One is a glorified Mage Hand and the other is exceptional for pushing people around, erecting barriers between you and incoming attacks, and crushing your foes. Yet sadly, in this honest sorcerer's opinion, it's counterintuitive as to which of these two 5th lvl spells acts as described above. Now I should note that I'm well aware of and have to ultimately accept the DnD heritage behind both of these spells, with there being the individual 3.5e Bigby's spells that created similar optional effects of 5e Bigby's Hand spell, and that Telekinesis was also a 3.5e spell in its own right. Yet it somehow doesn't quite sit right with me that Mage Hand's bigger brother presents a wealth of control options, while Telekinesis exists as essentially a glorified Mage Hand.
Shifting to viewing Telekinesis as a the predominantly utility spell that it is, the 1000lbs carrying limit seems woefully underwhelming: just enough to lift an adult grizzly bear, a bull shark, but not a sizeable boulder or something as heavy as your average modern car –the sort of weights one would really look to manipulate with such a spell. In terms of combat, Telekinesis's use of the spellcaster's spellcasting modifier to roll a contested STR check is nice, yet Bigby's dwarfs that capacity by bringing it's own STR ability score of 26(+8) to bear. In play, that +8 STR modifier makes a sizeable difference; some monsters/humanoids/players you will attempt to grapple using either spell can reasonably gain advantage of their STR ability check, while gaining advantage on ability scores used as spellcasting modifiers (CHA, INT, WIZ) is considerably rarer without the use of other concentration spells (e.g. Enhance Ability). To compare Telekinesis to Tenser's Floating Disk, although it allows only half the carrying capacity (500lbs), Tenser's Disk is a ritual spell that additionally doesn't occupy a caster's concentration. Might I add that Tenser's Disk is only a 1st lvl spell.
While the above alone sits as a rant against the Telekinesis spell, I'm curious to ask:
Does anyone else struggle with the Telekinesis spell, or can otherwise offer a counter-perspective on it – what might I be missing?
Can anyone offer imaginative uses of the Telekinesis spell, or other spells, items, classes/sub-classes it synergises particularly well with?
Does anyone rule the Telekinesis spell differently at their table e.g. changing the weight restrictions, or adding a further 1000lbs capacity for each level cast above 5th?
A few observations on the three spells you mention:
Bigby’s is a pure combat spell, and can only do the things listed in the spell description. By RAW, it cannot be used to do anything “custom”. It also has limitations on size (it’s Large, so it can’t move through any space smaller than 5 feet), it can’t pass through other objects, and even if it could perform other actions, it couldn’t carry more than 390 pounds with that strength score (780 pounds if just pushing or pulling). It also can be destroyed, dispelled, or the concentration can be broken
Telekinesis is a utility/control spell. It has 10x the duration, can’t be destroyed as it doesn’t create a tangible, targeted object/creature, can switch targets (limiting the usefulness of dispelling it) and can perform a huge variety of actions limited only by weight and range. I will also note the weight limit only applies to objects, not to creatures, so you can still move that bear (or dragon) even if it does weigh over 1000 pounds. The spell is as much about fine control as it is about heft (levitate can do similar basic lifting up to 500 pounds, and will be the better option for most simple applications) so that is where this spell should get to shine when using it on objects
Tensers is a floating platform with severe movement restrictions and doesn’t actually lift anything...you still have to load it and unload it manually and it has an elevation of 3 feet and a limitation of 10 feet of vertical travel
Really good observations here, appreciate the input.
As far as the distinction between creatures and objects, I certainly should have picked up on the weight distinction.
What scenarios do you envisage fine control being especially advantageous?
How about stealing (a lot of) treasure by carrying it out the window with telekinesis?
Honestly, telekinesis is kind of a niche spell that isn't as generally useful compared to other spells (there are a few like that), possibly having lost some rule interaction or benefit from an older edition. But what it does, it does well.
Telekinesis says it has fine control and does not have fingers. Fine control is something that I let the players run with.
As such I allow TK to pick up 1,000 pounds of mud, water, sand, etc. I do not allow Bigby's to do the same. It gets maybe 1 pound, period.
For Bigby, I require one BA to move and grab (via grasping hand), another to move and let go. No "I grab it and dump it" in the same round. Takes another round.
It's important to note that spells do what they say they do, and nothing more. Additionally, if a spell goes as far to specify it can do something, any similar spell that doesn't make the same specification can't do that thing. Why does this matter? Well because arcane hand does have a vaguely similar counterpart in mage hand.
The key element to note about mage hand is that it has the following clause:
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
Arcane Hand doesn't have any such clause; it states its size (large), it's appearance (hand of shimmering, translucent force), it's behaviour (mimicking the moments of your hand), and how it behaves on the battlefield (doesn't fill its space). It also specifies what actions the hand can perform; clenched fist, forceful hand, grasping hand and interposing hand.
As such, without a clause stating it can manipulate objects in the same fashion as mage hand, it cannot do those things.
