Could mage hand be used for surgery on another creature?

Question

At the moment my party just finished rescuing a goblin princess who wants to marry a dragon, and we have now been given the task to make her pretty. The DM explains to us that this princess is quite hideous, with very bad hygiene and boils that would make a hag look pretty. While we have a cleric on hand to help clean her up, a lot of her other issues are more "natural" and can't be cured with a lesser restoration, and none of us have illusion magic to just disguise her.

I am, however an artificer with the telekinetic feat, and figured I could try my hand at a sort of plastic surgery. The cleric is on hand to provide guidance but neither of us are trained in medicine, so I hope to use my telekinesis to have the steady "hand" to do all the cosmetic surgery. However, it has been brought up that mage hand can't be used to hurt other creatures, and I'm definitely going to have to cut off some flesh for this operation.

So my question here is thus: Can a mage hand be used for surgery on another creature? For incisions, popping boils, lancing cuts, etc.

Answer 1

General surgery isn't possible with Mage Hand.

Mage Hand lists its capabilities, as well as an additional clarification of what it cannot do:

You can use the hand to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the contents out of a vial. [...]

The hand can't attack, activate magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds.

This answer has a good explanation of the limitations of Mage Hand (albeit primarily regarding a ballista rather than surgery), especially the part about ranged legerdemain. In order for the ability to do anything, performing higher-dexterity maneuvers must not be possible with a vanilla Mage Hand: the list of options in Mage Hand is comprehensive.

Mage Hand doesn't prohibit hurting, just attacking.

however it has been brought up that mage hand can't be used to hurt other creatures, and I'm definitely going to have to cut off some flesh for this operation.

Mage Hand doesn't say that it can't be used to hurt other creatures, it says it "can't attack." If you're not making an attack roll it shouldn't count as an attack, so this prohibition doesn't apply unless the patient is actively resisting and the DM rules that you need to roll an attack to target the boil.

Is popping a boil surgery, or just manipulating an object?

You mentioned "a sort of plastic surgery," which brings to mind very precise incisions, careful manipulation of flesh, stitching up the wound, etc., but your specific examples are simpler. I couldn't give someone a facelift, but I sure could lance a boil. This post addresses the use of a healer's kit. The use of a healer's kit is arguably within scope for Mage Hand — the answers are mixed — but a healer's kit falls short of actively doing surgery. If you can use a healer's kit, you should be able to lance a boil.

Mage Hand can perform extremely simple surgeries.

If the medical operation:

• does not require a high level of dexterity/accuracy,
• can be performed by manipulating a single object at a time,
• and is being performed against a willing/unresisting patient,

then it could be performed with Mage Hand. Applying a poultice, for example, would be viable with Mage Hand, as it would fall within manipulating an object and does not require significant dexterity. Making an accurate incision would require more precision than a basic Mage Hand can offer (based on ranged legerdemain), but lancing a large-enough boil on a willing, immobile patient would be reasonable. Giving someone a facelift would be significantly outside the capabilities of Mage Hand.

Answer 2

The mage hand cannot attack, but it can damage.

You say "it has been brought up that mage hand can't be used to hurt other creatures", and that is your fundamental misconception. In 5e, spells do what they say they do, and mage hand says:

The hand can't attack, activate magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds.

It does not say the hand can't damage, or do harm. What does it mean to attack? Typically it means you are making an attack roll. When you cast a fireball, or a magical missile, for example, you are not attacking, even though you may be doing lethal damage.

Similarly, you can't use a mage hand to throw a torch or a flask of oil at someone, as that would require an attack roll. But if someone was standing in a large pool of oil, you could have the mage hand drop a lit torch into the pool, igniting the oil and damaging or even killing the person. You might want to see If my familiar is forced through my action to drop a rock while over a target, is it considered an attack? for further explanation and elaboration of this idea.

As a player, you don't get to declare "I make an attack". Rather, you tell your DM what you are attempting to do, and the DM decides whether an attack roll is called for. In this case, you will say "I use my mage hand to hold the scalpel and try to lance the goblin's boil" and your DM will either say, "Trying to lance the goblin's boil will require an attack roll, and thus your mage hand can't do it", OR they will say "These minor surgeries on a willing patient are not attacks, and you may use your mage hand".

I'm not your DM, so I can't tell you how they will rule. In my game, the 'attack threshold' is a target who can resist. Even a willing goblin patient is going to flinch away from the pain of a surgical knife. Thus I would rule that if the goblin is not incapacitated, such surgeries are attacks. If the goblin is incapacitated and can't resist (anesthetized, held, etc.), it is not an attack and could be performed by the mage hand.

Answer 3

Yes

Mage hand (Basic Rules (2014)) says:

You can use the hand to manipulate an object

Surely, that includes using a scalpel, at least assuming the patient is unable to resist.

Surely a mage hand could wield a knife to cut a rope or a potato, an incapacitated patient is not much different.

You say "it's been said that mage hand can't be used to hurt other creatures". There's no support for that in the rules. As Kirt points out, that is not correct, it just can't attack.

But surely it isn't better at surgery than you are, and likely worse

There's nothing about mage hand that would make it better at surgery than you are, and since you are controlling it, but indirectly, it seems the DM might likely say that it is actually worse at it.

But what are you really trying to accomplish here anyway?

You say:

. . . we have now been given the task to make her pretty. The DM explains to us that this princess is quite hideous, with very bad hygiene and boils that would make a hag look pretty.

Bad hygiene is bad hygiene. Plastic surgery won't fix that.

Boils are a medical condition. Perhaps you can consult someone skilled in medicine? Surely that makes more sense than home surgery. Or maybe consult a local healer, who may be able to concoct a salve of some sort.

Furthermore, you might consider arguing that the boils are an infection, which is a disease, which should be curable by magic. That won't make the princess "pretty" by some arbitrary criteria, but at least it would cure the actual disease. Although that brings us back to hygiene.

Has the princess met the dragon?

You say:

who wants to marry a dragon

You don't mention if the dragon is amenable.

The dragon's opinion might be important

It seems unlikely that you are going to be able to coerce a dragon into marrying against its will, and if you can, beauty won't matter.

The dragon may be willing to marry the princess regardless of her looks. Maybe the difference between a pretty goblin and an ugly goblin isn't that significant to a dragon. I mean, the dragon's still a dragon, and the bride is still something besides a dragon.

There are all sorts of reasons the dragon might be willing to take the princess as-is: dowry, political advantage, inheritance, a snack later, who knows. For one thing, being a princess implies royal connections, maybe even a kingdom, or at least large tracts of land. Maybe the dragon keeps humanoid spouses as decorations, and has dozens back in its lair. Nothing says the dragon need be monogamous.

Or . . . maybe the dragon and the princess could . . . I don't know, get to know it each other. After all, they say there's someone for everyone.

In any case, it seems the dragon's opinion here might be paramount. After all, beauty is only skin deep, but being a dragon goes to the bone.