Thanks for the input on Telekinesis thus far, particularly the commentaries on possible (or lack thereof) synergies.
It really is beginning to seem like Telekinesis is a pretty crap spell all round. Honestly, I think at this point I'd even struggle to justify taking it as a 3rd-lvl spell, let alone a mighty 5th. I find this fact funny, as it seems there's something of an unfulfilled gap for such a spell of this sort in DnD, not to mention how obviously vivid the very concept of telekinesis is in pop-culture.
It is not my intention to flare up the discussion again if bigby's hand can indeed move a grappled creature/object or not. I think there are good arguments for both views:
1. It cant, because it is not mentioned as one of the 4 possibilities in the spell description. There is already one of the 4 possibilities that allows to move a creature. By allowing it, the hand could effectively move a 1'000'000 lbs creature 60 feet each turn.
2. It can, because it is not prohibited by the spells RAW, rather it states that the hand mimicks your own hands movement, and there is no reason why the normal rules of grappling should not apply, therefore a grappled creature can be moved 60 feet (along with the hand).
Again, i dont want to start the discussion all over. I just want to give an input why i think a sensible DM could and should allow the hand to move a grappled creature:
a) It is my view you should let people do as much as possible, as long as it is not clearly against RAI and not unbalanced.
b) it is not clearly against RAI, there are arguments either way, but to say that it is clearly against RAI would be false.
c) it is not unbalanced to allow it, which i want to explain a bit further. the explanation will also touch why i think it is not clearly against RAI, or rather i think it is RAI:
Compare bigby's hand with telekinesis (original topic of the thread). Would it be unbalanced to let Bigby's hand move grappled creatures when compared to telekinesis? Both are 5th level spells, so they should be quite powerfull. But after all, bigbys can already do more than telekinesis, and telekinesis can only move a creature 30 feet every turn. allowing it would seem to further make bigbys hand stronger than telekinesis. Alas, this is not the case. There is an important distinctin which makes telekinesis' way of moving creatures much stronger:
Telekinesis can hold and move a creature on the same initial turn when cast as an action. In a game like 5e, where action economy is the centerpiece of all combat, this is extremely valuable. Further, it also restraines the creature, not only grappling it, which gives advantage against it (from all your allies) and it has disadvantage to all attack roles, until the end of your next turn. All of this extremly powerful stuff happens at the cost of 1 action and if 1 contested check is won.
Compare this to bigbys hand which is vastly different: on your initital turn you can, quote: "[when you] cast the spell and as a bonus action on your subsequent turns, you can move the hand up to 60 feet and then cause one of the following effects with it"... So this means, if you want to grapple a creature and move it, you can cast bigbys hand as an action, need to win the contested check, and then wait until your next turn until you can move it (as bonus action). And that is not all. Until your next turn arrives, the grappled creature can try to escape the grapple, you need to win another contested check to hold on! Or maybe the creature can bonus action teleport-> boof your grapple ends. And there is no sweet restrained condition. If you want to move on the same turn you cast the spell, you can do so via forceful hand, but the creature is not grappled, nor restrained.
So to summarize:
Telekinesis: Powerful restrained condition, moving the target 30ft. on the same turn as cast. only cost 1 action and 1 contested check won.
Bigby grapple-move: costs 2 turns to set-up. 1 action and 1 bonus action, and potentially 2 contested checks won. no restrained condition, but potentially move the target 60ft.
I think this is perfectly balanced (as all things should be) and also RAI. Bigbys gets you more flexibility, but is less powerful in execution when looking at action economy.
Wow such a big discussion that led absolutely nowhere. Anyway, sticking to the initial topic and questions, and skipping somethings that I've already read here (such as the Hex combination)
1. Likely not, though it feels like the initial post downplays the versatility of the "fine control" on objects and tools. You could interact with anything, and arguably even use thieves' tools to unlock doors from a distance similar to Mage Hand Ledgerdemain. Not that this is very powerful, but it's big utility for someone that didn't take 3 levels in rogue, and it's just a single example of using a tool.