I'm gonna have to disagree on that. The spell says the hand mimics the moment of your own hand, but doesn't say you can use that mimicry to manipulate objects in any way (like how the mage hand spell does). The hand isn't a creature, so it's not covered by the carrying capacity/push/pull/lift/drag rules; the ability scores are provided to resolve the four actions it has listed.
Spells do exactly what they say, and they don't do what other spells do unless they say likewise. But every DM has the ultimate power to rule as they see fit to engender fun, such is the beauty of this game.
Just pointing out that it does not need the stats and in particular the Dex for the actions. In terms of lifting, the carrying capacity is commonly agreed around other forums, and it's logical considering that it has a strength score. Otherwise, it could just have given plusses to specific actions.
Also, and this is the strongest argument, why would the spell say that it mimics the actions of your hand if it was limited to the effects at the bottom ? It would just say that you need to make the corresponding action with your hand to create the effect.
Finally, the capacity to fly while standing on the hand is generally accepted around other forums.
Just because there is a commonly accepted homebrew on a spell/effect doesn’t mean that it is a RAW interpretation. But even if the clause in question allowed actions other than those listed, how do you adjudicate the turn economy? All of the listed actions from the hand are bonus actions....there is no mechanic for using the hand as an action which would be required for many types of object and creature interactions. Finally, assuming you handwave all that, how do you justify allowing the hand to do any sort of fine motion? It’s a large object that deals force damage by crushing and slapping, you would likely destroy anything you tried to interact with.
all that said, I have used the hand in homebrew manners to manipulate large objects roughly (pick up/carry/etc) for narrative purposes, but that was a homebrew variation of the spell tied to a homebrew creature, not the baseline spell.
Sure, while many other forums may accept those things, I don't believe they are supported by the rules. When it comes to abilities, it's common for the game to prescribe scores rather than modifiers to non-creature game entities. That doesn't mean those things can do everything a creature can.
The spell likely says it can mimic your hand for the same reason it says it appears as shimmering, translucent force; flavour. If the intent was for it to allow you to manipulate objects, why would it not just say that rather than loosely implying it, especially considering other spells that let you perform such actions do explicitly state as such.
At the end of the day, your application of the rules is as valid as anyone else's. I just don't see the argument for the things you're saying per RAW.
The hand takes damage, so if you move a creature into something that can damage objects, the hand gets damaged as well.
The hand has the option to punch an object and that's it for objects: none of the other features can be used with objects. These feature specifically detail "creatures", only Clenched Fist mentions it can target an object. Telekinesis however can affect creatures or objects, giving it greater versatility and greater carrying capacity.
The hand is a combat focused spell. It has minimal uses outside of combat beyond punching objects.
And "force" is an odd thing created by D&D. Just because it is made of force doesn't make it solid - the "force" of the hand is only in solid physical effect when used as per the spell, it otherwise "doesn't fill it's space" - so you can pass through it as if it wasn't there. It being force doesn't imply anything about what it can do .
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
It's not just a force, it is specifically said "The hand is an object".
What does it being an object have to do with anything?
Apologies, that was my reply to Cyb3rM1nd claiming that it was a force.
The 'proof' it does not do more is that it specifically lists things it does do, rather than 'Here are some rules for some specific things it can do. Note this list is not inclusive of all possible uses.'
Prove it cannot cast spells. If the caster can ride around on it, what is the point of the 'Pushing' ability? It could grab someone from underneath, move them around, or throw them against a wall. The ability do do anything a hand can do, even in terms of relatively course action makes at least that listed ability pointless.
The list of ability is there to scale the effects in terms of damage. The hand already can grab them from underneath and possibly move them around. The reason for the "possibly" is that there is, as far as I know, no RAW or RAI on this subject, you can find opinions going both ways. As for throwing, it's different, the hand does not have a speed, so it probably cannot impart a speed on a held creature, but again, no RAW or RAI here. I don't see how flying on it (which everyone out there seem to think is possible) impairs the "pushing", sometimes you just don't want to move yourself.
And I'm not saying the hand can do anything like casting spell, but I expect to be able to use fully the RAW sentences of being able to move the hand wherever I want, the hand being able to mimic what my hand is doing and the fact that it's an object. If I close my hand, the BH closes, and is an object, holding another object and the hand is able to lift 780 lbs, so it will move whatever it is grasping. This is purely RAW. There is no call to remove the sentences that do not fit to the "combat-oriented" vision of the spell, they are part of the RAW as well.
If you close your hand, the BH is just going to crush its target per the spell description...the spell does not indicate fine control, explicitly or otherwise. Saying you can use this spell in that way is like saying Lennie from Of Mice and Men can pet the rabbits without killing them. Besides, how do you equate specific actions like lifting and moving using your hand when the BH has a much greater range of motion (60 feet) than your hand ever will? The intent of the spell saying it mimics your hand is one to describe what your hand does to direct the BH to take one of its actions, and possibly to imply that hand must be free for the spells duration (although that is not explicitly stated). You are ascribing a set of abilities from a piece of flavor text that aren’t explicitly described, and ignoring that the writers could have chosen to make that explicit (as seen from other spells like Mage Hand and Telekinesis) and yet did not
Arcane Hand is unable to grab objects as it can only do what it states it can do. In order to receive the ability to have object interactions, it must have a ability that grants it a action or free object interaction because nowhere does it say it gains a action.
