Arcane Trickster Magical Restriction

[BiblioRook]

I love magical rogues and have so from the moment I was so much as introduced to D&D, equally both in concept and in execution. Even if they were utterly worthless mechanically I probably would still play little else. As you can imagine, that being said I adore the idea of the Arcane Trickster...however I have to say the magical school restriction frustrates the hell out of me.

To make myself clear, I do understand where it's coming from. I mean for most people when it comes to roguish spells they probably would think to things that cause confusion and trickery and so Enchantment and Illusion spells make perfect sense for a Rogue, but to restrict to just Enchantment and Illusion spells to me doesn't. I mean, Rogues more then anything else are resourceful and use every advantage they can (skill-monkey-ry and sneak attacking being prime examples) and I find it very hard to believe that a Rogue with access to magic would in any way be inclined to restrict themselves in such a way.

So many of the spells most useful for a Rogue more actually would be along the lines of utility spells that fall well outside those two school. The very description goes on as "...enhance their fine-honed skills of stealth and agility with magic', but don't get to access the likes of Jump or Longstrider (both Transmutation)? The Mage Hand Cantrip that is so featured in the Archetype? Conjuration. Stuff like Identify, Detect Magic, or Find Traps you would think would be a crux in a dungeon-delving Rogue's spell arsenal, but nope because they are Divination.

Basically the only school that does make sense for Rogues not to really have access to is Evocation (which seems to usually be the one people don't want others to casually dip into anyways) as most magical attacks seem kind of useless for a Rogue when sneak attack often can damage just as much and can't be used with spells.

Needless to say I'm usually pretty quick to seek DM exception in whatever game I find myself in. But that doesn't make if feel any less nonsense.

[Townopolis]

I believe most people here think it would be reasonable to allow the quarter-casters (third-casters?) to pick any two wizard schools. The restriction mostly seems to just be a way to exclude AT and EK from having real wizard-level spell list versatility, so a strong case can be made for letting each AT and EK pick one or two schools--strong enough that it should be okay for any DM that trusts you. It's just another case where the classes are written so that the expected most common desire for that class is the reliable default and everyone's expected and encouraged to work out adjustments with their DM.

That said, a couple of points:

Expeditious Retreat is 100% useless to rogues.
You get up to 4 non-restricted spells (not much, but it's there)

[BiblioRook]

Expeditious Retreat is 100% useless to rogues

Point. I honestly never used the spell and never really read it's description, but in my defense I was more just looking for examples and you have to admit that at least in concept it fits.

[Townopolis]

Fair enough.

I just double-checked, and another thing I'd keep in mind is that the transmutation school (and evocation, but that's less relevant) has, by itself, as many spells in the wizard list as enchantment and illusion combined. This means that some DMs, possibly including me, would only allow you to make a transmuter AT if it was your only school (barring those 4 unrestricted spells). I'd have to look into it more thoroughly.

[BiblioRook]

I know most of the people on these boards tend to focus on the crazy high-end side in terms of levels and builds but I rarely ever see that kind of play as the gaming I do tends to be exclusively low to mid level at best (most of my gaming is done in isolated three month chunks because it's a university based gaming club and we don't want to alienate new players by the time the new semester comes around). My last game was one of the longer ones and even then we only managed to get to about 8th level by the end of it which for an Arcane Trickster is just barely scratching into 2nd level stuff spell-wise. I guess that's one of the reasons this is so bitter for me, because to be really honest? 1st level Illusion and Enchantment spells? Some are okay, bust most of them are almost outright useless...

Oh hurray! I get to learn... Illusory Script?

[georgie_leech]

What makes you think the School limitation is the AT consciously limiting themselves?

[BiblioRook]

Well where are the spells coming from for Arcane Tricksters? Arcane Trickster spells are Wizard spells with intelligence used as the casting stat, which suggests they are learned (rather then innate or bestowed) which suggests that the Arcane Trickster chose those specific spells to learn over other spells in other schools. Because how would learning one spell from one differ at all from learning any other spell from any other school at the same level?

[Ninja_Prawn]

Because how would learning one spell from one differ at all from learning any other spell from any other school at the same level?

Ultimately, it's an abstraction - 1/3 casters need to be picking from limited spell lists for balance reasons, and WotC's solution is to limit them by school. Some might call that lazy, others might find the simplicity elegant.

