As a lesser invocation, found on p. 124 of CMage, Disembodied Hand is described as follows:

"One of your hands drops off at the wrist and floats in the air. You can use the hand in all ways as if it were still attached—manipulating items, delivering attacks with a light or one-handed weapon, or even delivering a touch attack with a spell or invocation that you cast before it detaches. However, it requires you to expend the same action that would have been required—picking up an item takes a move action, making an attack takes a standard action, and so forth.
"The hand flies rather than crawls, but it can't move on its own. You can move the hand up to 30 feet through the air as a move action. You can direct a disem-bodied hand in your space to reattach to your arm as a move action.
"When you use this invocation, your current and full normal hit point totals are reduced by 5 for as long as the hand is detached. The hand is considered a Diminutive creature with AC 20 and 5 hit points. Its Hide and Move Silently modifiers are equal to your warlock level. For all other purposes, its statistics are equal to yours.
"If your disembodied hand is destroyed, it regrows in ld4 hours. At the end of this period, you regain the 5 lost hit points.
"Only one of your hands can be used for disembodied hand at any time; if your disembodied hand is destroyed, you can't use this invocation again until your hand regrows."

My first question would be to clarify the use of actions to even activate this invocation. As per the invocation description in CArcane, to activate an invocation requires a standard action that is subject to an AoO. There is a bit of confusing wording (typical) here that makes it sound as if it might take twice as long to get this invocation active if you actually wanted to do something else aside from attack with a melee weapon the hand is already holding.

That said, would it first require you to spend a standard action to imbue the hand with a touch invocation (ranged or melee) in 1 round, and then another standard action in a subsequent round to disengage it, followed by the necessary move action to direct it up to 30' that round, and then finally in a 3rd round be able to use whatever it is you're attempting? Seems like a penalty to me, especially since its saying that these things are eating up the pc's own actions. It certainly wouldn't take 3 rounds for my pc to move 30' and deliver a touch invocation, it would take 1. This says to me that perhaps this invocation may, at most, take 2, and least the same 1.

Must these actions follow each other immediately? If not, how long do they last? Until discharged? Until reattached? Could a pc cast an invocation on the hand, disengage it, and walk about with it floating an inch from where it normally would be attached to indefinitely?

Can it flank? Can it deliver an eldritch blast (ranged touch attack)? The description says 'touch attack' but does not specify melee or ranged. If it can deliver an EB can it only do so once or can it do so indefinitely (for as long as it is disembodied)?

*deleted content regarding eglaive as of posting wasn't aware of certain specifics*

I understand it says that you can use the hand as you "normally could," but it seems that there are some limitations and so I am trying to clearly define them. Specifically in stating that the pc has to 'imbue the hand with the invocation to deliver touch attack' prior to disengaging.

*more eglaive deletion*

I would like to put into consideration that, invocation imbued, melee weapon, already in said hand, a warlock should be able to disembody, move, and use the attack in the same round as FRA. Would basically take 2 rounds to bring online in such cases rather than the 3 or 4 it might infer by reading through the definition (at least to Keith and I it seems this way). If using melee attacks that allow iterative, the hand should benefit from these as well.

I also see this invocation as freezing the warlock - it says it takes a move action to move the hand 30', so would it take a double-move to have it simply float next to you as you move about yourself? Seems like that part was not very well thought out. I understand that it should in no way grant an extra attack that would not normally be allowed if the hand is attached but to cost double move actions etc seems to bump it close to the worthless mark.

*more eglaive deletions*

I still wonder at its usefulness as worded. I know also that the site tries not to be in the habit of completely modifying existing things, but thanks in advance for your consideration.

X

Only generally on-topic...

I agree with the stupid wording part. But, there are a number of other invocations that look cool at first glance but are totally not worth the cost of the invocation slot (or not for long).

*bumps*

3 weeks later all? Anyone? Bueller?

OK, we'll break this down:



Question 1: Using the invocation is a standard action, and making it do anything seems pretty clear that it uses whatever action you would normally need to accomplish the action.



Question 2: Yes, please see the answer to question 1.



Question 3: Maybe. It depends on the durations of what you cast, but the hand could float there until reattached or destroyed indefinitely, though you'd need to use a move action to move it along with you.



Question 4: Can it flank: No. Similar spells unless specifically stating they can do so attack from the direction of the caster, and cannot benefit from flanking.