Creatures and the such get this ability as listed here, "When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action." (Emphasis mine)
Arcane Hand is a object, not a creature, and thus has no actions. You must command it with a bonus action for the purposes listed in it's spell description. Just because it mimics you hand does not grant it actions. It cannot use a free object interaction as it is not outright given one, and if it was, you would have to argue when the Arcane Hand's turn is since you cannot do actions during another creature's turn unless stated otherwise.
Edit: So unless you can find me a specific stating that object mimicking a creature gain the ability to do actions, bonus actions, and free actions, then that's a solid no. D&D has no rule stating this, and the general rule states creatures are the only ones able to do so, not objects. No the dictionary does not count, you should know that by now.
Besides, I would have to deal with people asking if the hand can mimic picking up a weapon, or mimic casting a spell, and other sorts of just things I don't want to deal with.
To be fair enough I would totally allow someone to pick up a object or creature and carry them around, that certainly fits a 5th level spell & realistically it would be able to do. But D&D is not realistic and it should be noted that this is not RAW, nor RAI, but is RAF.
I quoted actual pages from the Basic Rules that I linked too. Please read them. You have let to disprove anything I have said.
And it states, extremely clearly: “The hand lasts for the spell's duration, and it moves at your command, mimicking the movements of your own hand.”
Do we agree that this is RAW ?
So now what happens if I grasp an object with the hand, which is an object with 26 Str that mimics what my hand does ?
RAW, it also states that the hand can only do "one of the following actions". List me a rule that states objects with Strength are granted a action, I literally listed the rules that determine what can interact with a object.
"Creatures and the such get this ability as listed here, "When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures". Thus, to do a object interaction which is considered a action available to all creatures as listed here, of any sort, it must be a creature.
Read Unseen Servant, see how it does not involve the Unseen Servant using a Interact with a Object action, no it states that instead, it "Once on each of your turns as a bonus action, you can mentally command the servant to move up to 15 feet and interact with an object." "interact with a object" is not the same as the defined "Use an Object" action.
It's not a creature. It does not have its own actions, nor does it need to, because it moves as you command on your own actions, as per the first paragraph of the spell description.
it does not have it's own actions, thus cannot pick up a object because it clearly states you use a bonus action to command it to do one of the following effects with it. In fact, you don't even command it with your hand. Nor am I sure how you would make it move 60 ft if it mimics you hand, cause my hand certainly can't move 60 ft with a bonus action.
It is not having an action, you, as the caster, are using yours. Again, read the spell description.
You said it yourself, it has no actions. That includes bonus actions, actions, and its own movement. Note there is no such thing as a Free Action, as stated in the basic rules, "You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."
And once more, I don't need to, you are arguing from a wrong perspective. On my turn, as my bonus action, I move the hand within 60 feet, I give it the shape that I want by moving my own hand exactly as I want, and if that interacts with an object, it has a Str of 26 to move it. End of story, no need for further actions.
did... you just try to argue that you don't need any rules because I'm wrong? What kind of argument is that? How would you feel if I said the Extra Attack grants 500 extra attacks, you said "D&D has no rule stating this" and I told you that "I don't need to, you are arguing from a wrong perspective"? (These are all quotes taken from mine and your post).
Even if I'm wrong, you must find a rule to disprove what I have said or prove the rules I listed state otherwise or your argument does not have sufficient evidence.
It's not a question of realism, it's a question of following the RAW, which are very clear on the subject, just read the first paragraph, and if you believe that it can only do the special effects at the end, prove to me that there is such a restriction that prevent it from doing all the other things in the first paragraph. You will not find it.
RAW states the hand is controlled via your bonus action, not your actual hand moving. Notice that it the S component only applies to casting, and that the spell does not require a free hand to sustain or control the hand. RAW it states "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."
You must find some way to prove to me that picking up a object is considering "one of the following effects" for your argument to be valid.
Edit: How did that second sentence make it in? I wrote and then instantly deleted that, in case you wondering it read
"Just because I can, I will literally disprove everything you said via the spell you mentioned, Unseen Servant and ask that you read the spells you use against me."
But that I realized that was spiteful of me and that it was better to disprove with the Basic Rules rather than a spell.
The issue with anyone saying that arcane hand can be used to manipulate objects, besides taking an extreme amount of liberty with a descriptive statement that is for all intents and purposes historical flavor text, is that there is no way to adjudicate the use of the spell to manipulate objects beyond the options given. The hand is the definition of a blunt instrument; its large, strong, and offers no tactile connection to the wielder that would allow for "fine" manipulation (and I say fine with a bit of sarcasm, as this thing is big enough to treat a longsword as a toothpick, so you aren't going to be using it to pick locks or manipulate anything smaller than a basketball anytime soon). It can punch, push, slap, and grab/crush, thats it per the spell, and each of these has a specific effect associated with it that doesn't bode well for any sort of manipulation.