Personally, I find it hard to argue with illusion and enchantment for the AT, or with abjuration and evocation for the EK. What rogue is going to pass up Invisibility, Sleep, Suggestion, etc.? Honestly, Illusory Script would be an absolute must-pick for any kind of spy, assassin or investigator in real life; it's only the nature of D&D campaigns that makes it seem useless.

[georgie_leech]

Well where are the spells coming from for Arcane Tricksters? Arcane Trickster spells are Wizard spells with intelligence used as the casting stat, which suggests they are learned (rather then innate or bestowed) which suggests that the Arcane Trickster chose those specific spells to learn over other spells in other schools. Because how would learning one spell from one differ at all from learning any other spell from any other school at the same level?

Would not the same logic apply to every weapon in the game? Why haven't Rogues learned how to backstab with a Greatsword, or Kneecap a Giant using a Maul?

[BiblioRook]

Ultimately, it's an abstraction - 1/3 casters need to be picking from limited spell lists for balance reasons, and WotC's solution is to limit them by school. Some might call that lazy, others might find the simplicity elegant.


As an arbitrary limitation for balancing game mechanics I can't really argue against that, but I don't like being force-fed that this is simply how rogues are and all rogues think exactly alike if so magically inclined.
Keep in mind I'm not trying to suggest that ether Illusion or Enchantment aren't useful to Rogues, far from that, just that many other spells are just as useful if not sometimes maybe even more so. It comes off as being told very specifically how to play my character and I don't like that. It also comes off as strange being pigeonholed so coming from a class that is normally known for it's versatility.


Personally, I find it hard to argue with illusion and enchantment for the AT, or with abjuration and evocation for the EK. What rogue is going to pass up Invisibility, Sleep, Suggestion, etc.? Honestly, Illusory Script would be an absolute must-pick for any kind of spy, assassin or investigator in real life; it's only the nature of D&D campaigns that makes it seem useless.

See, this sort of thing is highly situational. How often would something like this really come up unless you are already explicitly playing that sort of thing? Honestly most of Enchantment comes off to me this way too, sure it could be useful as all hell in an urban setting or something like that but all the Charm in the world isn't going to help you much when fighting monsters. Illusion I would find harder to argue with if only for the access to stuff like Invisibility but personally it's really hard for me to not see the likes of Transmutation to feel much more in a Rogues wheelhouse when it comes to a secondary school of magic. Rogues after all are a pretty physical class at their core and being able to enhance physical skills just comes off as more immediately in-line with what Rogues are or tend to be then something like mind control or crowd control.

This isn't about making the best of a limited set of options but rather questioning why those limits are there in the first place.


Would not the same logic apply to every weapon in the game? Why haven't Rogues learned how to backstab with a Greatsword, or Kneecap a Giant using a Maul?

I don't think that that is at all the same. No one would suggest that every weapon is the same or would function in ways that would work in the deftness and finesse that a Rogue functions (though I would think argument could be made for the kneecaping a giant with a maul, but less so for doing the same to a kobald) where with spells mechanically they are pretty equal. Technically nothing makes a Sleep spell any more or less powerful then, say, a Grease spell. Barring being limited to the two schools a savvy Rogue shouldn't find any more difficulty learning one over the other if he or she just happened to be more interested in Conjuration then Enchantment.

[Arkhios]

Well where are the spells coming from for Arcane Tricksters? Arcane Trickster spells are Wizard spells with intelligence used as the casting stat, which suggests they are learned (rather then innate or bestowed) which suggests that the Arcane Trickster chose those specific spells to learn over other spells in other schools. Because how would learning one spell from one differ at all from learning any other spell from any other school at the same level?

Umm, isn't it kinda obvious? The subclass' name is Arcane Trickster.

Let's see, school by school:
Abjuration? Nope? (Protective magic, so not much potential for pranks there)
Divination? Nope. (Subtle way to learn things, but not very tricky to be honest)
Enchantment? Yes. (Use your magic to confound your enemies. That's a tricky thing to do.)
Evocation? Nope. (YAY, flamboyant destructive effects! ...oh, oops, there goes my cover)
Illusion? Hell yes. (Make people believe things are what they are not. Oh, so many possibilities for pranks!)
Necromancy? Nope. (Yay, let's rot your flesh off. Very subtle, "indeed"!)
Transmutation? Nope. (Unlike merely illusions, you actually make things become something else).

[BiblioRook]

Umm, isn't it kinda obvious? The subclass' name is Arcane Trickster.