2. It is one of the best to force a single enemy into an AoE. The problem with that is that it has to be an AoE being maintained by someone else, since you are already using yours with Telekinesis by itself. However, Telekinesis is a respectable single target shutdown by itself, applying the restrained condition to the target, making it much easier to hit with attacks from your allies, forcing all attacks it makes to be made with disadvantage, and making them more susceptible to dex save spells. An example on the latter, you could combine Telekinesis with Disintegrate if you are at that level.
3. I don't, but I run Bigby's Hand differently than most, it seems. And it's not homebrew ruling, I just follow what it's written in the sacred texts. By doing that, we can se that the two spells really function very differently, making one of them a winner in combat for being more useful and versatile (BH) while not completely invalidating the other choice. Btw, if I'll talk about that, I have to say that I disagree with SageAdviceAdvice's take on RAI and balancing of both spells.
First of all, I came to the conclusion that a caster cannot use the 60ft moving of the hand to drag a grappled target. As the Hand is being moved, not moving by itself, it falls under the bulletpoint for ending the grappled condition, instead of falling under the rules for Moving a Grappled Target. My reasoning:
Wording of Bigby's Hand: When you cast the spell and as a bonus action on your subsequent turns, you can move the hand up to 60 feet and then[...] ("you" means the caster is the one directly moving the hand)
Moving a Grappled Target (PHB page 195.): When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you ("you" means the one grappling, which is the hand not the caster. So when moved in this way, it can't drag)
Ending a grapple: The condition also ends if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler (The hand is being moved away by the caster, breaking the grapple)
Other spells which would actually let your magical creations drag: Animate Dead ("You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn" it moves by itself, even if at your command), Animate Objects (the exact same quote from Animate Dead), or any spells that make you command what something should do and then it does it by itself, instead of it clearly being YOU the caster moving it. I'd also cite Unseen Servant, but it can't grapple anyway
This doesn't make Bigby's Hand unnable to move grappled targets. Actually, I believe that's exactly one of the functions of the Forceful Hand option (it says that the hand stays within 5ft of the target, so the grapple wouldn't be broken), it just means that it can't move creatures 60ft (up to 90 when also using Forceful Hand) in a single turn, which is an absurdly unbalanced rulling. As I read it, by using Forceful Hand, the target can be moved up to 30 feet by turn, way more in line with Telekinesis but with more combat options, including one for autodamage, and no limit in range after it's cast. Still much better than Telekinesis, even without applying the restrained condition in terms of combat alone. The last advantage Telekinesis has is that it can't be destroyed or affected by the AoE's it carries creatures into, like Bigby's Hand can
c) it is not unbalanced to allow it, which i want to explain a bit further. the explanation will also touch why i think it is not clearly against RAI, or rather i think it is RAI:
Now, to debate this and why I think it's unbalanced to allow the spell to be used in this way. I'll just answer everything not quoting anymore because it makes posts look even longer. For the sake of my argument, I'll consider that you are not using the ruling I explained above, as you said yourself that "therefore a grappled creature can be moved 60 feet (along with the hand)" in the internet argument example that you said you favor
You argue for action economy, but you are not giving importance to a FEW things. First, bonus actions are way less valuable than actions. You can move and act with Bigby's Hand while still using your main action to disengage away from danger, dodge to protect concentration, reposition with dash and more importantly, you can cast almost any spell you want, as long as it doesn't require concentration. Second, Telekinesis forces you to use your action to redo the skill check and attempt to maintain the target restrained round after round, while with Bigby's you only need the first one, after that it's on the creature to try to break the grapple, while you can use subsequent bonus actions to do unavoidable crushing damage or move it. Third, if a DM actually allows the hand to move 60ft carrying the grappled target, it is moving the at double the speed that you can move it using Telekinesis, and Bigby's doesn't have the range restriction with this movement while Telekinesis does. This could be used to move a target up to 180 feet in the air with only 3 of your bonus actions (2 if combined with Forceful Hand) for 18d6 guaranteed bludgeoning damage from the fall. All of this, even before you consider that the hand can move upwards, make the bonus action use of BH worth much much much more than Telekinesis action use. Even if you can move the target 30 feet in the same round, it's nothing compared to what Bigby's Hand can do, and the target will never be more than 60ft away from you
I mean, even if it BH couldn't move upwards, that ruling is still allowing it to carry a creature more than 60ft (up to 90 with Forceful Hand) in any direction advantageous for you with every bonus action you take, easely carrying them into hazard or out of range to attack your party, and THEY have to use AN ACTION to ATTEMPT to break free from the grapple.
