even if they pass a constitution save to not immediately start puking, they’re getting broken teeth, a mouthful of rock dust, and future digestion problems.
Sure, they can take an action that is technically possible within the game world, but actions have consequences. The gravel didn’t just disappear because they succeeded on the intimidation roll.
Broadly speaking objects that are worn or held are exempted from automatic manipulation by spells and effects, though this is usually called out in the description of the effect.
I agree this one’s more of a stretch, I’d say specifically because Mage Hand Legerdemain has specific rules about worn/carried objects that can be manipulated, which implies that anything not defined there cannot be manipulated.
D&D is great because it allows for creative freedom and doesn’t require that everything be explicitly permitted in the written rules. It is always the DM’s prerogative to set a DC for any action and make the player roll for it, then roleplay the outcome, which is a lot more fun than just saying “no, you can’t do that because it’s not described in the rule book”.
This isn’t “homebrew”, it’s the right way to play.
I’d go so far as to say it’s not just the DM’s prerogative to set DCs for actions the players want to take but literally part of their job as specifically outlined in the core rules on ability checks.
The fact that the DM presumably set a DC for the intimidate check is also not the part here that’s in question.
OK, which part is?
Since you asked:
The damage against the floor is a minor thing, and smashing up the place as a consequence of fighting there is a reasonable bit of extra flavour. I’m not against it.
A free action that grants a skill check to get +2 to hit on your next attack as a reward for missing is wildly disproportionate. There are feats worse than that. If this is a thing people can do why would literally everyone playing not be constantly chewing up the floor in every encounter?
Broadly speaking objects that are worn or held are exempted from automatic manipulation by spells and effects, though this is usually called out in the description of the effect. Telekinesis, which is much stronger than Mage Hand, is one such spell which grants the wearer a save. Then you have things like Catapult, Daylight, or Fireball’s ignition effect, from which held or carried items are flatly immune. Personally I’d consider that grounds to extend that same restriction to Mage Hand.
Ok, yes I can see the potential problems but I think they’re easy to handle by just carrying out the action to its logical outcome - which is that the player just ate a handful of gravel. Now if they’re a dwarf maybe that’s not an issue, but also a dwarf eating gravel might not be any more intimidating than a human eating popcorn. On the other hand if they’re an elf or a human or something, well even if they pass a constitution save to not immediately start puking, they’re getting broken teeth, a mouthful of rock dust, and future digestion problems.
Sure, they can take an action that is technically possible within the game world, but actions have consequences. The gravel didn’t just disappear because they succeeded on the intimidation roll.
I agree this one’s more of a stretch, I’d say specifically because Mage Hand Legerdemain has specific rules about worn/carried objects that can be manipulated, which implies that anything not defined there cannot be manipulated.