Without tactile connection, how do you determine how much to close the fist around an object without breaking it, or determine how hard to push something without striking it? You can't. At least with mage hand the hand is incapable of damaging anything by itself as part of the spell. with arcane hand, As there is no guidelines for the use of the spell this way (not because its badly worded, but because it was never meant to be used this way), so how can a caster know how (you can't use the spell with your action) or to what degree (again, no tactile feedback) this is possible? Based on the description of the hand, its highly unlikely you would be able to even see it well enough (its transparent and shimmery) to gauge any sort of manipulation by sight!
Finally, for any of these things, even if (despite the above) you allow it, it is not an efficient spell. Telekinesis allows specifically for fine motion, more weight (a lot more for carrying) and lasts 10x as long, Fly allows you to fly just as fast without using a bonus action (for a 3rd level slot no less). To use this spell for transportation would preclude any use for combat (unless you are willing to fall when it "drops" you) and even a cantrip like mage hand is more useful for small items and fine control.
Ultimately, this is a highly problematic ruling for this particular spell (any spell for that matter, when you attempt to claim that flavor text gives you abilities) and should be ruled incorrect.
In an effort to break ongoing stalemates and offer us an opportunity to reengage with other aspects of the subject:
Do any of us know of any particularly creative uses of the Telekinesis spell?
Does it synergise well with other spells, abilities or player subclasses?
How might one grant themselves advantage on CHA, INT, WIS checks to best characters/monsters with high STR scores or adv. on STR checks?
Does anyone rule the Telekinesis spell differently at their table e.g. changing the weight restrictions, or adding a further 1000lbs capacity for each level cast above 5th?
Lyxen, I repeat to you one last time. If there is no rules to back up your claim other than your dictionary, then your argument does not exist.
Even if I'm wrong, you must find a rule to disprove what I have said or prove the rules I listed state otherwise or your argument does not have sufficient evidence.
I literally want you to quote ANYTHING, ANYTHING from the basic rules that even REMOTELY allows something to mimic your actions.
Show me a ability, a spell, anything where the word "can" grants you more options than what is written. Unseen Servant does not count, because it is written in the description that it can interact with object, Arcane Hand does not state that.
No, again, you are not reading what I'm writing. All the four options are attacks and therefore doable only within combat. So I'm not suggesting doing any of them.
Show me where it states in the Basic Rules that attacks are only doable during combat. Show me how I can't draw a axe and chop wood outside of combat.
Small tangent but Actually this one you could try to argue for because attacking is defined in the Combat chapter, however that chapter also defines several very important out of combat things such as interacting with objects and casting spells both inside and outside of combat, so that doesn't work. In addition, chapter/section names have no importance in the ruleset since bonus action, reaction, hour, and other spells are covered in the Actions In Combat section despite spells being obviously used outside of combat & not technically being an action. Sorry small tangent over.
I choose whatever I like when it says "can" instead of "must".
Show me how when Action Surge says "Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action", since it uses the word "can", that means you can also choose to make 500 actions because that pushes beyond your normal limits.
Show me how in Arcane Hand, when it says "The hand lasts for the spell's duration, and it moves at your command, mimicking the movements of your own hand... you can move the hand up to 60 feet and then cause one of the following effects with it." Show me it allows you to attack with a sword through the hand since it mimics your movements. Show me how the hand mimics a Monk's Flurry of Blows, or a Wizards Finger of Death.
Show me anywhere in the basic rules that I'm wrong. Please. Something. Here's the link if you can't find it. Basic Rules is preferred in case someone who for doesn't have the PHB for some reason idk comes in and wants to participate, besides they both basically have the same rules anyways.
Unless Lyxen can figure out some way to prove his argument outside of the definition of mimic, but instead though the usage of the ruleset and text from the spell, I will not post here any further.
Considering how last time I asked that Lyxen just completely ignored it, this will probably be my last post. Also, no asking for you to prove your statements through the rules is not the "wrong perspective", if it was we wouldn't be in rules & game mechanics chat.
Also, once you all are done I urge you all to focus on Telekinesis. I haven't really used the spell that much before, so I don't have a whole lot to say about it. Mongolian_dude had the right idea, despite me ignoring it to post this tangent. It's this post I'm talking about. If not I'll DM the owner of the thread that they should probably get a mod to lock this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
This discussion is going around in circles and adding nothing contrustrutive to the conversation. It would be advisable for everyone to may disengage from the discussion; you cannot always convince someone else of your argument, and equally if you cannot be convinced otherwise of theirs, there's little to be gained from shouting at each other. Persistence in non-constructive talking through each other will begin likely lead to warnings.