Question 5: From the text it seems that it cannot deliver an Eldritch Blast once detached.



Question 6: Eldritch Glaive is special in several ways, but the important one here is that it is a Full Round activation that encompasses attacks and remains until the warlock's next action, and considering it would use a standard action to detach the hand it would not be active when detached.



This is covered above. It doesn't work since the invocation only lasts a round.



We only discussed a weapon in hand, or an already active touch spell.



The intention is not to walk around with it disembodied, but as a combat spell.



It has uses, but eldritch blast in almost any form isn't one of them.

Thanks for clarifying some of the points.

*tosses another mostly useless invocation into the pile for now*

This invocation seems specifically for examples that require hand manipulation and perhaps using them to sneak touch folks while freezing the warlock who owns the hand. According to the above info the warlock would have to double move to move at all if the hand also moves and therefore could not do anything with either the hand or themselves. That said, if the warlock moves and uses standard or swift actions, the hand must then also stay where it is. It just seems... odd. It would make sense that, like the spell-based weapons mentioned for the spells that do not benefit from flanking, that the hand would float and move with the warlock but cost actions if the warlock moved the hand out of his or her own square. It would make the hand at least a bit more useful if this were the case. In all honesty, using the invocation as you are stating actually hampers the warlock in this manner:

It seems to me it is being interpreted as follows:
Warlock imbues the hand with devour magic (SA round 1), warlock disengages the hand (SA round 2) and then moves it 30' to an enemy (move round 2), round 3 the warlock makes the touch attack and the devour magic is expended (SA round 3) then calls the hand back (move round 3). Round 4 warlock must spend move action to reattach.

4 rounds to deliver a touch attack 30' away when, in round 1, the warlock could have moved and touched.

This is how it seems to me the invocation can be interpreted, when, honestly i believe it works like this: warlock imbues hand with devour magic which then disengages and attacks any target within 30' (Round 1 SA + move) - the warlock is still frozen that whole round as if enacting a FRA. to get the hand back and attach requires the move action of the second round, leaving the warlock free to activate another SA. If the hand does not attack that round, the warlock may move and the hand should float along with him, that is my opinion. On any subsequent rounds, however, if the warlock moves the hand out of his square it costs a move action and if he uses it to deliver the touch spell imbued that is his SA. If they use the disembodied hand to deliver the touch spell while the hand remains in their square then they still get a move to reattach or move themselves?

Please clarify this for me. I know you said that it seems clear that it takes the requisite actions, but where i stumble is in an above such action. It makes the invocation useless in combat, as you state is its purpose, in my opinion. Thanks.

X

Niche builds specifically designed to make use of the invocation.

Without more due thought into it, I'd see this best used by a Rogue/Warlock multiclass for the ultimate dagger-in-the-back with no-one apparently around. Combine with the creepy eye invocation (perch it on the back of the hand) and use a mundane dagger for the killshot. Worst case, you lose a few HP.

Yes and hoping on surprise and backstab and rogue levels and 3 standard actions to pull that off even. it can't be the intention there, can it? Draw dagger, disengage hand, move hand, attack with hand... and add another round and another sa in there if you want to perch the eye on top of it... it's worse than an assassin's death attack feature

I just don't think they could *possibly* mean to nix this invocation so and it is amazing to see that everyone is ready to write it off as such rather than simply switch a bit of interpretation to make it equal and on par with other lesser invocations like flight and invisibility. useful, and limited, not useless except in niche circumstances.

X

I refer you to Hungry Darkness (Lesser) and Warlock's Call (Greater). Both ridiculously overpriced and underutilitied. There's more in other sources, of course.

Bottom line, WotC is incredibly good at coming up with excellent or cool ideas that are stupidly written. As-written, this one is crap unless you're that rogue wanting a perfectly safe stealth attack, or wanting to stay well above the action while sending down a spear or bastard sword for melee attacks.

You'd be better asking Ian to errata this to make more cohesive sense than interpret it.

At this point I am trying to encourage dialogue. The question has been up for 3 weeks. Keith is the first to add his interpretation. Doing so makes it a 'useless except in certain circumstances' invocation in my opion. I can, and will, relegate to the pile as such, but I would like a second opinion before doing so. Ian being out on a business trip, I will ask him to look it over when he returns if he has time.

X

Actually it's not 4 rounds to make the touch attack.