So aside from a poor choice in name, what makes a magical Rogue explicitly and exclusively 'Tricky'? It's like an entirely other discussion (which I believe has it's own thread somewhere so lets not get into it here) about how all Rogues are explicitly 'Thieves', which I also disagree with. It's handing a class known for being good at taking advantage of what it has a valuable resorce but then telling them that is can be used for one and only one specific purpose regardless of the goals and motivations of the individual.

[georgie_leech]

I don't think that that is at all the same. No one would suggest that every weapon is the same or would function in ways that would work in the deftness and finesse that a Rogue functions (though I would think argument could be made for the kneecaping a giant with a maul, but less so for doing the same to a kobald) where with spells mechanically they are pretty equal. Technically nothing makes a Sleep spell any more or less powerful then, say, a Grease spell. Barring being limited to the two schools a savvy Rogue shouldn't find any more difficulty learning one over the other if he or she just happened to be more interested in Conjuration then Enchantment.

So why doesn't a Rogue have proficiency in Greatswords or Mauls by default? Presumably there are situations where it's useful to have a big powerful weapon around, and by your reasoning a savvy Rogue shouldn't find it any more difficult to learn how to use a Halberd than a Rapier.

[Arkhios]

So aside from a poor choice in name, what makes a magical Rogue explicitly and exclusively 'Tricky'? It's like an entirely other discussion (which I believe has it's own thread somewhere so lets not get into it here) about how all Rogues are explicitly 'Thieves', which I also disagree with. It's handing a class known for being good at taking advantage of what it has a valuable resorce but then telling them that is can be used for one and only one specific purpose regardless of the goals and motivations of the individual.

Arcane Trickster is a old prestige class from previous editions. If WotC wanted to make a generalist magical rogue, they would've done that. But such thing has no precedence (as far as I'm aware of) in aforementioned editions, while Arcane Trickster definitely has. Considering that becoming an Arcane Trickster required serious investment in being both a rogue and a wizard, and the prestige class had full synergy with both classes, they must have seen it archetypal for a rogue, so they made it into a roguish archetype that can cast spells as a wizard. Those two schools are just thematical for being a trickster.

(FYI, similar philosophy applies to Eldritch Knight, which again used to be a prestige class, primarily for fighter/wizards).

If you want a roguish or fighterish wizard that can cast from any school you feel appropriate, just make a multiclass character.

[ClintACK]

I have to agree with the OP.

I was thinking about building an Arcane Trickster the other day, but when I started looking at 1st level spells I'd like, and then checking to see what school they were, everything was excluded. Fog Cloud, to facilitate a stealthy escape. Grease -- nope, not a trickster spell. (Alarm, Knock, Arcane Lock... nope.)

I suppose you could build a good spy-type rogue with Arcane Trickster -- Disguise Self and Charm Person and Silent Image. The problem is, that's a role that Bards run circles around, pointing and laughing at the cute little rogue trying to do their thing.

See the 3.5e Beguiler for what a truly spectacularly tailored list of spells looks like. *They* got Obscuring Mist and Fog Cloud and Undetectable Alignment and Detect Thoughts and Spider Climb and Knock...

[BiblioRook]

So why doesn't a Rogue have proficiency in Greatswords or Mauls by default? Presumably there are situations where it's useful to have a big powerful weapon around, and by your reasoning a savvy Rogue shouldn't find it any more difficult to learn how to use a Halberd than a Rapier.

The concept behind the combat style of Rogues (sneak attacking) is generally based on small but precise attacks, it doesn't always go as well with bigger weapons so it doesn't really warrant knowing how to use them right off the bat. It's not like a Rogue really has reason to know how to use every weapon ever when it has little need to use most of them, but likewise it's not like I'm saying that I think magical Rogues would have unlimited knowledge of spells. Like with weapons I could see them focusing on one or two areas while not focusing on the others, but the difference here is that should a Rogue decide he or she wants to use a greatsword it's still rather simple to go about doing so where with spells they are just given the one choice and told to take it or leave it.


Arcane Trickster is a old prestige class from previous editions. If WotC wanted to make a generalist magical rogue, they would've done that. But such thing has no precedence (as far as I'm aware of) in aforementioned editions, while Arcane Trickster definitely has. Considering that becoming an Arcane Trickster required serious investment in being both a rogue and a wizard, and the prestige class had full synergy with both classes, they must have seen it archetypal for a rogue, so they made it into a roguish archetype that can cast spells as a wizard. Those two schools are just thematical for being a trickster.