In an effort to break ongoing stalemates and offer us an opportunity to reengage with other aspects of the subject:
Do any of us know of any particularly creative uses of the Telekinesis spell?
Does it synergise well with other spells, abilities or player subclasses?
How might one grant themselves advantage on CHA, INT, WIS checks to best characters/monsters with high STR scores or adv. on STR checks?
Does anyone rule the Telekinesis spell differently at their table e.g. changing the weight restrictions, or adding a further 1000lbs capacity for each level cast above 5th?
1) Not the spell, but I have used the Beholder's Telekinesis ability (which works very similarly) in combat to great effect by using it to position creatures over environmental effects (lava and great heights). As a utility spell, I have seen it used (and/or used it) to stop a rolling sphere trap, siphon material (books and treasure) out from a locked room, and to impress/intimidate hostile creatures by levitating myself and others. Unless you subscribe to an (IMO very out of line) viewpoint of the Bigby's Hand spell as a utility spell rather than a pure combat spell, it is the most flexible and useful object manipulation spell in the game
2) As stated, flavor wise It has worked well with my GOO Warlock as a means of Intimidation, and it works well in combat when you have environmental hazards you can use it with, or as a means of restraining a target (no limit on size/weight for creatures). I don't know any specific class feature that is designed to work with it specifically though (most don't focus on a particular spell, especially given that a given player may not choose to take it.
3) Having a player cast Guidance or using an ability like Tides of Chaos (Wild Magic Sorcerer) to give a bonus or advantage on your checks can help. Certain other subclass abilities might also grant the same. A Wild magic Sorcerer multiclass (Cleric/Druid/Artificer/Pact of Tome Warlock) could cast guidance and quicken Telekinesis for a +1d4 boost to the check, + Tides for advantage all in one turn for a huge boost.
4) I don't play hardball on weight restrictions or calculate weights of anything that might be targeted ("that stone weighs 1001 pounds, you can't lift it") so as long as the casting player is targeting something reasonable with the spell I allow it.
The best way to go about this is if you have a warlock capable of casting Hex, because it's only first level and gest you exactly what you are looking for, disadvantage on Str checks. Bestow Curse is also good, but level 3 and requiring a touch, so...
You would have to have another spellcaster to use either of these, as they (and Telekinesis) are all concentration spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Read Bigby's Hand and Telekinesis with me.
One is a glorified Mage Hand and the other is exceptional for pushing people around, erecting barriers between you and incoming attacks, and crushing your foes. Yet sadly, in this honest sorcerer's opinion, it's counterintuitive as to which of these two 5th lvl spells acts as described above. Now I should note that I'm well aware of and have to ultimately accept the DnD heritage behind both of these spells, with there being the individual 3.5e Bigby's spells that created similar optional effects of 5e Bigby's Hand spell, and that Telekinesis was also a 3.5e spell in its own right. Yet it somehow doesn't quite sit right with me that Mage Hand's bigger brother presents a wealth of control options, while Telekinesis exists as essentially a glorified Mage Hand.
Shifting to viewing Telekinesis as a the predominantly utility spell that it is, the 1000lbs carrying limit seems woefully underwhelming: just enough to lift an adult grizzly bear, a bull shark, but not a sizeable boulder or something as heavy as your average modern car –the sort of weights one would really look to manipulate with such a spell. In terms of combat, Telekinesis's use of the spellcaster's spellcasting modifier to roll a contested STR check is nice, yet Bigby's dwarfs that capacity by bringing it's own STR ability score of 26(+8) to bear. In play, that +8 STR modifier makes a sizeable difference; some monsters/humanoids/players you will attempt to grapple using either spell can reasonably gain advantage of their STR ability check, while gaining advantage on ability scores used as spellcasting modifiers (CHA, INT, WIZ) is considerably rarer without the use of other concentration spells (e.g. Enhance Ability). To compare Telekinesis to Tenser's Floating Disk, although it allows only half the carrying capacity (500lbs), Tenser's Disk is a ritual spell that additionally doesn't occupy a caster's concentration. Might I add that Tenser's Disk is only a 1st lvl spell.
While the above alone sits as a rant against the Telekinesis spell, I'm curious to ask:
A few observations on the three spells you mention:
Bigby’s is a pure combat spell, and can only do the things listed in the spell description. By RAW, it cannot be used to do anything “custom”. It also has limitations on size (it’s Large, so it can’t move through any space smaller than 5 feet), it can’t pass through other objects, and even if it could perform other actions, it couldn’t carry more than 390 pounds with that strength score (780 pounds if just pushing or pulling). It also can be destroyed, dispelled, or the concentration can be broken
Telekinesis is a utility/control spell. It has 10x the duration, can’t be destroyed as it doesn’t create a tangible, targeted object/creature, can switch targets (limiting the usefulness of dispelling it) and can perform a huge variety of actions limited only by weight and range. I will also note the weight limit only applies to objects, not to creatures, so you can still move that bear (or dragon) even if it does weigh over 1000 pounds. The spell is as much about fine control as it is about heft (levitate can do similar basic lifting up to 500 pounds, and will be the better option for most simple applications) so that is where this spell should get to shine when using it on objects
Tensers is a floating platform with severe movement restrictions and doesn’t actually lift anything...you still have to load it and unload it manually and it has an elevation of 3 feet and a limitation of 10 feet of vertical travel
Really good observations here, appreciate the input.