Round 1, Imbue Invocation. Round 2 Detach Hand, Round 3 Move hand 30' and make touch attack.

Round 4 to reattach hand is after the attack is made.

So 3 rounds to deliver a touch attack from a safe distance exposing only 5 hp vs walking up to the target and delivering the attack exposing the warlock to whatever attacks and is at melee range after the attack is made.

30' is by no means a 'safe distance.' So you are saying it is officially a 3 round action and 4 if you want to reattach the hand (leaving you a standard action for round 4)? Ugh. Alright. *puts it down the garbage disposal*

If you're 30' up in the air and are fighting land based opponents it's pretty safe, yes.

And, it's entirely possible that a Warlock, flying 30' in the air (Good maneuverability allows you to hover), using the Walk Unseen invocation to stay invisible, could maintain that invisibility while taking several actions with the hand.

There are also other numerous ways this could be used. Delivering touch spells or making weapon attacks are possible, utilizing wands, delivering potions/oils/etc, activating a ring on the hand, etc.

All could be possible with the warlock a decent distance away. With only a d6 hit points per level, it is much safer for warlocks to use something like this and stay a safe distance away.

Ok, so ranged attacks and spells notwithstanding to hit that floating warlock? I mean, 30’ is in range of just about all ranged weapons and even close range spell effects. The warlock would be forced then if hit to make a concentration check of DC 10 + the damage suffered by the attack or spell or both become visible *and* fall. Secondly, unless house-ruled somewhere, the monster feat hover states that without the feat perfect maneuverability is needed to hover, it also takes a move action to do so. That would be to say that one cannot fly and use disembodied hand at the same time. There goes that application.

*edit* the Hover feat allows for full round action while hovering - that means to hover costs your move action for the round and so either you would need to double move to move the hand from yourself and then once using the action of the hand it could not move again while you are hovering *edit

Again, 30’ from anything isn’t really a ‘safe’ distance. Even if they *could* hover, *and* if the warlock is flying *and* if they are invisible (that’s 3 lesser invocations, so… an 8th-9th level warlock?) By that level generally invisibility is starting to become a less viable option to use tactically with any real success. And if the hand was invisible before detaching, if it makes an attack equivalent action does it also cause the warlock to appear? More interpretation needed there as well.

What about if the warlock stuffs the hand in his pocket? What about move actions then?

I do see the point about alternate applications, but I really don’t think it’s meant to take 3-4 rounds to pull this thing off. I think the detach, move, and attack, deliver, operate is meant to be part of a single full-round action, taking a subsequent round’s move action to reattach the hand if within 30’. I don’t believe it’s meant to take 3 rounds to deliver the touch attack and a 4th to reattach. I read it as spending a lesser invocation to be able to deliver a touch attack or invocation in round 1 and spending the warlock’s move action in round 2 to reattach, thereby giving them two potential attacks. Is that so bad? Attacks they would have had anyway – there is no bonus here. It doesn’t take away their risk to melee as most creatures can close from 30’ in a single round anyway. As noted above flying and using it won’t work (unless there is a house rule I’m not aware of). If is as defined above (taking 3-4 rounds to get online), if a creature was 90’ away they would be able to get to the ‘lock by round 3 when the hand was attacking. It is possible the hand could be ran past at that point, would it get an AoO? Sure but only a melee attack… if it’s not holding a weapon then well the warlock is exposed and 3 rounds are wasted. If it *is* holding a weapon it better be hideous blow that was imbued on it before detaching (although per keith can't use EBlast?). What’s more, if a creature was 60’ away (in range of a warlock’s normal EB), they could close before the ‘lock even got the hand moving *away* from his own square and if hit by any attack, be it spell or otherwise as stated above these would force concentration checks equal to 10 + damage incurred and might put the kibosh on the whole thing.

I have thought about this in more than a few scenarios. While I disagree with the current interpretation I will respect it until such time as its errata’d, banned, or changed. I just wanted to offer my opinions.

Thanks again for your time.

X

And by offering your opinion you do mean stuffing it in everyone's face?

I would probably suggest that this be errata'd entirely to read, "Once detached, the hand works exactly like the spell spectral hand, but allows use of ranged eldritch blast."

This then becomes a viable option for creeping people out by detaching your hand, popping out your eye, mounting the eye on the hand, and then sending it zooming around the corner to shoot people.