D&D 5E Mage Hand and the No Good, Low Down, Dirty Rotten Arcane Trickster

[Saeviomagy]

If you really hate the feature that much, make up a new, equivalently powerful feature, and give him that instead. Slapping disadvantage on the feature is going to lead to either him having one less feature (effectively - there are better ways to "clumsily muck around with a trap") OR him trying to powergame his way past the limitation, which will end up in an arms race. Neither is a good thing.

 

[Leatherhead]

All these trap threads make me want to write up a post about binary checks, again.

 

[Unwise]

To me, it seems that almost the entire point of the Arcane Trickster is their ability to pick pockets and disarm traps from a distance. Used properly it is a powerful benefit, but you are comparing that to an Assassin who autocrits people regularly. The spell casting of the Trickster is not really their main schtick, this ability is. I would not nerf it anymore than I would say "sure, it does say fighters can wear heavy armor, but if you do so you get disadvantage on your most commonly used skills, after all, armor is heavy".

I don't mind the magehand = disadvantage for many actions where more than one hand is needed or it is unsure if there is enough fine manipulation available. This is just not the case here though, the rules are pretty explicit about it. There may be times that not being next to the trap might make perception harder leading to disadvantage, but that should be the exception. Check the DM manual excerpt about traps, it clearly shows that many traps are avoidable by simply breaking them or putting a shield up against them or just opening them with a long pole. This is not the sole domain of the Trickster.

How many times a session is this going to save the theif from being hit by a trap? If they are skilled (passing 66% of checks) and every play session has three traps, all of those traps have no alarms, or locks, or any consequences that can hurt the Trickster 20' away, it is still likely to only save them once a session. Even in a deathrap situation like that, is missing out on one attack against you every session so overpowered? Compare that to how often the Catburglar has managed to disarm/unlock/steal/climb/sabotage while still fighting, or how often the Assassin has autocrit somebody.

 

[doctorhook]

Time for a rambling old man story: One of my players is playing a champion, and at 3rd level he got the ability to deal a critical hit on a 19 as well as a 20. My brain reached back to 3E days, when criticals had to be confirmed, and so even though certain weapons had expanded "critical threat" ranges (19-20, for example), only a natural 20 was assumed to be an autohit, even though a natural 19 could still deal critical damage on confirmation. Butterfly Effect-ing my way back to 2014, I concluded that the 5E champion at my table still couldn't autohit on a 19, and that the feature only served to allow him to potentially deal critical damage on attack rolls of 19 as well as 20, but only if the total attack beat the target's AC. The champion's player protested this ruling, saying I was nerfing a cool ability that's important to his character. I decided to look into it. After some research and though, I concluded that 5E is meant to be quick, simple, and straightforward. Champions are supposed to be top-notch melee warriors, the kind who might score critical hits twice as often as other characters. I realized that this ability, while powerful, was hardly gamebreaking. Moreover, I realized the costs of my initial decision: I was spoiling my player's fun, and I was creating (marginally) more work for myself by complicating the hit-resolution mechanic. The cost-benefit of banning champions for autohitting on 19 just didn't work out in my favour, and so I reversed my decision and apologized for my foolishness, as well as explained why and how I came to that point. Three months later, the champion is still going strong, critting all over town, and my game is more fun than ever.

The point of my story is that sometimes, even we experienced DMs can make bad gut-decisions. Being awesome with mage hand is the whole point of being an arcane trickster.

 

[doctorhook]

If you really hate the feature that much, make up a new, equivalently powerful feature, and give him that instead. Slapping disadvantage on the feature is going to lead to either him having one less feature (effectively - there are better ways to "clumsily muck around with a trap") OR him trying to powergame his way past the limitation, which will end up in an arms race. Neither is a good thing.

I had been mulling about allowing ATs to sneak attack with spells in some fashion. Cantrips only, maybe? Only within 30ft? Certainly only spells with attack rolls, not saves. Single target spells, or only one of the targets in an area effect spell. Arcane tricksters are mercifully short on suitable attack spells and slots, and reliance on Int would be MADdening. Firebolt + sneak attack is powerful, but sort of a one-trick pony; with a range restriction it might even be balanced.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this as potential alternative class feature for Arcane Tricksters, as per your suggestion, [MENTION=5890]Saeviomagy[/MENTION]?

 

[pepticburrito]

Yes, you are. It's a class feature that the arcane trickster revolves around. The player is passing up the ability to assassinate to use that ability, quite frankly it's not even a good trade. In practice, assassinate is far more powerful.

The player is not your enemy. Some classes excell really well at things and that's okay. Accept it and let the player have thier fun. Anyways, that ability isn't going to stop a trap that pumps a hallocegic drug out of walls on a failed pick. Thus, messing up that's rogues day in a bosses lair.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Now, my player was a bit upset about my ruling and asked me to check around the boards. So, without further ado, I ask the august body of ENworlders: am I being too harsh on him?

Yes, you are. Traps are just one of the many threats that players face in the game. By taking the arcane trickster subclass, a rogue gets to be particularly good at facing that type of threat. Every class is good at overcoming some types of threats more easily than others. When the party encounters a cliff and the wizard uses a fly spell to get across, are you going to retaliate and nerf wizards? When someone gets a disease and the cleric cures it, are you going to retaliate and nerf clerics? When the bard uses his charm to turn an enemy into a friend, are you going to retaliate and nerf bards?

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I think it's too harsh. It's a class feature, so I would let it excel at being cool.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And now for the point: I have ruled that the Arcane Trickster in my group will make any at distance Thievery checks using his Mage Hand at Disadvantage. My reasoning is A) Game balance, Mage Hand is a cantrip, the lowest level magic in the Game and B) there is absolutely no risk or drama if he makes every disable trap check or open locks check from 30ft away. I might as well never add a single trap to anything ever again.

Now, my player was a bit upset about my ruling and asked me to check around the boards. So, without further ado, I ask the august body of ENworlders: am I being too harsh on him?

Yes... you are being too harsh.

Imagine what you would feel like if you made 3rd level in any class, and got a special ability you liked and wanted to use, just to be told by the DM that "No, it is always at disadvantage"

Imagine if a DM told your fighter that action surge was like a surge of adrenalin, and as such made you shaky... all attacks are at disadvantage....

 

[Syntallah]

Thanks for all the input gang! I'm not entirely convinced (I still think the ability to perform the checks at distance is powerful enough), but I do appreciate all the insight. I shall mull it over some more...