No, they are not balanced with this ruling (the one that allows automove 60ft)
Thanks for the input on Telekinesis thus far, particularly the commentaries on possible (or lack thereof) synergies.
It really is beginning to seem like Telekinesis is a pretty crap spell all round. Honestly, I think at this point I'd even struggle to justify taking it as a 3rd-lvl spell, let alone a mighty 5th. I find this fact funny, as it seems there's something of an unfulfilled gap for such a spell of this sort in DnD, not to mention how obviously vivid the very concept of telekinesis is in pop-culture.
Thank you all for letting me down gently 😆
It is not my intention to flare up the discussion again if bigby's hand can indeed move a grappled creature/object or not. I think there are good arguments for both views:
1. It cant, because it is not mentioned as one of the 4 possibilities in the spell description. There is already one of the 4 possibilities that allows to move a creature. By allowing it, the hand could effectively move a 1'000'000 lbs creature 60 feet each turn.
2. It can, because it is not prohibited by the spells RAW, rather it states that the hand mimicks your own hands movement, and there is no reason why the normal rules of grappling should not apply, therefore a grappled creature can be moved 60 feet (along with the hand).
Again, i dont want to start the discussion all over. I just want to give an input why i think a sensible DM could and should allow the hand to move a grappled creature:
a) It is my view you should let people do as much as possible, as long as it is not clearly against RAI and not unbalanced.
b) it is not clearly against RAI, there are arguments either way, but to say that it is clearly against RAI would be false.
c) it is not unbalanced to allow it, which i want to explain a bit further. the explanation will also touch why i think it is not clearly against RAI, or rather i think it is RAI:
Compare bigby's hand with telekinesis (original topic of the thread). Would it be unbalanced to let Bigby's hand move grappled creatures when compared to telekinesis? Both are 5th level spells, so they should be quite powerfull. But after all, bigbys can already do more than telekinesis, and telekinesis can only move a creature 30 feet every turn. allowing it would seem to further make bigbys hand stronger than telekinesis. Alas, this is not the case. There is an important distinctin which makes telekinesis' way of moving creatures much stronger:
Telekinesis can hold and move a creature on the same initial turn when cast as an action. In a game like 5e, where action economy is the centerpiece of all combat, this is extremely valuable. Further, it also restraines the creature, not only grappling it, which gives advantage against it (from all your allies) and it has disadvantage to all attack roles, until the end of your next turn. All of this extremly powerful stuff happens at the cost of 1 action and if 1 contested check is won.
Compare this to bigbys hand which is vastly different: on your initital turn you can, quote: "[when you] cast the spell and as a bonus action on your subsequent turns, you can move the hand up to 60 feet and then cause one of the following effects with it"... So this means, if you want to grapple a creature and move it, you can cast bigbys hand as an action, need to win the contested check, and then wait until your next turn until you can move it (as bonus action). And that is not all. Until your next turn arrives, the grappled creature can try to escape the grapple, you need to win another contested check to hold on! Or maybe the creature can bonus action teleport-> boof your grapple ends. And there is no sweet restrained condition. If you want to move on the same turn you cast the spell, you can do so via forceful hand, but the creature is not grappled, nor restrained.
So to summarize:
Telekinesis: Powerful restrained condition, moving the target 30ft. on the same turn as cast. only cost 1 action and 1 contested check won.
Bigby grapple-move: costs 2 turns to set-up. 1 action and 1 bonus action, and potentially 2 contested checks won. no restrained condition, but potentially move the target 60ft.
I think this is perfectly balanced (as all things should be) and also RAI. Bigbys gets you more flexibility, but is less powerful in execution when looking at action economy.