Like you said there used to be plenty of magical Rogue concepts out there, but I really don't think when they decided to go with Arcane Trickster for 5th ed that it was a decision of 'This is how a magical Rogue should be' but rather 'eh, lets just keep it simple, this should be enough'. My point is that it's arbitrary.

Like I said with the weapon example, it's not rally like I'm saying that Rogues should have free-reign if they opt to go magical. Someone earlier mentioned making them chose the two schools themselves, that I'm fine with. It still limits them but at least it limits them in a way that's more likely to be agreeable.

Thing is with comparing it to Eldritch Knights though is that with Knights there's not much else beyond a combat focus so there isn't much reason to have them focusing on anything else. Having a Knight focus on Illusions would be kind of like having a Rogue focusing on heavy weapons, it's just not really useful. But Rogues are more then just combatants, they can also be skill-monkeys and those two roles don't always cross-over with each other. There is a wide range of very valuable spells for someone with a skill-monkey mindset just within the spell list that Arcane Trickster already would be accessing anyways but can't because 'Because'.

The 'Trickster' concept at best works thematical but doesn't always work mechanically because not every Rogue is going to be geared to be merry little pranksters just because they want to learn a bit of magic along with also being a Rogue. People seem to forget that D&D is supposed to be about customization, being your own character. It feels like it defeats the point if you are told 'You can be anything you want, but if you want to do this one thing you can only do it this one way or not at all'.

[Arkhios]

Like you said there used to be plenty of magical Rogue concepts out there.

Ahem, correction: I didn't say "there used to be plenty of magical Rogue concepts out there." I said that Arcane Trickster has more precedence in previous editions than a generalist magical rogues.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind if Arcane Tricksters could choose the two schools by themselves. However, I'm also fine with them as they are.

[BiblioRook]

Sorry, it's late, but thing is that there were a bunch of magical Rogue concepts out there before (like the Beguiler for example or even the Spell Thief which they seem to have just melded into this 5th ed version of the Arcane Trickster). The Arcane Trickster was a magical rogue concept, but I think it's far from it to stand alone as the magical rogue concept.

[Specter]

At first levels, it doesn't even matter much, since Disguise Self and Charm Person are second nature to AT, and you get another spell from any school.

Bottomline, it comes to Balance > Reality, and if you don't like it, well, study harder (Wizard levels).

[Daishain]

What makes you think the School limitation is the AT consciously limiting themselves?
Because presumably a rogue who seeks to learn this stuff wouldn't be actually bound by the fourth wall breaking balance concerns behind the school restrictions. Unless there is some actual practical in world reason for those schools to be restricted, then the school restrictions are a matter of what the rogue chooses to focus his time on learning.

Now, there are fluff practical reasons for there to be school limitations. The rogue doesn't have time to learn everything, and presumably the rogue is going out and paying for lessons on the side, (or just stole someone's spellbook and is an intuitive study) and chances are his tutor will have their own specialization. But said presumptive tutors will themselves vary. (and as a paranoid man, I'd be wary about spending too much time with an enchantment specialist regardless)

[georgie_leech]

Because presumably a rogue who seeks to learn this stuff wouldn't be actually bound by the fourth wall breaking balance concerns behind the school restrictions. Unless there is some actual practical in world reason for those schools to be restricted, then the school restrictions are a matter of what the rogue chooses to focus his time on learning.

Now, there are fluff practical reasons for there to be school limitations. Presumably the rogue is going out and paying for lessons on the side, (or stole someone's spellbook) and chances are his tutor will have their own specialization. But said presumptive tutors will themselves vary. (and as a paranoid man, I'd be wary about spending too much time with an enchantment specialist regardless)

It could also be that rather than all schools being equal, the different schools require different training and talents to master. It could be that the skills a Rogue develops naturally complement the skills needed to make illusion and enchantment work.

[tieren]

I thinks its a little bold to suggest the one subclass should fit every magical rogue concept.

If there are just a couple of spells you think are missing, you can use your out of school selections for them. Or if there is one particular first level spell in a different school you think would make a big difference you can take magic initiate for it.

There are also multiclass options, you can take a few levels of Sorceror to grab some off school spells you like, and even get subtle spell metamagic to me more sneaky as you cast in general, or sell your sould and pick up some warlock spells or cool invocations to feel more magicy.