As far as the distinction between creatures and objects, I certainly should have picked up on the weight distinction.
What scenarios do you envisage fine control being especially advantageous?
How about stealing (a lot of) treasure by carrying it out the window with telekinesis?
Honestly, telekinesis is kind of a niche spell that isn't as generally useful compared to other spells (there are a few like that), possibly having lost some rule interaction or benefit from an older edition. But what it does, it does well.
Telekinesis on literally has infinite uses, limited only by your imagination.
And you can also steal stuff from enemies.
Telekinesis says it has fine control and does not have fingers. Fine control is something that I let the players run with.
As such I allow TK to pick up 1,000 pounds of mud, water, sand, etc. I do not allow Bigby's to do the same. It gets maybe 1 pound, period.
For Bigby, I require one BA to move and grab (via grasping hand), another to move and let go. No "I grab it and dump it" in the same round. Takes another round.
It's important to note that spells do what they say they do, and nothing more. Additionally, if a spell goes as far to specify it can do something, any similar spell that doesn't make the same specification can't do that thing. Why does this matter? Well because arcane hand does have a vaguely similar counterpart in mage hand.
The key element to note about mage hand is that it has the following clause:
Arcane Hand doesn't have any such clause; it states its size (large), it's appearance (hand of shimmering, translucent force), it's behaviour (mimicking the moments of your hand), and how it behaves on the battlefield (doesn't fill its space). It also specifies what actions the hand can perform; clenched fist, forceful hand, grasping hand and interposing hand.
As such, without a clause stating it can manipulate objects in the same fashion as mage hand, it cannot do those things.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I'm gonna have to disagree on that. The spell says the hand mimics the moment of your own hand, but doesn't say you can use that mimicry to manipulate objects in any way (like how the mage hand spell does). The hand isn't a creature, so it's not covered by the carrying capacity/push/pull/lift/drag rules; the ability scores are provided to resolve the four actions it has listed.
Spells do exactly what they say, and they don't do what other spells do unless they say likewise. But every DM has the ultimate power to rule as they see fit to engender fun, such is the beauty of this game.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Just because there is a commonly accepted homebrew on a spell/effect doesn’t mean that it is a RAW interpretation. But even if the clause in question allowed actions other than those listed, how do you adjudicate the turn economy? All of the listed actions from the hand are bonus actions....there is no mechanic for using the hand as an action which would be required for many types of object and creature interactions. Finally, assuming you handwave all that, how do you justify allowing the hand to do any sort of fine motion? It’s a large object that deals force damage by crushing and slapping, you would likely destroy anything you tried to interact with.
all that said, I have used the hand in homebrew manners to manipulate large objects roughly (pick up/carry/etc) for narrative purposes, but that was a homebrew variation of the spell tied to a homebrew creature, not the baseline spell.
Sure, while many other forums may accept those things, I don't believe they are supported by the rules. When it comes to abilities, it's common for the game to prescribe scores rather than modifiers to non-creature game entities. That doesn't mean those things can do everything a creature can.
The spell likely says it can mimic your hand for the same reason it says it appears as shimmering, translucent force; flavour. If the intent was for it to allow you to manipulate objects, why would it not just say that rather than loosely implying it, especially considering other spells that let you perform such actions do explicitly state as such.
At the end of the day, your application of the rules is as valid as anyone else's. I just don't see the argument for the things you're saying per RAW.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
The hand takes damage, so if you move a creature into something that can damage objects, the hand gets damaged as well.
The hand has the option to punch an object and that's it for objects: none of the other features can be used with objects. These feature specifically detail "creatures", only Clenched Fist mentions it can target an object. Telekinesis however can affect creatures or objects, giving it greater versatility and greater carrying capacity.
The hand is a combat focused spell. It has minimal uses outside of combat beyond punching objects.
And "force" is an odd thing created by D&D. Just because it is made of force doesn't make it solid - the "force" of the hand is only in solid physical effect when used as per the spell, it otherwise "doesn't fill it's space" - so you can pass through it as if it wasn't there. It being force doesn't imply anything about what it can do .
