D&D 5E Why don't Arcane Tricksters get access to Bigby's Hand?

[Azurewraith]

Well I was not sure myself if it was a good suggestion since it does kind of "cheat" on the original question It's a bit like saying "if you want your Arcane Trickster to be able to do X, you need to enter a different class..."

I would say it's valid and negates the question . Arcane tricksters can leather bigbys hand just with a lil multiclassing, as can any class. Myth busted

 

[Ahglock]

Uhm... maybe with multiclassing?

Combining Arcane Trickster with a few levels of Wizard, you might get to 5th-level spell slots. But you'll need to be very high level, for example Arc 15/Wiz 4, Arc 12/Wiz5 or Arc 9/Wiz 6.

Don't you need wizard 9? You might get spell slots for level 5 but wouldn't you need wizard 9 to be able to learn 5th spells and not just up cast lower level spells.

Though when it comes to rogues I have to ask my players what is your character concept that requires that class? Will a background cover what you are looking for? If you really need to lock pick at range are there any class features past level 3 integral to your concept? For me backgrounds and skills cover 90% of what i think of when I envision a rogue, I'm not sure the extra 10% is worth class levels in the rogue class. If I'm thinking thief with bigby spells I'd just play a wizard with a criminal background or a bard and take that as a cross spell selection. Rogue isnt a bad class it can be a lot of fun. But I really want to make sure I'm thinking more than sneaky dude because sneaky dude is covered by skills anyone can take.

 

[Li Shenron]

Don't you need wizard 9? You might get spell slots for level 5 but wouldn't you need wizard 9 to be able to learn 5th spells and not just up cast lower level spells.

Yeah probably, it was already discussed for cleric/wizard that you cannot learn/prepare a spell unless you already could do so in your single class without levels in the other, so it's pointless...

 

[Oofta]

Bigby's Hand spells are blunt combat spells, while Arcane Trickster is supposed to be more about subtlety and (well...) "tricks"

But but but... Arcane Tricksters can learn Bigby's spells! They can learn up to 4 non-Enchantment/non-Illusion spells!

(edit) err... now that I think about it, there is just a small problem with that... Bigby's Hand is a 5th level spell, and Arcane Tricksters cast spells only up to 4th level! So no Bigby's Hand for Arcane Tricksters but the could learn it if it wasn't for the high level

Maybe we just need Bigby's Poking Finger? Not quite as powerful, but really, really annoying.

 

[Ahglock]

Maybe we just need Bigby's Poking Finger? Not quite as powerful, but really, really annoying.

I think 2e had that. Too lazy to dig up my spell compendium but they had like a dozen bigby spells. Some pretty low level ones. I think he bigby atomic wedgied khelben backstaff or something because he has a handful of anti bigby spells.

 

[MoonSong]

1. No class except Wizard's have access to "named" spells.

Oh and just noticed, Eldritch knights have access to Melf's, Otiluke's, Mordekainen's and Leomund's spells.

 

[famousringo]

Taha's Hideous Laughter and Melf's minute meteors beg to differ. (And bards can have any spell with their spellsecrets)

Bards have Tasha's, Otto's, Leomund's Tiny Hut, and Mordenkainen's Mansion and Sword right on their list.

Sorcerers have Maximillian's Earthen Grasp, Aganazzer's Scorcher, Snilloc's Snowball, Melf's Meteors, and Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting on their list.

Great Old Warlock's have Tasha's and Evard's Tentacles.

Of course, Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights have access to several named spells already, even within their specialized schools.

Even druids can get Melf's Acid Arrow from the Swamp Circle.

Wizards need to get some better copyright lawyers, because 2/3 of the spellcasting classes in the game have already jacked their super-special, unique, wizard-only, no girls allowed named spells.

 

[MoonSong]

Wizards need to get some better copyright lawyers, because 2/3 of the spellcasting classes in the game have already jacked their super-special, unique, wizard-only, no girls allowed named spells.

They haven't had exclusivity on named spells since when? AD&D? On second edition bards had free access to them, just like sorcerer's on third, and many named spells weren't there in 4th -and some of the ones that were were rituals anybody could get-.

 

[famousringo]

They haven't had exclusivity on named spells since when? AD&D? On second edition bards had free access to them, just like sorcerer's on third, and many named spells weren't there in 4th -and some of the ones that were were rituals anybody could get-.

Rangers could cast wizard spells back in 1st Ed. So not even then.

 

[Azurewraith]

Though when it comes to rogues I have to ask my players what is your character concept that requires that class? Will a background cover what you are looking for? If you really need to lock pick at range are there any class features past level 3 integral to your concept? For me backgrounds and skills cover 90% of what i think of when I envision a rogue, I'm not sure the extra 10% is worth class levels in the rogue class. If I'm thinking thief with bigby spells I'd just play a wizard with a criminal background or a bard and take that as a cross spell selection. Rogue isnt a bad class it can be a lot of fun. But I really want to make sure I'm thinking more than sneaky dude because sneaky dude is covered by skills anyone can take.

A background may cover sneaky but it does not Cover a nimble skillfull fighter that strikes at vitals uses their speed to avoid the brunt of attacks or the best hit and run ability in game.