[Daishain]

It could also be that rather than all schools being equal, the different schools require different training and talents to master. It could be that the skills a Rogue develops naturally complement the skills needed to make illusion and enchantment work.
We're talking about a guy who is barely dipping their toes into the field of magic, not someone in a position to write a dissertation on how to caress the weave to maximum impact.

There is only one spell that the Arcane Trickster has special affinity with, and that one is Conjuration.

[Daishain]

I thinks its a little bold to suggest the one subclass should fit every magical rogue concept.

If there are just a couple of spells you think are missing, you can use your out of school selections for them. Or if there is one particular first level spell in a different school you think would make a big difference you can take magic initiate for it.

There are also multiclass options, you can take a few levels of Sorceror to grab some off school spells you like, and even get subtle spell metamagic to me more sneaky as you cast in general, or sell your sould and pick up some warlock spells or cool invocations to feel more magicy.
Or we could just let EKs and ACs pick at least one of their restricted schools. Large increase in the variety of magical rogue and magical fighter concepts, no changes in balance concerns worth noting, no need to compromise a build with additional requirements just to have choices.

[georgie_leech]

We're talking about a guy who is barely dipping their toes into the field of magic, not someone in a position to write a dissertation on how to caress the weave to maximum impact.

There is only one spell that the Arcane Trickster has special affinity with, and that one is Conjuration.

You don't need to be writing a dissertation for your talents to make a difference in what you learn. Say, perhaps Illusion spells generally require a fine eye for detail. A Rogue/Arcane Trickster has this skill, as their Sneak Attack points to them being able to spot and exploit small weaknesses. A Wizard would learn this skill as part of their studies, while a dabbler might not. Is it so unreasonable that a dabbler would learn spells that suit their talents? Think about your own schooling. We're you equally adept at every subject you studied, or were there a few you were able to pick up more quickly and easily than the others?

[Logosloki]

Ideally the Arcane Trickster would have its own spell list but WotC has decided to crib off the Wizard spell list so that if they add in new spells they don't need to add too many names beside the spell for which spell list it will go to.

The spell restrictions are a thematic constraint rather than balance, it is about what sort of magical rogue archetype that WotC is trying to convey.

What I would like would be something akin to cleric domains. AT would give Illusion and Enchantment as a base and then a list of styles would give an expanded spell list. Then I would remove 1/3 casting and make them (and EK) 1/2 casters because I don't see the point in this edition for keeping the distinction.

[Theodoxus]

As a DM, I'd be ok with opening AT and EK to all *wizard* spells of appropriate level. They're already badly restricted just by level - when the 'real' wizard is throwing Fireballs at 5th, they're barely getting 2nd level spell access.

Probably the one caveat (and I'm AFB, so don't know if this exists already or not) is they wouldn't be able to swap out spells. You have the gamut of wizarding knowledge at your fingertips - choose wisely, but if you don't, deal with it.

[SharkForce]

i'd rather see a completely customized list. i don't think all enchantments and illusions inherently make sense for an arcane trickster just as much as certain spells not in those schools fit rogues very well (colour spray is not what i would describe as subtle in the slightest, for example, and hypnotic pattern may be great to use on people in the area if they all fail, but it's a total disaster if someone isn't in the area or if even one person makes their save when it comes to stealth).

even evocation has spells that make sense for a rogue; dancing lights, darkness, etc. everyone thinks of fireball and magic missile when they hear evocation, but you shouldn't forget that it also includes some very handy non-combat spells as well. people always think of summoning creatures with conjuration, but it also includes tenser's floating disk and dimension door.

it makes far more sense to create a list of things you'd expect a "typical" rogue to want to learn. same thing with eldritch knight, really. they need to expend their special spells on things like haste, fly, enlarge/reduce, etc, which you'd expect to be staples of a warrior who uses magic to enhance their fighting strength.


and, truthfully, even if you gave them the entire wizard spell list to choose from, let's not fool ourselves... with only 13 spells known, and only being able to change one per level rather than exchange all per day, and having no ability to learn more, and having very few spell slots in the first place, capped at level 4 spells, and getting them all later than a full caster, they aren't exactly going to replace a wizard any time soon.

and if you get a rogue that can cast fireball, lightning bolt, cone of cold, chromatic orb, and every other damaging spell instead of invisibility and charm person, who cares? they now have a bunch of spells that don't really synergize well with their other abilities. i'd much rather consider the situation of the rogue that can't cast spider climb because see invisibility felt more important for them to be a good scout.