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
If you close your hand, the BH is just going to crush its target per the spell description...the spell does not indicate fine control, explicitly or otherwise. Saying you can use this spell in that way is like saying Lennie from Of Mice and Men can pet the rabbits without killing them. Besides, how do you equate specific actions like lifting and moving using your hand when the BH has a much greater range of motion (60 feet) than your hand ever will? The intent of the spell saying it mimics your hand is one to describe what your hand does to direct the BH to take one of its actions, and possibly to imply that hand must be free for the spells duration (although that is not explicitly stated). You are ascribing a set of abilities from a piece of flavor text that aren’t explicitly described, and ignoring that the writers could have chosen to make that explicit (as seen from other spells like Mage Hand and Telekinesis) and yet did not
Arcane Hand is unable to grab objects as it can only do what it states it can do. In order to receive the ability to have object interactions, it must have a ability that grants it a action or free object interaction because nowhere does it say it gains a action.
Creatures and the such get this ability as listed here, "When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action." (Emphasis mine)
Arcane Hand is a object, not a creature, and thus has no actions. You must command it with a bonus action for the purposes listed in it's spell description. Just because it mimics you hand does not grant it actions. It cannot use a free object interaction as it is not outright given one, and if it was, you would have to argue when the Arcane Hand's turn is since you cannot do actions during another creature's turn unless stated otherwise.
Edit: So unless you can find me a specific stating that object mimicking a creature gain the ability to do actions, bonus actions, and free actions, then that's a solid no. D&D has no rule stating this, and the general rule states creatures are the only ones able to do so, not objects. No the dictionary does not count, you should know that by now.
Besides, I would have to deal with people asking if the hand can mimic picking up a weapon, or mimic casting a spell, and other sorts of just things I don't want to deal with.
To be fair enough I would totally allow someone to pick up a object or creature and carry them around, that certainly fits a 5th level spell & realistically it would be able to do. But D&D is not realistic and it should be noted that this is not RAW, nor RAI, but is RAF.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I quoted actual pages from the Basic Rules that I linked too. Please read them. You have let to disprove anything I have said.
RAW, it also states that the hand can only do "one of the following actions". List me a rule that states objects with Strength are granted a action, I literally listed the rules that determine what can interact with a object.
"Creatures and the such get this ability as listed here, "When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures". Thus, to do a object interaction which is considered a action available to all creatures as listed here, of any sort, it must be a creature.
Read Unseen Servant, see how it does not involve the Unseen Servant using a Interact with a Object action, no it states that instead, it "Once on each of your turns as a bonus action, you can mentally command the servant to move up to 15 feet and interact with an object." "interact with a object" is not the same as the defined "Use an Object" action.
it does not have it's own actions, thus cannot pick up a object because it clearly states you use a bonus action to command it to do one of the following effects with it. In fact, you don't even command it with your hand. Nor am I sure how you would make it move 60 ft if it mimics you hand, cause my hand certainly can't move 60 ft with a bonus action.
You said it yourself, it has no actions. That includes bonus actions, actions, and its own movement. Note there is no such thing as a Free Action, as stated in the basic rules, "You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."
did... you just try to argue that you don't need any rules because I'm wrong? What kind of argument is that? How would you feel if I said the Extra Attack grants 500 extra attacks, you said "D&D has no rule stating this" and I told you that "I don't need to, you are arguing from a wrong perspective"? (These are all quotes taken from mine and your post).
Even if I'm wrong, you must find a rule to disprove what I have said or prove the rules I listed state otherwise or your argument does not have sufficient evidence.
RAW states the hand is controlled via your bonus action, not your actual hand moving. Notice that it the S component only applies to casting, and that the spell does not require a free hand to sustain or control the hand. RAW it states "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."
You must find some way to prove to me that picking up a object is considering "one of the following effects" for your argument to be valid.
Edit: How did that second sentence make it in? I wrote and then instantly deleted that, in case you wondering it read
"Just because I can, I will literally disprove everything you said via the spell you mentioned, Unseen Servant and ask that you read the spells you use against me."
But that I realized that was spiteful of me and that it was better to disprove with the Basic Rules rather than a spell.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
The issue with anyone saying that arcane hand can be used to manipulate objects, besides taking an extreme amount of liberty with a descriptive statement that is for all intents and purposes historical flavor text, is that there is no way to adjudicate the use of the spell to manipulate objects beyond the options given. The hand is the definition of a blunt instrument; its large, strong, and offers no tactile connection to the wielder that would allow for "fine" manipulation (and I say fine with a bit of sarcasm, as this thing is big enough to treat a longsword as a toothpick, so you aren't going to be using it to pick locks or manipulate anything smaller than a basketball anytime soon). It can punch, push, slap, and grab/crush, thats it per the spell, and each of these has a specific effect associated with it that doesn't bode well for any sort of manipulation.
Without tactile connection, how do you determine how much to close the fist around an object without breaking it, or determine how hard to push something without striking it? You can't. At least with mage hand the hand is incapable of damaging anything by itself as part of the spell. with arcane hand, As there is no guidelines for the use of the spell this way (not because its badly worded, but because it was never meant to be used this way), so how can a caster know how (you can't use the spell with your action) or to what degree (again, no tactile feedback) this is possible? Based on the description of the hand, its highly unlikely you would be able to even see it well enough (its transparent and shimmery) to gauge any sort of manipulation by sight!