Wow such a big discussion that led absolutely nowhere. Anyway, sticking to the initial topic and questions, and skipping somethings that I've already read here (such as the Hex combination)
1. Likely not, though it feels like the initial post downplays the versatility of the "fine control" on objects and tools. You could interact with anything, and arguably even use thieves' tools to unlock doors from a distance similar to Mage Hand Ledgerdemain. Not that this is very powerful, but it's big utility for someone that didn't take 3 levels in rogue, and it's just a single example of using a tool.
2. It is one of the best to force a single enemy into an AoE. The problem with that is that it has to be an AoE being maintained by someone else, since you are already using yours with Telekinesis by itself. However, Telekinesis is a respectable single target shutdown by itself, applying the restrained condition to the target, making it much easier to hit with attacks from your allies, forcing all attacks it makes to be made with disadvantage, and making them more susceptible to dex save spells. An example on the latter, you could combine Telekinesis with Disintegrate if you are at that level.
3. I don't, but I run Bigby's Hand differently than most, it seems. And it's not homebrew ruling, I just follow what it's written in the sacred texts. By doing that, we can se that the two spells really function very differently, making one of them a winner in combat for being more useful and versatile (BH) while not completely invalidating the other choice. Btw, if I'll talk about that, I have to say that I disagree with SageAdviceAdvice's take on RAI and balancing of both spells.
First of all, I came to the conclusion that a caster cannot use the 60ft moving of the hand to drag a grappled target. As the Hand is being moved, not moving by itself, it falls under the bulletpoint for ending the grappled condition, instead of falling under the rules for Moving a Grappled Target. My reasoning:
This doesn't make Bigby's Hand unnable to move grappled targets. Actually, I believe that's exactly one of the functions of the Forceful Hand option (it says that the hand stays within 5ft of the target, so the grapple wouldn't be broken), it just means that it can't move creatures 60ft (up to 90 when also using Forceful Hand) in a single turn, which is an absurdly unbalanced rulling. As I read it, by using Forceful Hand, the target can be moved up to 30 feet by turn, way more in line with Telekinesis but with more combat options, including one for autodamage, and no limit in range after it's cast. Still much better than Telekinesis, even without applying the restrained condition in terms of combat alone. The last advantage Telekinesis has is that it can't be destroyed or affected by the AoE's it carries creatures into, like Bigby's Hand can
Now, to debate this and why I think it's unbalanced to allow the spell to be used in this way. I'll just answer everything not quoting anymore because it makes posts look even longer. For the sake of my argument, I'll consider that you are not using the ruling I explained above, as you said yourself that "therefore a grappled creature can be moved 60 feet (along with the hand)" in the internet argument example that you said you favor
You argue for action economy, but you are not giving importance to a FEW things. First, bonus actions are way less valuable than actions. You can move and act with Bigby's Hand while still using your main action to disengage away from danger, dodge to protect concentration, reposition with dash and more importantly, you can cast almost any spell you want, as long as it doesn't require concentration. Second, Telekinesis forces you to use your action to redo the skill check and attempt to maintain the target restrained round after round, while with Bigby's you only need the first one, after that it's on the creature to try to break the grapple, while you can use subsequent bonus actions to do unavoidable crushing damage or move it. Third, if a DM actually allows the hand to move 60ft carrying the grappled target, it is moving the at double the speed that you can move it using Telekinesis, and Bigby's doesn't have the range restriction with this movement while Telekinesis does. This could be used to move a target up to 180 feet in the air with only 3 of your bonus actions (2 if combined with Forceful Hand) for 18d6 guaranteed bludgeoning damage from the fall. All of this, even before you consider that the hand can move upwards, make the bonus action use of BH worth much much much more than Telekinesis action use. Even if you can move the target 30 feet in the same round, it's nothing compared to what Bigby's Hand can do, and the target will never be more than 60ft away from you
I mean, even if it BH couldn't move upwards, that ruling is still allowing it to carry a creature more than 60ft (up to 90 with Forceful Hand) in any direction advantageous for you with every bonus action you take, easely carrying them into hazard or out of range to attack your party, and THEY have to use AN ACTION to ATTEMPT to break free from the grapple.
No, they are not balanced with this ruling (the one that allows automove 60ft)