Finally, for any of these things, even if (despite the above) you allow it, it is not an efficient spell. Telekinesis allows specifically for fine motion, more weight (a lot more for carrying) and lasts 10x as long, Fly allows you to fly just as fast without using a bonus action (for a 3rd level slot no less). To use this spell for transportation would preclude any use for combat (unless you are willing to fall when it "drops" you) and even a cantrip like mage hand is more useful for small items and fine control.
Ultimately, this is a highly problematic ruling for this particular spell (any spell for that matter, when you attempt to claim that flavor text gives you abilities) and should be ruled incorrect.
In an effort to break ongoing stalemates and offer us an opportunity to reengage with other aspects of the subject:
Lyxen, I repeat to you one last time. If there is no rules to back up your claim other than your dictionary, then your argument does not exist.
I literally want you to quote ANYTHING, ANYTHING from the basic rules that even REMOTELY allows something to mimic your actions.
Show me a ability, a spell, anything where the word "can" grants you more options than what is written. Unseen Servant does not count, because it is written in the description that it can interact with object, Arcane Hand does not state that.
Show me where it states in the Basic Rules that attacks are only doable during combat. Show me how I can't draw a axe and chop wood outside of combat.
Small tangent but
Actually this one you could try to argue for because attacking is defined in the Combat chapter, however that chapter also defines several very important out of combat things such as interacting with objects and casting spells both inside and outside of combat, so that doesn't work. In addition, chapter/section names have no importance in the ruleset since bonus action, reaction, hour, and other spells are covered in the Actions In Combat section despite spells being obviously used outside of combat & not technically being an action.
Sorry small tangent over.
Show me how when Action Surge says "Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action", since it uses the word "can", that means you can also choose to make 500 actions because that pushes beyond your normal limits.
Show me how in Arcane Hand, when it says "The hand lasts for the spell's duration, and it moves at your command, mimicking the movements of your own hand... you can move the hand up to 60 feet and then cause one of the following effects with it." Show me it allows you to attack with a sword through the hand since it mimics your movements. Show me how the hand mimics a Monk's Flurry of Blows, or a Wizards Finger of Death.
Show me anywhere in the basic rules that I'm wrong. Please. Something. Here's the link if you can't find it. Basic Rules is preferred in case someone who for doesn't have the PHB for some reason idk comes in and wants to participate, besides they both basically have the same rules anyways.
Unless Lyxen can figure out some way to prove his argument outside of the definition of mimic, but instead though the usage of the ruleset and text from the spell, I will not post here any further.
Considering how last time I asked that Lyxen just completely ignored it, this will probably be my last post. Also, no asking for you to prove your statements through the rules is not the "wrong perspective", if it was we wouldn't be in rules & game mechanics chat.
Also, once you all are done I urge you all to focus on Telekinesis. I haven't really used the spell that much before, so I don't have a whole lot to say about it. Mongolian_dude had the right idea, despite me ignoring it to post this tangent. It's this post I'm talking about. If not I'll DM the owner of the thread that they should probably get a mod to lock this thread.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
This discussion is going around in circles and adding nothing contrustrutive to the conversation. It would be advisable for everyone to may disengage from the discussion; you cannot always convince someone else of your argument, and equally if you cannot be convinced otherwise of theirs, there's little to be gained from shouting at each other. Persistence in non-constructive talking through each other will begin likely lead to warnings.
Thank you
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
1) Not the spell, but I have used the Beholder's Telekinesis ability (which works very similarly) in combat to great effect by using it to position creatures over environmental effects (lava and great heights). As a utility spell, I have seen it used (and/or used it) to stop a rolling sphere trap, siphon material (books and treasure) out from a locked room, and to impress/intimidate hostile creatures by levitating myself and others. Unless you subscribe to an (IMO very out of line) viewpoint of the Bigby's Hand spell as a utility spell rather than a pure combat spell, it is the most flexible and useful object manipulation spell in the game
2) As stated, flavor wise It has worked well with my GOO Warlock as a means of Intimidation, and it works well in combat when you have environmental hazards you can use it with, or as a means of restraining a target (no limit on size/weight for creatures). I don't know any specific class feature that is designed to work with it specifically though (most don't focus on a particular spell, especially given that a given player may not choose to take it.
3) Having a player cast Guidance or using an ability like Tides of Chaos (Wild Magic Sorcerer) to give a bonus or advantage on your checks can help. Certain other subclass abilities might also grant the same. A Wild magic Sorcerer multiclass (Cleric/Druid/Artificer/Pact of Tome Warlock) could cast guidance and quicken Telekinesis for a +1d4 boost to the check, + Tides for advantage all in one turn for a huge boost.
4) I don't play hardball on weight restrictions or calculate weights of anything that might be targeted ("that stone weighs 1001 pounds, you can't lift it") so as long as the casting player is targeting something reasonable with the spell I allow it.
You would have to have another spellcaster to use either of these, as they (and Telekinesis) are all concentration spells.